Jefferson's Parlor

Newt Lectures Romney on Ethical Conduct

2012-01-26T19:31:00.001-05:00

Sorry, but that makes me laugh every time I think of it.

The Masses Will Not be Managed 大量不會被處理

2011-12-30T20:10:00.017-05:00

Villagers in Wukan, Southern China, recently marched in demonstrations against corruption and exploitation by their authoritarian elite. This is what people around the world are waking up to.

Regarding the Wukan demonstrations, a Communist official named Zhu Mingguo delivered a message to his superiors that should be a message to all authoritarian elites of the world:
“The task of managing the masses is becoming more and more difficult....The public’s awareness of democracy, equality and rights is continually getting stronger, and as a result their demands are growing.”

This is the truth. The lies and distortion, propaganda and sloganeering, will no longer work like they used to. All authority ultimately depends upon the consent and cooperation of the members of the community. Consent and cooperation may be coerced, but not forever. Inequities will be tolerated, but not continually. There is a point at which tolerance turns to outrage and the public refuses to cooperate further in its own exploitation.

President Assad الرئيس الأسد

2011-12-24T00:02:00.003-05:00

الرئيس الأسد, فهو لم يذهب الى سوريا. كما تحاول خنق الديموقراطية بالقوة من دون ان ينجح. الرجاء اعتبار مجلس
المصالحة, او ما شئتم تسميتها. ولا بد أن نزاهة بأن الديمقراطية في سورية. السلام تتوقف على ذلك. ومن ضمن ذلك انشاء قوة لكم. من اجل الانسانية, ونطلب منكم ذلك.

It is not going well for Syria. The attempt to stifle democracy by force is not succeeding. Please consider a Council of Reconciliation, or whatever you wish to call it. There must be an honest, recognized democracy in Syria. Peace depends upon it. It is within your power to create this. For the sake of humanity, we ask that you do so.

Gotta Walk the Talk

2011-12-10T18:46:00.005-05:00

Dear President Obama,

The speech you gave in Kansas was a symphony to this listener. Fox News is tone deaf. You could say, "I love my mom and apple pie," and they would say you forgot to mention God, the second amendment, and the sanctity of marriage. You can't win with them.

But you can still win with your base. You can animate us like you did in 2008. But it will take a little more this time. Because you talked tough the last time, too.

I think I understand why you sought to compromise so often, since your election. The leaders in Congress were people with whom you worked before. You knew them. Perhaps you thought they would remain reasonable colleagues. But times had already changed dramatically, Prez. I'm guessing that you realized this when the Republican candidates indicated at a debate that they would not accept any compromise that included increased revenue for the government.

Regardless, you do appear to be rejoining your base now in calling for the Fair Society, one in which we all get a fair shot and we all contribute our fair share. I'm with you on that. But this time, between now and the election, your words won't be taken for granted. You gotta walk the talk, Prez. You have to stand up to your former colleagues, and tell them to their faces, that what they are demanding is not fair to the country as a whole or its future. If you do this, and do it repeatedly, I believe you will see again the fervor you saw in 2008.

Разделенное Россия

2011-12-10T18:27:00.003-05:00

Г-н Путин,

Когда правительство позволяет урнам для избирательных бюллетеней быть заполненным, нет народовластия. Народовластие Потёмкин.

Когда вы требуете что протесты были оркестрованы другими странами, вы оскорбляете сведению ваших товарищеских русских. Они нет тупоумных людей. Им не нужно американцы сказать им чего они видят. Им не нужно американцы сказать им как чувствовать о этом.

Чему вы думаете русские будете верить, ваши губы или их собственные глаза?

Divided Russia

Mr. Putin,

When a government allows ballot boxes to be stuffed, it is not a democracy. It is a Potemkin democracy.

When you claim that protests have been orchestrated by other countries, you insult the intelligence of your fellow Russians. They are not stupid people. They do not need Americans to tell them what they see. They do not need Americans to tell them how to feel about this.

What do you think Russians will believe, your lips or their own eyes?

Democratic Philosophy, Out Loud and Proud

2011-09-23T18:35:00.021-04:00

How good it is, to see and hear American political leaders, candidates and pundits speak out forcefully on behalf of democratic political philosophy, in opposition to the authoritarian creed which has divided and diminished our nation.

Most recently, our Nobel Laureate economist and columnist Paul Krugman expressed it in a post he titled, "The Social Contract."

In that post he pointed to a video of Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren, one in which she briefly and beautifully presented democratic political philosophy and its application to the current ideological debate in our country.

President Obama, too, has been using democratic political philosophy to explain to the public the basis for his positions on the issues facing us:

"But there’s always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

"And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire new industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we’re a more prosperous country as a result.

"Part of this American belief that we’re all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. We’re a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further. We would not be a great country without those commitments."

Most Americans prefer not to think of themselves as having an "ideology." But they do, in fact, have worldviews based upon systems of ideas and beliefs. Those systems of ideas and beliefs then inform their political positions. I think it best that we honestly present the philosophical underpinnings for democratic political positions, and let the people judge which is better for them. I believe democratic political philosophy will prevail eventually over all authoritarian creeds.

The Virtue of Compassionate Government

2011-08-27T18:45:00.005-04:00

I hear Teabagger complaints about government. One of them is that they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support things they don't believe in. They should get to choose where their money goes.

But society and government exist to ensure that all members benefit, not just those who are "liked." Supporting only those who are liked leads inevitably to discrimination on the basis of prejudice. Teabaggers have no problem discriminating against non-Christians, people of color, and so forth. But this is not only contrary to the principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It also defies social reality. Equal treatment is a legitimate expectation in our society. Failure to recognize this expectation leads first to frustration - and then to aggression. And teabaggers will be shocked, SHOCKED at the result.

Teabaggers worship private enterprise. But business is NOT concerned with the General Welfare of the people. It is concerned with individual profit. Where there is no personal profit, there will be no private enterprise. This is where democratic government steps in, to ensure that citizens receive benefits they should receive, as citizens. According to Teabagger ethics, where there is no personal profit available, there is no value. Damn them to hell, or to rebirth as poor people.

Senator Marco Rubio , Teabagger darling, has commented that neighbors, churches, and synagogues used to help people in need. And personal savings. Oh, my naive young senator! Do you honestly believe that neighbors, churches and synagogues can remedy the effects of high unemployment? Or the high costs of health care? Do we have to affiliate with a church or synagogue to get health coverage, even if we believe their creed is absurd? What if our neighbors are as poor as we are, or they don't like us? How many of us can save enough money for cancer therapy, hip replacement or heart surgery? Your suggestions are laughable. And sad, because you believe them.

But such are the naive, egocentric and unthinking ethics of Tea Party Conservatism.

Cut and Hoard Republicans

2011-08-18T20:23:00.002-04:00

Are worse than "tax and spend" Democrats.

Our economy is based on a market for goods and services. When Democrats "tax and spend," it means more demand in the market. More demand means more business, and more business means more jobs.

When Republicans cut taxes, and cut government spending, and hoard the national wealth for themselves, it means less demand in the market. They may buy more diamonds [Newt Gingrich] or more expensive wine [Paul Ryan], but they simply cannot compensate for the hundreds of millions of consumers now with less ability to consume. So the net result is less business and fewer jobs. If we cut taxes to "nothing," and government spending to "nothing," the result would be the same.

But, in the end, this is for Republicans a moral imperative, not a question of economic rationale. That is why the economy could collapse around them and they would feel self-righteous, even as their homes are devalued. Their austerity policies could lead to riots, and they would simply blame the rioters for not accepting the destruction of their dreams, the elimination of their expectations, and a lifetime of deprivation....so the rich could hoard more and more.

You simply cannot have both economic feudalism and political democracy. This leads to the question I believe we face in the U.S.: will we accept political feudalism, as the Republicans want, or take measures to "democratize" our economy?

Political Labels

2011-08-12T21:26:00.011-04:00

Conservatives in our country have, for decades, created and parroted pejorative labels for liberals and Democrats. Perhaps because we lack their goose-stepping authoritarianism, liberals and progressives have not replied, in a unified fashion, with similar labels. Some liberals and progressives even dislike the notion of "stooping to the level" of Conservatives. Some argue that it "turns off" unaligned voters in the middle.

I did meet a lady who expressed disgust at the nasty political rhetoric she heard. But she did have, at that point, a bias in favor of Republicans, and it only appeared to disgust her when Democrats replied with nasty political rhetoric. It was okay as long as it was only Republicans saying foul things about Democrats.

To hell with that. Political labels evoke passions. Some people go to the polls from a sense of duty, but more will go to the polls because they have been emotionally moved to participate. It may be for reasons of supporting a particular candidate. Or it may be out of antagonism for another candidate. This is reality. And this is a time when voters must decide which side they are on: the side of corporate Christian feudalism; or the side of egalitarian secular democracy.

On behalf of egalitarian secular democrats in the U.S., here are some labels I believe our fascist Republican brethren have earned:

greedy
irresponsible
egotistical, egocentric, self-centered
prejudiced
childish, juvenile
parochial
primitive
gator-brained
paternalistic
feudal [mind-set, attitudes]
dogmatic
uninformed
naive
unthinking
unenlightened
"cut and spit" [they cut public taxes and spending, and spit on the citizens who need public help]
"cut and hoard" [they cut public taxes and spending, and hoard the nation's wealth]
"Antoinettes", e.g., "Congressional Antoinettes" [Paul Ryan] and "Conservative Antoinettes" [Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter]
blinded by their preconceptions

If I think of more, I'll add to the list....

When Compromise Becomes Appeasement

2011-07-22T22:36:00.006-04:00

source

In 1938, Adolf Hitler created a crisis in Europe by demanding that the Czechs give part of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain sought to end this crisis by negotiation. When Chamberlain came back from negotiating with Germany, he declared that it had been agreed between Great Britain and Germany that the Czechs had to give up part of their country, to save their country and save Europe from Armageddon. But, due to Hitler’s goals - which had been stated in his book, “Mein Kampf” - Czechoslovakia was not saved, and Europe was not saved from Armageddon.

As I write this, the Republican Party is creating another financial crisis for the United States. They demand that Americans give up government-managed programs and benefits, or they will make the country a debt scofflaw. And President Obama is attempting to negotiate with them to end the crisis.

When negotiating, the goals of your opponent must be taken into account. This is easy, when they state their goals publicly. How many times must Republicans say that Social Security should not exist, or should be privatized, for Democrats to conclude that the Republican goal is the end of Social Security? How many times must Republicans say that health care is a privilege, and Medicare should be replaced with vouchers, before Democrats conclude that the Republican goal is to eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid? How many times will Republicans be given concessions for the sake of their promises? Isn't it clear that they will not stop creating crises until their goals are achieved? At this point, continuing to compromise with them becomes mere appeasement.

Mr. President, I hope not to see you wave a bill and declare, in the manner of Neville Chamberlain, that “Democrats and Republicans have agreed that Americans must give up something from their government-managed programs in order to save their government-managed programs, and to save America from default.” Clearly, Republicans are attaining their goals, piece by piece, with each crisis they create. It is in their favor to continue to create crises, and to make many more crises, if with each crisis they get closer to attaining their goals. If you do not share their goals, you must define and defend your own, or lose them piecemeal.

A Suggested Presidential Speech

2011-07-15T20:02:00.007-04:00

Fellow Americans,

You can't have tax cuts during wartime. That was a fundamental mistake we are still paying for. We should have removed the tax cuts long ago, to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the party in power then wanted to believe that the wars would somehow pay for themselves, and that tax cuts would somehow stimulate economic growth that would pay for everything.

But the real world doesn't work that way. If what they said was true, we would have no recession now. But we do. Unfortunately, the party that believed in wars with tax cuts still believes in wars with tax cuts. Despite the reality of the recession that confronts us, they believe in continuing the policies that brought us to this crisis. Even now they threaten our international standing for the sake of continuing these failed policies.

Yes, we need to confront the deficits created by past administrations. But we don't have to do that by eliminating the supports to our own elderly, disabled, orphaned, jobless and impoverished. What we need to do is end the tax cuts, loopholes, subsidies and supports which have not helped us and will not help us. We can do this, and we must do this, for the sake of our great nation.

We must also address unemployment. Our nation once faced a Great Depression, and we worked our way out of that. Instead of continuing failed policies, let us follow the policies which have been successful before. It is unconscionable that our nation would both withhold unemployment support and withhold jobs that would provide support. I pledge to you that a top priority of my Administration will be to counter unemployment with all legal means available to me.

I ask you to join with me now, by insisting that Congress stop playing politics and start working with me on real-world solutions to the problems that face us.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

The Prez Speaks His Mind

2011-07-14T10:06:00.001-04:00

OK, not really, but this is one speech I bet he wishes he could give!

Obama: I'm A Dick! - watch more funny videos

Class Payoff Doesn't Create Jobs, Either

2011-07-02T18:17:00.009-04:00

I read with interest the statement from Joe DeSantis, communications director for Newt Gingrich, that "class warfare does not create jobs." I know what he means. Any suggestion that the wealthiest Americans should contribute the highest revenue to maintain our nation is "warfare" against America's nobility.

Well, how has coddling the rich paid off?

It doesn't, it hasn't, and it won't. Indulging the upper class with subsidies and tax breaks and exclusions and deductions has gotten us nothing, zippo, nada. How many jobs does an account with Tiffany's create?

You seriously want to end the deficit? Pay up, you cheap *********.

President Obama: Declare a War on Unemployment

2011-06-21T19:56:00.007-04:00

We have seen U.S. Presidents declare a "War on Poverty," a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Terror." President Obama needs to declare a War on Unemployment. Except in times of plenty or actual war, the economy is the issue uppermost in the minds of the people. It shows up in every poll taken, and rightly so. The American people are concerned about the lack of jobs to support themselves and their families.

Compared to this, the Republican "War on the Deficit" is a laughable abstraction. Having a deficit doesn't mean people can't eat. Being unemployed does mean people can't eat. Which of these has more immediate impact on you?
a. The government is spending more money than it takes in; or
b. You don't have a job and there are none out there.
I would pick "b." I think every American who needs a job to survive -- the vast majority -- would agree.

So, Mr. President, you can stop with this "Win the Future" slogan. No one knows what it means, anyway. Declare war on unemployment with the same vigor and determination you showed in the pursuit of Usama bin Laden. That we can understand.

Saudi Women Defy Driving Ban

2011-06-18T19:41:00.003-04:00

I salute you, ladies. This is a clever way to point out the social injustice. You can't even drive a car wearing a burqa? With your husband beside you? Who decided this? On what theocratic basis?

It strikes me as similar to the lunch counter demonstrations in our country, where Blacks demanded equal treatment in restaurants where they paid the same money as the White patrons. Equal treatment eventually won.

The "Just" Society for Republicans

2011-06-02T20:47:00.002-04:00

The "just" society for Republicans is a society just for Republicans.

With this thought I celebrate 5 years of blogging at Jefferson's Parlor! :)

Alex Budarin

It’s not Welfare, It’s Production Demand Subsidy

2011-05-21T21:02:00.002-04:00

Like Dave Johnson and others have said, rich people don’t create jobs because they have surplus money; they create jobs because they see added demand for their goods or services. If they get more money, but demand is stagnant, why create more jobs? They’re not running a charity. They will be doing fine with the jobs already on the books!

Actually, government entitlement payments, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, help to create added demand for their goods and services. So do government insurance and annuity payments, like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits.

But Republicans hate the idea of entitlement payments and government insurance and annuities, because that means the government is giving money to people who are not producing. Even if the non-producers need it to survive, the thought galls them. At the same time, Republicans love the idea of the government giving money to subsidize producers. Even if the producers are don’t need it to survive, it is justified in the minds of Republicans. The subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness farms come to mind.

So here is a thought: maybe Republicans will accept Progressive programs if they are presented from the point of view of the producers of goods and services. We could say, for example:

Medicare and Medicaid = “Patient Provider Subsidies”
and
Food Stamps, Unemployment and Social Security = “Production Demand Subsidies”

Do you see the difference? The new phrase shows that the real concern is for the welfare of the providers, not the unproductive elderly, disabled, jobless and poor.

Ronald Reagan used this principle back in 1982. He was persuaded by advisors that the country’s roads and bridges needed government investment, and the best way to do that was by increasing the Federal gasoline tax. But he couldn’t simply say that he was imposing a “gas tax increase”. Politically [and perhaps psychologically], he had to call it a “user fee” increase.

So, let’s take that a step further. We could call taxes “Homeland Security insurance fees.” It’s certainly true that the government needs tax revenue to insure the security of country, in its broadest sense -- militarily, economically, socially, etc. And what happens in any system of insurance when you have more assets to insure? You pay more than those who have fewer assets to insure. Thus, your “HSI” fees will by rights increase as the value of your assets increase. And when the costs of insuring the security of the country go up, your “HSI” fees will also have to go up.

Republicans understand the power of wording. They use it all the time, in the service of producers. Maybe if we speak their language from their point of view, we can get some action out of this Congress.

A Progressive Anthem

2011-05-14T17:38:00.003-04:00

Political movements often use something to identify themselves as a movement. For Tea Partiers, it is teabags. For Poles, it was the word “Solidarnosc”. In Ukraine it was the color orange, and in Iran it’s the color green. During the civil rights movement in the USA, it was the song, "We Shall Overcome."

I will be so bold as to suggest an anthem for progressives. Reading about the absolutely scandalous defacing of the Koch Theater, I went to the webpage of the Rude Mechanical Orchestra, where I had an aural epiphany. One of the songs played by RMO, “Bella Ciao,” a song of Italian anti-fascists, punched me in the frontal lobe and demanded to be presented as an anthem for the Progessive Movement. I must obey the Muse.

Here is the music, provided by RMO

Here are lyrics suggested by the Muse:

We are Progressives
We are Progressives
We fight for all to be equal and free, free, free
We are fighting
the fascist forces
to give the world
democracy.

No, those are not the original lyrics. But our national anthem started as an English drinking song. I suggest you also have strong drinks while singing the Progressive Anthem. It improves the volume.

Fond regards to all Progressives, regardless of nationality,

Alex Budarin

Thank you, Mr. President

2011-04-14T19:25:00.002-04:00

This is the speech I have waited for. An articulate expression of the Progressive Vision for America's future. Now, can you add a little passion to it? We are fighting for the hearts as well as the minds of America!

Alex Budarin

The Violation of (Political) Expectations...

2011-04-12T19:15:00.004-04:00

I once had a boss who liked to repeat to staff some of the things he had read in popular business management books. One of the quotations actually struck me as a profound insight:

The violation of expectations
is the root of frustration.

That may not be the exact quotation, but it's close enough to express the premise: we form expectations concerning all kinds of things and people in our lives, and we get frustrated when those expectations are unmet. This becomes important because

Frustration produces an inclination to Aggression

I suspect the aggression we have seen from Tea Party Republicans since 2009 has been an expression of their frustration with changes in American society which threaten their expectations of that society. To name a few, homosexuals are coming "out of the closet," a Black has become President, people are openly speaking Spanish everywhere, and Christianity is now challenged as a belief system. Thus, they push and threaten political leaders to recreate the society of their expectations.

Unfortunately for Tea Party Americans, their efforts to make society meet their expectations will frustrate the expectations of all other Americans -- those who see the changes as non-threatening or even positive. A "Tea Party" America would not meet with our expectations of our society. Thus, their efforts are likely to generate a political backlash of aggression against them.

The same principle can be used to analyze other political conflicts, as well. I think Barack Obama created high expectations as a Presidential candidate, and his failure to meet the expectations he created, now that he is President, has frustrated many who have supported him.

Alex Budarin

Abolish At-Will Employment

2011-03-06T07:45:00.003-05:00

One hundred and fifty years ago, our Southern states seceded from the Union. They called it a struggle for freedom. But it was really for their freedom to own slaves.

Now we hear Governor Walker of Wisconsin tell the person he thought to was his patron, David Koch, that his union-busting bill is “all about getting our freedoms back.” From the perspective of our modern lords and their political vassals, it’s all about getting complete freedom to treat their employees like migrant labor.

You see, the prevailing theory in American employment law, from what I have read, is the “At Will” doctrine. It is based on an article published by Horace Gray Wood in 1877 concerning “master-servant” relations. Prior to Mr. Wood, employer-employee relations in the U.S. were governed by English common law, which presumed, in the absence of any contract, that employment was “to be for one-year increments, absent termination for good cause,” and that “any termination would require reasonable notice prior to termination.” Wood argued, however, that the employment relationship was entirely “at will” and could be terminated “at will” if there was no proof that the employment was for a definite time period. This was music to employers, and it quickly became case law throughout the nation. Any employee, unless covered by a contract, could be discharged at will – for good reasons, for bad reasons, or for no reason at all.

The effects of this doctrine went far beyond the question of motives for discharge. It morphed, logically, to encompass the entirety of working conditions. “No employment contract” means that all of your terms and conditions of employment, your hours, your wages and your benefits can be set, changed or ended at the whim of your employer. If you don’t like the arrangement, you can leave or be fired. If unemployment is high, so be it. Sucks to be you.

It is true that American workers have gained some protections from the whimsy, malice and calculated disregard of corporate overlords. But these protections are incomplete. There are laws against discrimination, but the laws don’t touch every employer, and many common forms of discrimination are still allowed. There are certain legal requirements regarding wages, but they don’t cover every employee. There are laws intended to ensure worker safety, but there are also loopholes you can fall through. There are some unions to establish work contracts, but American unions have been on the decline, and they are scarcely as strong as their European counterparts. Nevertheless, our corporate overlords and their Republican vassals see these laws, regulations, and unions as infringing upon their freedom: the freedom guaranteed by the at-will employment doctrine to treat their fellow citizens with all of the consideration given to migrant farm workers.

This is in keeping with the authoritarian view of superiors and inferiors, but it is at odds with democratic principles. Democracy begins with the presumption that members of the social compact are political equals. American workers, therefore, should be given what they expect and deserve as citizens of this nation: equitable employment, as a matter of case law and statute.

Legal Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. You can call this a rant, if you prefer. :)

Thug Government

2011-02-12T19:00:00.003-05:00

Conservatives sneer that what Progressives aspire to is a "Nanny" government. This is because Conservatives despise the thought of a government which actually cares about the condition of the people, their general health and welfare. Conservatives abhor the concept of "entitlements" for anyone but the wealthy.

Speaking as a Progressive, I see the Conservatives as aspiring to a "Thug" government, one which exists only to enforce the will of the bosses. I think this is what Eric Cantor meant, when he objected to President Obama's speech about businesses having a responsibility to the nation. In the Conservative view, the responsibility goes one way, from the peons to their lords. The objective of Thug Government is to ensure that the overlords are fat and happy, for then their largesse shall trickle down upon the rest of us. If we are worthy.

Alex Budarin

Rules of the Road

2011-02-12T18:56:00.003-05:00

If we need rules for the road to avoid road crashes, we need rules for the market to avoid market crashes.

Alex Budarin

Uncle Sellout

2011-01-21T17:28:00.003-05:00

I Want You...

To Serve Your Corporate Masters!

The Middle is Muddled

2010-12-17T21:07:00.007-05:00

There are two conflicting and antithetical philosophies of government at work in America today.

One is the progressive philosophy of government, which says that intervention by a democratic government is morally necessary to ensure that the market and the economy effectively support the general welfare of the populace.

The other is the Teabag Republican philosophy of government, which says that intervention by a democratic government in the market and the economy is immoral and unnecessary, and people need to effectively look out for their own damn welfare.

So what do you get when you compromise? Something that is a little immoral and to little effect in either direction.

To quote Jim Hightower of Texas, "The middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos."

Alex Budarin

America Held Hostage: Day 10 Update

2010-12-10T20:05:00.006-05:00

The news from Washington, D.C., includes a report that former President Bill Clinton joined President Obama in the White House today, to support the plan to pay the Tax Cut Ransom to the rich Republican pirates in exchange for their release of humanitarian aid to America's long-term unemployed.

This reminds me: if I had wanted another Clinton in the White House, I would have voted for Hillary in the primary. I voted for Obama, instead. I thought Obama would be "change I could believe in," not a reprise of the Clinton years.

Alex Budarin

America Held Hostage: Day 10

2010-12-10T13:03:00.006-05:00

The rich Republican pirates continue to hold unemployed Americans hostage. The suffering of long-term unemployed Americans means nothing to them. In fact, the Republican pirates mock the unemployed, and sneer at them for being unemployed -- in the worst economy since the 1930's!

If they have no bread, let them eat cake! If their well-being means so much to you, you must give us tax cuts as ransom! Then and only then will we release them to your mercy!

The President has suggested that we must give these rich pirates what they want, because they truly are that callous and cutthroat. But I favor the response of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. To paraphrase:

Not one cent for tribute!

Thank you, Nancy

[photo is from her official website]

America Held Hostage: Day 9

2010-12-09T19:13:00.004-05:00

For nine days now, jobless Americans have been held hostage by wealthy Republican Pirates in Congress. The unemployment benefits for the jobless Americans have run out. And the wealthy Republican Pirates will let them starve -- unless they are given a ransom: tax cuts to make them even richer, and estate tax cuts to make their children richer still.

The President tells us that we must give the wealthy Republican pirates what they want, because they just might be willing to let jobless Americans starve.

Somehow this does not seem to me to be an effective way of dealing with pirates and extortionists.

I Help Pay Your Mortgage

2010-11-27T20:47:00.002-05:00

The latest Teabagger B. S. [bumper sticker] to provoke me is the one that says, "Honk if you paid my mortgage!" The obvious intent is to proclaim that "You didn't pay my mortgage, so why should I help pay for yours?" It goes to the core idea of teabagger isolationism: I am where I am without outside help, so I'm done with helping anyone else.

As usual, Teabaggers can only imagine threats, not all of the support they receive from others, directly and indirectly. Here are ways that I help pay your mortgage, Mr. or Ms. Tea Party:

Are you receiving any government services or funds, whether State, Local or Federal? If so, as a taxpayer, I am helping to pay your mortgage.
As a consumer, I have purchased goods and services with local, state and national connections. Indirectly, my purchases eventually help you to pay for your mortgage.
As a donor to various causes, it may also be that my contributions have found a way through our vast business network to enable you to pay your mortgage.

No, I alone have not paid your mortgage. But you are not alone, either. Together we have helped to pay each others' mortgages. If you are part of a Social Cooperative, this is the responsibility to one another.

The Market is Not God

2010-11-23T22:48:00.003-05:00

Republicans treat the Market as if it was something sacred, like a God unto itself. They worship the “invisible hand” that moves through the Market as if it was God’s hand, dispensing riches or ruin upon mortals in a vast pageant of divine reward and punishment. “Thou shalt not meddle in the Market” is their 11th Commandment, for the Market is a just and omniscient God. Those who sin before the Market shall know Hell, while those who are pure in economic deed and spirit shall prevail. It is blasphemy to advocate secular intervention in the Market. How can we mortals be wiser, or more just? Such is the Market Theology of Republicans.

It is willful self-delusion. The Market is fallible, it can be tricked and defrauded. It is without morals or compassion. It is indifferent to the plights of the populace, and it destroys good people along with the evil. There is nothing divine about it.

The Market is really no more than a tool devised by humans to enhance their survival and pleasure. It is no more sacred than a hammer. A hammer can be useful in many situations, but it is not useful in every situation. Neither is The Market. Furthermore, people have created different kinds of hammers to fit different tasks. There are “claw” hammers, sledgehammers, rubber mallets and gavels. Can you imagine someone declaring that there should be only one form of hammer, and it should not be changed to suit any special circumstance or need? It makes as little sense to declare that The Market should only take one form, and should never be adjusted to meet specific social needs and circumstances.

Alex Budarin

Consumers - Even Poor Ones - Give Us Jobs

2010-11-10T19:08:00.002-05:00

Republicans protect the wealthy with arguments like "rich people give us jobs". To this I say, it is consumers who give us jobs, even poor consumers. Rich people would have no jobs to give, were it not for consumers buying their merchandise, using their services, borrowing their money, or renting their property. Without those consumers, including the poor, they would not be rich people. They need to keep that in mind. They are not rich because they are extraordinarily smart or extraordinarily hard-working. They are rich because their communities support them, by purchasing their goods, paying for their services, borrowing their money and renting their property.

Alex Budarin

We Can Do More

2010-10-11T08:40:00.002-04:00

For all Americans. And the Republicans won't.

That is my suggestion for the Democratic bumpersticker message this election cycle.

Alex Budarin

Ni Marco, Ni Rubio, Ni Correcto

2010-09-25T20:39:00.001-04:00

The Republican Party of Florida gave Marco Rubio a credit card.

Now there are questions about his use of that credit card.

If his own party cannot trust him, why should Florida?

Not Going Back

2010-09-08T20:46:00.004-04:00

When I hear Conservatives say they want to take this country back, I always wonder, "To what?" I gather that one answer is, "To old time religion." I see that idea in the Pope's decision promote "a renewed evangelism" in countries that have seen a "progressive secularisation of society." I hear it in Tony Blair's recent declaration that the best way to confront the “secularist agenda” was for all faiths to unite against it. And it was rather obvious at Glenn Beck’s “I Have a Messianic Dream” rally, where he reportedly focused on America's need to "turn to God."

Why do they feel it is necessary to turn back? Because religious authorities see that fewer and fewer people feel the need to heed them. Aside from the loss of influence and income, this is a loss of validation in the community. Instead of being obeyed by all, they are challenged, and their authority is questioned. Thus, the Secularists must be defeated, so the people can again be ruled by Religious Authorities! Otherwise there will be immorality, God will be displeased and bad things will happen!

But what is supposed to attract people back to dogmatic, doctrinaire, and uncritical religious belief? Threats? Threats only make the religious authorities less attractive. The Inquisition failed. What about the benefits they have always offered – exclusivity of salvation? Well, that market is saturated. It’s a buffet, really. What about the social bonding? That’s been broken by years of hypocrisy, corruption and discord.

I was raised in a Christian household. I was told the mandatory religious beliefs in “Sunday School.” On my own I read the New Testament. I even considered becoming a member of the clergy. But then I saw that the church did not practice what their Founder preached. The church had so many treasures here that the doors had to be locked. They could praise the Prince of Peace even as they supported wars. They were incapable of loving neighbors who were not of their race. It took no university to lead me away, Mr. Beck. It began with hypocrites like you. It was completed by contemplation on the theology of the Abrahamic faiths, which I eventually found I could not accept. There is nothing that will persuade me to go back.

The ethos of democracy is at work in the world. Its ideals of freedom and equality undermine authoritarian religious institutions, just as they undermine authoritarian political institutions. There will always be some people who fear freedom and resent equality. But a growing number around the globe are casting off the chains of their authoritarian lords, unafraid of their own intellect and ready to test new paths through life.

A Butterfly for Progress

2010-08-26T09:45:00.001-04:00

In 1961, a scientist named Edward Lorenz was processing a weather model on a computer when he made an accidental discovery. On the day following one computer run, he re-started the process using a number rounded off at the third decimal. At first it looked like the computer run from the day before, but then it started diverging, and as time continued the difference became greater and greater. The reason, he discovered, was that the number from the previous day had been rounded off at the sixth decimal. That tiny variation had altered the outcome over time. It has been called the “Butterfly Effect,” based on the notion that something as small as a butterfly, flapping its wings on one part of the globe, could eventually affect the weather on some other part of the planet.

We activists for democracy are “Butterflies for Progress.” The littlest things we do to advance democracy will have their effects. Perhaps not now, but in time. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly. Perhaps not here, but somewhere. Our contributions will matter. And the world will be altered because of them. Let us therefore join together, each contributing what he or she can, to create a world with peace, respect for the environment, religious tolerance, true equality under the law, and freedom to the maximum extent that cooperative life will allow.

Promote the General Welfare!

2010-08-11T19:03:00.017-04:00

Over at Daily Kos, author Mark Sumner posted an appeal for a “progressive movement that can catch the public eye, without the screaming lunacy of a Glenn Beck or the purposeful lying of an Andrew Breitbart.” In a follow-up comment, “Rumblelizard” noted that “most right-wing policies fit neatly onto a bumper sticker.” Thinking along those lines, I came up with some “bumper sticker messages” which seemed to me to present Progressive ideas in ways that caught the eye without screaming or lying:

My Body, My Choice Concerning reproductive rights, and end of life rights
No Wars, No Deficits! For war-lovers suddenly scared of deficits
What Are the Wars For Now? Anti-wars-of-choice
How Did Tax Cuts Help? For the "tax cuts forever" crowd
Luke 6:31 [the “do to others as you would have them do to you” verse]
Regarding unemployment benefits and Medicaid
Earth Is What You Make It Polluted, hotter
No Establishment of Religion Including Christianity
Marriage is a Private Affair Including for homosexuals
Progressivism: Mutually Assured Survival The core idea of Progressivism

Perhaps slogans like these could be used in blog posts, and even as titles for blog posts, like above. Good ones might go viral that way!

Of course, slogans like these could also catch the public eye by means of actual bumperstickers. You can learn how to make bumperstickers here and here.

I don’t believe the majority of Americans want to live 236 years in the past. We have to figure out how to best survive in the present. The world of the Tea Party no longer exists. It is naive and dangerous to presume we can go back there.

Contra Christian Nationalism

2010-07-25T21:35:00.003-04:00

For me, the most frightening aspect of the George W. Bush presidency was the prominence given to Christian Nationalists. Based on things like references to “God” on Federal buildings, these right-wingers proclaim that our nation was founded as a “Christian” nation and our government should therefore promote and enforce “Christianity” in our laws and schools. And by “Christianity” they mean fundamentalist Christianity, the kind that believes in the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

I want to point out that several individuals who were prominent in the founding of our nation were not Christians in this sense. They believed there was a “God”, but they did not accept traditional Christian theology.

Tom Paine
Mr. Paine spurred the hearts of the American colonists toward Revolution with his renowned essays “Common Sense” and “The American Crisis.” For these words he was celebrated. At a later date, however, he wrote an essay deeply critical of the Bible and Christianity, commenting,

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity.” [The Age of Reason, Ch. 3, p. 100]

After he published this essay, he was reviled and abandoned.

Ethan Allen
Ethan Allen is a famous war hero of the American Revolution. Less well known is the fact he did not consider himself a Christian:

“In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one....” [Preface to Reason, the Only Oracle of Man]

Thomas Jefferson
I have mentioned Mr. Jefferson’s views in an earlier post, but they bear repeating as a challenge to those who claim that he and the other Founders intended to establish a Christian nation. In brief, Mr. Jefferson believed in a God and admired Jesus, but rejected “Christianity” as a perversion of Jesus’s principles:

“...But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State....” [Letter To S. Kercheval, 1810]

Ben Franklin
Ben participated in many of the conventions leading to the foundation of the United States of America. He believed in the existence of a Deity, but he had this to say regarding Jesus Christ:

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals, and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some doubts as to his divinity....”

I am not suggesting that these leaders were atheists or that they represented the beliefs of the majority of our nation’s founders. My point is that there was not even a universal belief in traditional Christianity among the founders. How then can we say that that they wanted to create a "Christian" nation?

Indeed, Founder and President John Adams later signed a treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, with the following clause:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [Article 11, the version in English]

Finally, I note that James Madison, one of the principal architects of the U. S. Constitution, had this objection to a government action which would establish Christianity as the State religion:

"During almost fifteen centuries, has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." [Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785), Clause #7]

In his view, government should not establish a coalition with Religion at all. I agree with him entirely.

Alex Budarin

The Little Teabag Realty Company

2010-07-10T17:28:00.006-04:00

You know you’re not a Racist. You just want to live where there are no taxes, no unions, no gun control, no regulations, no welfare, and a government so small you could drown it in a bathtub. You want to live in SOMALIA!

There’s no need to take this country back. Somalia is already there! Make your Tea Party dream come true. Come home to Somalia!

www.my-tea-party-dream.com

"Have You Thought About Somalia?"®

(Photo source here)

A Republic AND a Democracy!

2010-07-02T19:28:00.003-04:00

When I first saw Conservative bumperstickers shouting, “A Republic, Not a Democracy!,” I could not understand what the fuss was about. Were they saying that Democracy was bad? Impossible! Ronald Reagan reportedly said that “Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.” Were they saying that the USA was not a democracy? George W. Bush would disagree. He once said that Philadelphia was “the city where America's democracy was born.”

To understand the slogan, I had to survey the Conservative blogosphere. There I discovered that the slogan was derived from two propositions: that a “Republic” is materially different from a “Democracy;” and that the delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention had sought to create a “Republic,” as opposed to a “Democracy.”

The first proposition is said to be a matter of definition. A “Democracy” is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections.” A “Republic” is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”

I read these definitions and conclude that a Republic is a form of indirect Democracy. But Conservatives read these definitions and conclude that a Democracy is based on the sovereignty of the people collectively, whereas a Republic is based on the sovereignty of individual citizens. Put another way, Conservatives argue that a government in which “the people” exercise power through elected representatives is materially different from a government in which “a body of citizens entitled to vote” exercises power through elected representatives. I think they are ignoring the fact that, in a Democracy, “the people” in whom supreme power resides amounts to the “body of citizens entitled to vote.” No vote, no power. That is why American women demanded the right to vote. That is why Southern Whites created laws to disenfranchise non-White voters.

As for the second proposition, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention sought to create a “Republic,” as opposed to a “Democracy,” on the basis of practicality. Delegate James Madison explained that, “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the Government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” It was based on this definition of "Democracy" that he argued in favor of a Republic, because only a small territory would permit remote citizens to assemble and participate directly in their government. In the end, however, Delegate James Wilson declared that he would describe the Constitution thus: “In its principles, Sir, it is purely democratical....”

I conclude that Conservatives are bellowing “A Republic, not a Democracy!” simply because they refuse to acknowledge responsibility for the American people collectively. Probably because their fellow Americans include Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, liberals, Democrats, Muslims, atheists, intellectuals and other people they hate. Personally, I don’t care if they hate me. But don’t say the Constitution justifies Conservative policies of hatred and privilege.

Happy 4th of July, fellow democrats!

Alex Budarin

Deep Thought

2010-06-28T19:16:00.002-04:00

Authoritarianism is a philosophy of privilege.

In the U.S. it is called Conservatism.

The Philosophers' World Cup

2010-06-11T21:57:00.004-04:00

Monty Python presents a Football* Match for the Ages:
Greek Philosophers v. German Philosophers

*In the spirit of American Exceptionalism, we shall refer to this sport as "Soccer"

The Reasons for Jefferson’s Parlor

2010-06-02T18:48:00.002-04:00

This blog, not the parlor at Monticello!

This month marks the fourth year since I started this blog. One reason I started it was to vent my rage at the stupid, misguided, and criminal actions of the Bush/Cheney regime and their Republican sycophants who dominated Congress and the Supreme Court. The other reason was to challenge their worldview, to question its legitimacy, and to present a rational alternative grounded in philosophy, science and U.S. history. That is Progressivism. And Progressivism is not a collection of notions foreign to our country’s Founders. It is the embodiment of the American Promise. That is why I have pointed to progressive democratic ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. It is vital for Progressive Democrats to explain the legitimacy of our agenda to the voting public. We should not cede our history or our national symbols to the Authoritarians. There is no need to do so.

The Texas Board of Catechism

2010-05-31T14:49:00.004-04:00

By a strange combination of political and economic forces, the fate of American public education seems to rest, disproportionately, in the hands of the Texas Board of Education. The Texas Board of Education decides what will and will not be taught in the schoolbooks used by the State of Texas. Publishers of American schoolbooks then design their books to reflect the demand of the American market – which is dominated by Texas. Consequently, American schoolbooks tend to reflect the demands of the Texas Board of Education.

Unfortunately, the Texas Board of Education has become the Texas Board of Catechism. Authoritarian Christian conservatives now dominate that Board, and they have succeeded in their demands that Texas schoolbooks reflect their worldview. Bizarrely, this will reportedly mean that the U.S. government will no longer be described as “democratic.” Even worse, American students in Texas, and possibly in other states, will no longer be taught about Thomas Jefferson. Instead they will be taught about John Calvin!

It is true that, as a political philosopher, Thomas Jefferson was not as original as Rousseau, Locke, Mill, or Montesquieu. But he was able to blend their ideas together into a political philosophy that has served us for over 200 years and inspired us with its call for democracy, liberty and equality. It may be that the Texas Board of Education dislikes the fact that he regarded Jesus as “a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion,” rather than a part of God. Or perhaps they dislike the fact that he believed the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution built “a wall of separation between church and state.”

What we do know is that their preferred historical figure, John Calvin, was a Christian theologian. Among other things, he believed that people are inherently unequal: that God has preselected some people, the “Elect,”to be saved from eternal damnation, regardless of their sinfulness or any other characteristic. They are predestined to receive God’s mercy and eternal life. Everyone else is a “Reprobate,” regardless of their actions or beliefs, and they will receive God’s justice, i.e., eternal death and damnation. Calvin did play a role in the politics of Geneva, Switzerland, because there was a period of time during which the city was practically a theocracy and Calvin was its religious leader.

In that role, Calvin participated in the city’s punishment and execution of "blasphemers” and “heretics.” The most famous case was that of “Michael Servetus,” a Spanish theologian who outraged Calvin by proclaiming [among other things] that God was a singular entity, not a “trinity.” Calvin swore that, if Servetus ever entered Geneva, he would not leave it alive. And that is what happened. Servetus fled France to escape the Catholic Inquisition, and for some reason he went to Geneva, where he was promptly arrested for heresy. Calvin prepared the charges against Servetus, prosecuted the case against Servetus, and asked that Servetus be executed. Servetus was burned at the stake.

So, who do you believe had a greater impact upon the political philosophy and history of the United States of America: the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and served as our President; or the French theologian who believed that all men are not created equal, and that religious heretics should be executed?

In my opinion, only a board of Christian catechism would pick the latter.

Parlor Wit

2010-05-28T18:31:00.003-04:00

Between speeches, half-term governor Sarah Palin
relaxes by hunting field mice

Note to FOX viewers: This is satire.

The Mother of All Commencement Addresses

2010-05-23T13:38:00.003-04:00

Will Ferrell, Harvard University, 2003 [excerpt]

It’s Not in the Constitution!

2010-05-21T22:16:00.006-04:00

Republicans like to note that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which expressly grants U.S. citizens such things as a right to privacy, a right to healthcare, or a “freedom from religion.” This is true, if your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is limited precisely and exclusively to the very words which appear in it. Of course, such a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would also preclude many ideas which are dear to Republicans:

“God,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Christianity.” Not in the Constitution. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Let me repeat that for Fox viewers: No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.

“Zygote,” “Fetus.” Nowhere in the Constitution. Not protected. The Constitution does, on the other hand, confer rights upon persons, citizens, and specifically “natural born citizens.” But it makes no specific mention of the rights of fertilized human eggs, so there is no literal basis in the Constitution to claim that they have rights, too.

“Corporation.” The word does not appear in the Constitution. As stated previously, the Constitution only talks about persons, citizens, and specifically “natural born citizens.” That being so, there is no literal basis in the Constitution for claiming that corporations are entitled to the same rights as “persons” and “citizens.”

“Flat tax.” Not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. It lacks Constitutional basis. It goes “beyond the Constitution” as much as “progressive taxation.”

“Balanced budget.” Does not appear in the Constitution. Probably because wars tend to create deficits.

“Racial Profiling.” Not in the Constitution. The Constitution originally excluded “Indians not taxed” from the census for representation, but that provision was removed long ago and appears to have been based on a factor other than their race or ethnicity.* If you institute racial or ethnic profiling, you are going “outside” the Constitution.

You see, Republicans often squeal that Democrats are enacting programs that go beyond the scope of the Constitution – and then they seek to do likewise, to satisfy their constituents.

*This entry has been corrected to reflect insights provided by Dante Atkins

Sources: U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights

Tea Party Fear Factor

2010-04-25T09:06:00.002-04:00

Here is my idea for a new "reality" TV show, Tea Party Fear Factor: each week, in exchange for a sum of money, a Tea Party member is placed in a setting full of young African-Americans or brown people who do not speak English. It will be full of excitement. How much will the teabagger play for? How long will he or she last? How soon will he or she start a conflict?

I also have a motto for the Tea Party: "It's not about racism, it's about giving our hard-earned pay to help non-Whites."

Alex Budarin

Drill, Baby, Drill!

2010-04-24T10:27:00.003-04:00

The "Deepwater Horizon", an oil rig drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana, exploded on April 20, 2010, and sank two days later.

Will Republicans say, "So what?" Here's what:

"Weather forecasts indicate the spill was likely to stay well away from shore at least through the weekend, but if winds change it could come ashore more rapidly, said Doug Helton of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's office of response and restoration." [AP]

BP will try to manage the spill, but the risk of serious damage is real. So, when petroleum-crazed Republicans cheer for offshore drilling, I think they should be asked, "Which coastline are you willing to lose?" The residents there might like to know.

Alex Budarin

[President Obama, you might want to reconsider your earlier proposal concerning offshore oil exploration....]

What Has Obama Done?

2010-04-23T12:13:00.007-04:00

“What has he DONE?,” scream the Teabaggers. Sarah Palin sneers, “How is that hopey-changey thing working for you?” Fair questions. Here is what I have seen in the news:

New home sales surged in March, biggest monthly jump in 47 years [2010]

Jobless Rate Falls to 9.7%, Giving Hope Worst Is Over [2/6/10]

Signaling Jobs Recovery, Payrolls Surged in March
After losing eight million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, payrolls finally surged in March, the Labor Department reported on Friday. Employers added 162,000 nonfarm jobs last month. Nationwide, the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent. [4/3/2010]

Dow Jones Industrial Average for 1 year as of 4/23/10:
[shows steady increase]

Retail sales surge in March [2010]

"...[T]aking into consideration the effects of inflation, effective tax rates may actually have rem ained level or even dipped a bit." [for 2009 taxes]

Teapublicans live on the hope that Obama will fail to deliver. They are the Goldman Sachs of US politics.

Alex Budarin

Colorado Springs, Teabagger Paradise

2010-04-17T21:26:00.006-04:00

What would a Teabagger's Paradise look like? Perhaps we shall soon see, in Colorado Springs. According to a recent report, most residents of Colorado Springs have no problem with the drastic reduction of their city's services due to lack of revenue. Already, it is said,

one third of the city's street lights have been turned off
cab drivers have been asked to help police watch the city
park budgets have been cut 75%
nine city buses have been sold, and there are no services on evenings or weekends
police and fire department budgets have been cut, and police helicopters have been auctioned off

And some residents want further reductions. Apparently the presumption is that differences can be made up by volunteers and donations. I doubt it, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

I have a theory that Teapublicans would not care if their cities - or their country - ended up looking like Sao Paulo, Brazil: a place where the rich live in heavily guarded enclaves, and the poor live in shantytowns with no public services, surviving on drugs, prostitution, and other criminal activities. Teapublicans would be happier then, knowing that they were not paying for any social programs, and their guards could shoot to kill.

Thank You, Barack Obama

2010-03-30T20:39:00.004-04:00

What would you do if the boat you were on started sinking?

I would find out why it was sinking, and try to keep it afloat. And that is what Barack Obama has done. When he became President, scarcely more than a year ago, the country was sinking. The causes were obvious: bank failures; home foreclosures; unemployment; two wars; and a lack of confidence that drove down our stock market.

Over the past year, step by step, he has taken corrective action and kept us afloat. The economy is showing signs of improvement, stock values are rising, and unemployment appears at least to have stabilized. Our involvement in Iraq is diminishing, and the war against the Taliban at least appears to be under better management. [Note to the Taliban: it would be smarter to become a political party, like our Republicans.] The outcome of that war, of course, is in the hands of the Afghanis.

I don't expect that Barack will always make the best decision. He is just as human as I am, and we are both fallible [just ask our wives!]. But credit should be given where credit is due. And, Mr. President, this rum-and-coke is for you!

Progressivism is International

2010-03-17T23:19:00.004-04:00

The Reformation of the Left is occurring not only here, but also in Europe.

In Great Britain, there is a think tank called DEMOS which is dedicated to producing ideas for progressive government in the United Kingdom. You might want to review their free publications, such as "We Mean Power."

In France there is a progressive think tank called "Terra Nova" which has already been in contact with our Center for American Progress. For the moment you must know French or use an online translator to read their web pages. But it sounds like they are facing the same challenges we have faced at a national level. As for the local level, it may be they have something to teach us.

In Spain, the "Alternatives Foundation" appears to be a think tank with progressive inclinations. Some of their pages and publications are in English.

I suppose that I am most excited by the evidence that we are not alone in our struggle for human progress. Let us work together to achieve the dream!

[Oops. See also the Policy Network and their international publications!]

Observations of a Townhall Tea Party

2010-03-03T20:12:00.002-05:00

My Republican Congressman recently held a Townhall Meeting, and, for the first time, I decided to show up. So did about 100 other people. I did not know what to expect, but I probably should have. I live in a congressional district where Republicans constitute the largest political party. It would figure that Republicans would dominate the meeting, but I was still surprised by some of the things I saw and didn’t see.

Although the population in our district is roughly 10% Hispanic and 6% African-American, the Townhall audience was almost entirely Caucasian and elderly. From what I could see, there was only one gentleman with a dark complexion.

Several candidates for office were present and handing out literature. All of them were Republicans. I was struck by the fact that their literature now prominently mentioned their sympathy for the Tea Party, whereas they used to highlight the fact that they were Christians.

During the meeting, the usual Republican talking points were made about the deficit, immigration, prosecution of alleged terrorists and Guantanamo. But I was most impressed by the extent to which members of the audience brought up the Constitution. A gentleman with an “Oath Keeper” patch ran around handing out political cards. I discovered later that Oath Keepers say they will refuse to obey any orders which they believe contravene the Constitution. Another gentleman held up a sign telling the congressman to vote “Constitutionally always.” And a lady announced to the congressman that she was taking an online course regarding the Constitution, and she was upset by a Supreme Court decision in the 1930's that had something to do with taxation. I suspect that Tea Party Republicans believe the Federal government should have no more responsibility, power or authority than it did when the U.S. Constitution was ratified Forget history. Forget that the language of the Constitution is sometimes vague and open to interpretation. Forget the decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court over the centuries. The USA of the 1700's is the utopia for modern conservatives.

What I did not see were signs that other Democrats were present. Maybe they knew it would turn into a Republican pep rally. I left the townhall meeting early, out of disgust with the rhetoric. But I also went away with a greater resolve to link up with other progressives in the area, for the purpose of political activities.

Coming Soon to an Airport Near You!

2010-02-27T16:56:00.004-05:00

Alex Budarin, 2/10

Scott Brown DOES NOT CARE

2010-01-17T14:55:00.008-05:00

Voters of Massachusetts, do not be deceived! Though he may try to fog your view with niceties, Scott Brown is full of the miserable, high-minded, selfish indifference which oozes so readily from the callous, cold and withered heart of Teabaggery:

"One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we've learned. The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances." source

"In 2005, Brown sponsored a legislative amendment that would have allowed medical personnel to deny emergency contraception to rape victims if it 'conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.'" source

He has promised to vote against the bill which ensures that 95% of American citizens will have health coverage of some kind. source

If he doesn't care about 9/11 workers, rape victims, and American citizens without health insurance, what makes you think he will really care about you? He is not concerned with the Commonwealth. He is concerned with personal wealth. The survival of American insurance companies matters more to him than the survival of American citizens!

Keep the Hope for Change Alive. Vote for Martha Coakley for U. S. Senate.

CORRECTION: In one of his first votes as a Senator, Scott Brown voted with Democrats to close discussion of the jobs bill, paving the way for the bill's passage. I take this to mean that Scott Brown does care - about his reelection.

Parlor Wit

2009-12-30T23:20:00.002-05:00

Favorite Republican Dances

The GOP Two-Step: Don't allow the other party to move, then accuse them of doing nothing;
The Elephant Waltz: object to a motion, vote against the motion, then take credit for the motion in your district or State;
The Republican Fox-Trot: object to a motion, trot it out on FOX News, vote against the motion, trot it out on FOX News.

Alex Budarin

Kudos to Sanders, Clyburn and Wyden!

2009-12-30T18:51:00.004-05:00

The more I read about the Sanders-Clyburn-Wyden Amendment to the health care reform bill, the more hopeful I become regarding the future of the U.S. healthcare system.

Apparently a system of "Federally Qualified Health Centers" already exists, based on legislation initiated long ago by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Such health centers reportedly provide "primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling and low-cost prescription drugs for about 20 million Americans...basic services like prenatal care, childhood immunizations and cancer screenings...for patients covered by Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance as well as those who have no insurance."

Senator Sanders' initial amendment was to include $10 billion for community health centers around the country, which he projected would bring primary health care to 25 million more Americans and serve 10,000 more communities. It is also said to include provisions for loan repayments and scholarships, to "create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals." Representative James Clyburn intends to increase the proposed funding to $14 billion, and Senator Ron Wyden is said to be editing the bill to provide waivers for states that want to provide more health care to their citizens.

There are financial benefits to this plan, in addition to the physical benefits. Senator Sanders said that a university study concluded that this amendment would save Medicaid $23 billion over five years by reducing emergency room use and hospital costs. Furthermore, services cost substantially less at community health centers than elsewhere.

This amendment actually exceeds what I contemplated in an earlier post, and I hope it survives and flowers during the Congressional reconciliation process. For me, this would be change I could believe in: a resource I could count on in the event I lost my job or start that export business I am thinking about. I would call it a "public option" and be happy with it. And I will be grateful to all of the legislators who make it a reality.

Alex Budarin

Deficit Spending

2009-12-26T09:15:00.006-05:00

Republicans are suddenly alarmed by deficit spending. That was not the case when George W. Bush was President and Republicans controlled Congress, and they know it. According to an Associated Press report, Republican senators say their change of mind is due to the fact that the economy is in worse shape now and the American public is anxious. I suppose Republican senators previously believed it was okay to engage in deficit spending because the economy was in good shape and people were not worried about it.

That provokes two thoughts:

Government leaders should concern themselves about deficit spending also in good times; and
Their concern about deficit spending should not depend on the public mood.

A government should live within its means. But its management should be pragmatic: questions of economic policy should be determined with reference to experience, current insights of scientific inquiry, and current realities. It seemed to me, back in 2006, that the policies of our Republican-dominated government would lead us to ruin, because they were pretty much unconcerned with past experience, economic realities, and the opinions of economists.

According to the AP report, the Obama administration is engaging in deficit spending only to "pull the economy from the severe recession of 2008-09." As far as I know, the majority of economists support the Obama administration's economic policy. The AP report also mentions that Obama and other Democrats have vowed to return to the Clinton "pay as you go" restrictions for government spending, whereby "most tax cuts or program expansions [have] to be offset elsewhere with tax increases and spending cuts." But we can only return to that standard when it is pragmatically feasible.

Alex Budarin

Another Basis for a Public Option

2009-12-23T11:27:00.007-05:00

If some sort of "public option" does not survive in the U.S. national health care reform bill, it will not be the end of the dream. The idea will live on, the need will continue, and ways will be found to achieve it.

Seeds for some form of national public option already exist. We have Medicare and Medicaid. We have a national system of government-run clinics providing health care to our veterans. And we have a national program of government-administered health care coverage for Federal employees, in which private health insurers negotiate with the U.S. government regarding costs and benefits.

There is another potential seed for national health care coverage, at least where I live. In my county we have a public health department which performs many medical services [soon to include dental], and we also have a not-for-profit health care provider serving rural areas. Perhaps such state, county, and rural public health care providers could be subsidized, improved and integrated into a national plan to ensure that adequate and complete health coverage is accessible to all U.S. citizens.

If it proves to be politically impossible to get a public option now, let us seize what we can from this opportunity and prepare ourselves for the next one. Sic Semper Progressivatis!

Alex Budarin

Parlor Wit

2009-12-19T19:55:00.004-05:00

A Canadian Solution to Car Pollution

Integrationism

2009-12-13T18:15:00.003-05:00

There are few truly “Socialist”* economies left in the world, that is, economies in which the State owns and controls all of the means of production and distribution, such as capital, land, factories, etc. Most have failed to meet the needs and expectations of their citizens, and thus have been altered into other forms.

Similarly, there are few purely “Capitalist” economies in the world, that is, “Laissez-faire” economies in which private citizens and corporations own the means of production and distribution and are free of government restrictions. It is a fact of history that private individuals and corporations have brought upon their fellow citizens many financial panics and depressions, life-threatening working and living conditions, fraud, etc. In the words of a contemporary and respected economics professor, Nouriel Roubini, “Laissez-Faire Capitalism Has Failed.”

Because of these historical experiences, the majority of large social groups have discovered that it is best to have a mixture of private and government economic activity. Some services are best provided by governments, such as national defense and administration of justice. Some services may be better served by private undertakings, such as the production and distribution of food and household commodities. In still other cases it has proven necessary or expedient to combine government and private assets to obtain a desired economic benefit.

I have seen these economies referred to as “mixed” economies, but perhaps they deserve to be recognized as a distinct economic system: “Integrationist.” From this perspective, most nations of the world are practicing “Integrationism,” mixing private and public undertakings according to their desires and experiences. Of course, the nations may still be authoritarian or democratic in their political structure, with consequences I have discussed in previous posts.

In my view, the purpose of a democratic government with an Integrationist economic system is, or should be, to ensure that private and public economic activities are effectively and pragmatically regulated, supervised, and evaluated to ensure that all members of the social cooperative will benefit, not just the wealthiest or most powerful among them.

Alex Budarin

*Tea Partiers have bastardized the word “socialist” to refer to any country which has extensive government provisions for citizen well-being.

How Does Private Health Insurance Work?

2009-12-09T19:09:00.004-05:00

Well, here is how it works in Manatee County, Florida:

"Manatee County's largest hospital system may stop taking a major insurance carrier, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, forcing 23,000 policyholders in Manatee County alone to go elsewhere or pay high out-of-network prices.

The problem is that the hospitals, the jointly owned Manatee Memorial Hospital and Lakewood Ranch Medical Center, "want more money than we are willing to pay them," said Dr. Barry Schwartz, the insurance company's lead contract negotiator."

How did it come to this?

"The economy has also taken a toll on Florida's largest insurer. Blue Cross and Blue Shield expects to have lost 180,000 policies by the end of this year. Most of the losses have come from individuals dropping policies, and not the elimination of group plans, leading the company to believe the losses are primarily the effect of people becoming unemployed and losing health coverage."

But people would prefer that to any "public" option, would they not?

Alex Budarin

Parlor Wit

2009-12-03T19:18:00.002-05:00

We are going to have to let one of you go.....

Back to the Capitalist Utopia!

2009-12-01T21:40:00.003-05:00

There was indeed a time in the U.S.A. when there were few government regulations or restrictions on our markets -- the time from its founding until the early 1900's. It was a time that would have appealed to Glenn Beck. It was a time of “Capitalist Utopia.” In those days, U.S. citizens enjoyed wonders such as:

Child Labor in Industry
Polluted Water
Polluted Air
Polluted Land
Impure Foods and Drugs
14-Hour Workdays
Hazardous Working Conditions
Accepted Discrimination on the basis of Age, Sex, Race and Ethnicity
Monopoly and Cartel Pricing
And, best of all, numerous economic Panics and Depressions!:

The Panic of 1819

The Panic and Depression of 1832
The Panic and Depression of 1836
The Panic of 1837
The Six Year Depression, 1837-1843
The Panic of 1857
The Panic of 1873
The Panic of 1893
The Panic of 1901
The Panic and Depression of 1929

For Glenn Beck, those were “the good old days.” The days when everyone was on their own, looked out for themselves, and only helped fellow Americans if they felt like it. The days before the U.S. government intervened and enacted laws to protect American children, our health, our livelihoods, and our resources. If you think those government interventions in our capitalist economy were a GOOD thing, then you are a fascist, a communist and a socialist. You are also displeasing unto God. The Lord rebuke you!

The Progressivati

2009-11-25T18:04:00.000-05:00

Glenn Beck’s latest paranoid delusion is really amusing. He finally reads American history, and he concludes that all of our social progress in the last 100 years can be traced to a multi-generational conspiracy by Progressives:

BECK: “I’ve done a lot of reading on history in the last few years and I was amazed to find that what we’re experiencing now is really a ticking time bomb that they designed about 100 years ago, beginning in the progressive movement. And they thought, ‘You know what, if we just do this and this and this and this, over time if we do it in both the Republican and Democratic parties, we will have our socialist utopia.’”

But there is no secret society of Progressives, no clever plot that manages to attract both Republicans and Democrats, and no pre-planned “socialist utopia.”

What exists is the pragmatic evolution of human relations. We live and work together for mutual aid in survival and happiness. We share common needs, and we learn from experience that working together with other people enhances our ability meet those needs. This requires coordination, whether by an individual, the group as a whole, or a sub-group. It is out of this need for coordination that governments arise. The more effective a government is at coordinating and ensuring our mutual survival and happiness, the longer it will remain. Eventually we learn that the survival and happiness of the social group is best achieved by ensuring that the “mutual aid” we all seek is “mutually” enjoyed by all members of the group, not just a particular individual, class or sub-group, and that the “aid” we seek addresses all of the challenges we face in life, not just defense.

Glen Beck can only imagine that some secret group - “They” - have plotted and implemented, piece by piece, over 100 years, various reforms intended to create a “socialist utopia.” But “They” do not exist, outside of Glen Beck’s paranoid fantasy.

Of course, that is what I would say, if I were one of “Them”.....

Alex Budarin, 12th Degree Progressivati

Thank You, Harry Reid,

2009-11-22T10:35:00.003-05:00

And all of my fellow Democrats in the U.S. Senate.

Through your efforts and your votes last night, we are closing in on that day when the American people receive what Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt have wanted for them -- health insurance for all citizens, regardless of condition. It will not be perfect. But nothing ever is.

Please begin working with Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats on terms of reconciliation. Give the American people a Christmas present with a lifetime guarantee. And make "Teddy" happy!

3 Things I Learned from Buddhism

2009-11-21T10:16:00.004-05:00

I have read Buddhist literature for many years, and have practiced meditation as well. Here are three things I have learned from Buddhism that I believe are important to remember:

All things are impermanent. For example, there will never be a permanent political majority. The desire for permanence will lead to frustration, anger, and suffering.
All things are imperfect. For example, there will never be perfect legislation. The desire for perfection will only lead to frustration, anger, and suffering.
All things are interdependent. For example, you will never be completely independent of the other people and things around you. The desire for complete independence will only lead to frustration, anger and suffering.

I just wanted to pass along these lessons before I pass along.

Alex Budarin

Parlor Wit

2009-11-11T15:15:00.003-05:00

Latest news from Ironic Times:

Senate Health Care Bill Now Mandates Insurance to Pay For Prayer Treatments

Using money saved by eliminating public option.

Goldman Sachs, Citigroup Got Swine Flu Vaccine

Due to large number of swine.

Bush, in Japan, Finally Admits a Mistake

It was a huge mistake, he tells Japanese students, to trade Sammy Sosa to the White Sox in 1989.

Saluting Our Veterans

2009-11-11T14:43:00.004-05:00

Today is the day we honor our military veterans, for the sacrifices they made of their blood, lives and sanity in response to our nation's call.

We do not honor them for acts of selfishness and personal profit. We do not honor them for refusal to consider the welfare of their countrymen. We honor them because they made sacrifices for the common good of all their fellow citizens.

There will never be a national day of honor for Fox Republicans.

Thank You Nancy Pelosi

2009-11-08T10:47:00.002-05:00

Thank you President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and members of the House of Representatives who helped to pass the healthcare reform bill. With your action our country has taken a giant step toward keeping alive a promise that was made to all American citizens in our nation's founding documents: that this country and its government would promote the general welfare of its citizens, not just the welfare of some among them.

Alex Budarin

Five Years Ago

2009-11-05T10:32:00.003-05:00

Five years ago, George W. Bush was re-elected President of the United States. Republicans gloated. Bush had political capital, and he intended to use it. He set out to partially privatize Social Security. He vowed to stay the course in Iraq. He didn't worry about balancing the budget. He wasn't concerned about the economic impact of cutting taxes while pursuing two wars. Invading the privacy of U.S. citizens was just a necessary part of the "War on Terror." And Fox Republicans cheered him on at every step, damning his critics as traitors, alarmists and defeatists.

Five years later, George W. Bush is a pariah. When he leaves the U.S. he still meets demonstrators protesting his foreign policies. Social Security has not changed. By popular demand, the Iraq War is winding down, and there are questions now about the Afghan War. We have been through the worst recession since the Great Depression, and only now do we see signs of recovery. But Bush has no regrets.

Neither do Fox Republicans. They refuse to acknowledge that their beliefs and ideas lead to disasters. However, now that Obama and the Democrats have the upper hand, Fox Republicans are suddenly very concerned about government spending, government intrusion, government bureaucrats, and changes in government programs.

What a difference five years can make.

The Beatitudes, Conservative Revised Version

2009-10-10T20:22:00.002-04:00

There is a website for U.S. conservatives which has proposed a retranslation of the Bible to reflect their conservative values. Apparently the Bible as currently translated is too liberal. It makes Jesus sound too empathetic with the poor, too merciful and forgiving, too supportive of peace, and too critical of the rich. They want a strong, masculine translation of the Bible which emphasizes Hell, judgment, and free market capitalism.

For example, here is the flawed, apparently liberal, Catholic translation of The Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12):

* Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
* Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
* Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
* Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
* Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
* Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)

Here is a translation of The Beatitudes which should be more acceptable to U. S. conservatives:

* Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall pay much for anti-depressants.
* Blessed are the meek, for they shall be good non-union labor.
* Blessed are they who do not mourn, for they have kept their masculinity intact.
* Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after wealth, for they shall have their fill.
* Blessed are the unmerciful, for they shall be given positions of power.
* Blessed are they that claim to be clean of heart, for they shall be permitted to judge others.
* Blessed are the war-makers, for they shall be spreading freedom and democracy.
* Blessed are they that suffer persecution because they kill in my name, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I leave it to someone else to retranslate the Acts of the Apostles, wherein the Apostles shared all their earthly goods:

[2:44] All who believed were together, and had all things in common. [2:45] They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need.

That sounds pretty darn socialist as currently translated!

The Need for Political Philosophy: Hobhouse

2009-10-03T08:58:00.005-04:00

"Great changes are not caused by ideas alone; but they are not effected without ideas. The passions of men must be aroused if the frost of custom is to be broken or the chains of authority burst; but passion of itself is blind and its world is chaotic. To be effective men must act together, and to act together they must have a common understanding and a common object.... They are, in fact, driven on by the requirements of their position to the elaboration of ideas, and in the end to some sort of social philosophy; and the philosophies that have driving force behind them are those which arise after this fashion out of the practical demands of human feeling. The philosophies that remain ineffectual and academic are those that are formed by abstract reflection without relation to the thirsty souls of human kind."

L. T. Hobhouse, "Liberalism", start of Chapter III

The Best Message: Universality of Benefits

2009-10-03T08:02:00.002-04:00

President Obama's current message for health care reform -- security and stability for those who have health insurance, and provision of health insurance for those who don't -- is wise for the reason that it emphasizes the universality of the benefits to be derived from it. In this manner he overcomes the Republican/authoritarian message that this is a special benefit for a particular segment of the population.

I think this is an important principle for democratic governance: first, propose actions which do have benefits for all citizens, then explain and show to the citizens how this is so. If this can not be done, it must be asked whether the proposed action is proper.

Parlor Wit

2009-09-22T19:01:00.000-04:00

Your News with a Twist, courtesy of the "Ironic Times" blogpaper [9/21/09]:

Many Don't Want Health Insurance

If forced to get it, they'll move to Canada.

Study: Teen Birth Rates Highest in the Most Religious States

Conclusion: Saying “Please, God, don't let me be pregnant” doesn't work.

Iraq: Sunnis Increasingly Desperate as Shiites Consolidate Power

U.S.: Republicans increasingly desperate as Democrats consolidate power.

Status Orientation, Conservative v. Liberal

2009-09-19T15:58:00.005-04:00

George Lakoff, and more recently Sara Robinson and Tim Wise, have written thoughtful articles about the contrasting worldviews of conservatives and liberals. I think the common theme is this:

Conservatives view the world with an authoritarian “status orientation”. They see their social world in terms of people who are superior and people who are inferior, masters and servants, producers and parasites, worthy and unworthy, usually based on such things as race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, heredity or wealth. They see this as the natural order. Those who are inferior and unworthy have no “right” to social benefits. Receiving the fruits of society is a privilege reserved for the righteous, superior, productive and worthy. If you are not in that group, it is no concern of theirs, and they will resent being forced to help or follow lower-status individuals. You see this in their concerns about contributing to the health and well-being of others. It is because the others might not qualify as “worthy.” You also see this in their nasty references to President Obama’s race, Muslim background, and Kenyan roots. He is not one of them, the “worthies.”

Liberals view the world with a democratic “status orientation”. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, “...all Men are created equal.” The fact that someone is White, male, Christian, American and/or rich is immaterial. These distinctions do not make them “better” or more worthy than anyone else. To continue, the Declaration of Independence says that we all have rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It does not say that these rights depend on our status or worthiness. It does not say that these are “unalienable privileges”. It says that these are “unalienable rights”. That is why Liberals argue, for example, that adequate health care should be available to all members of our society, regardless of their perceived social status. Health coverage should not be determined by wealth or any other status measure. These truths may be self-evident to Liberals, but they not acceptable to Conservatives.

Having read some time ago that the brains of Liberals and Conservatives process information differently, I have to wonder: is “status orientation” perhaps like sexual orientation?

Snowflake to the D's in Congress

2009-08-28T08:12:00.005-04:00

How about creating a new Medicare program, "Part E", as the "public option"? Republicans are suddenly defending Medicare. They created Medicare "Part D". Their response to "Medicare Part E" should be comedy gold!

Alex Budarin

UPDATE: Okay, it already is comedy gold, courtesy of Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican Party. See his interview with National Public Radio here.

"Snowflake" to the President

2009-08-27T20:09:00.004-04:00

"Anyone who is popular is bound to be disliked."

Yogi Berra

Republicans Behaving Badly

2009-08-14T17:55:00.004-04:00

President Obama and his policies seem to bring out the worst in those people who constitute the current Republican base. Even when the topic is something as boring as government-insured healthcare!

I think I know the roots of this Mad Tea Party.

The core issue in this dispute is the role of government. Republicans believe that the government should have a role in our defense and little else. They trust corporations more than they trust government. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that government also has an obligation to ensure the general welfare and equal protection of American citizens. When corporations, public and private, fail to ensure the general welfare and equal protection of American citizens, democrats believe the government is obliged to intervene on behalf of American citizens. Because Republicans do not recognize any constitutional obligation for ensuring the well-being and rights of anyone beyond themselves, they are outraged that the arc of American politics since 1901 has inclined more and more in favor of the democratic ideal. This has been true even under Republican Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt [Pure Food & Drug Act, Employers Liability Act, railroad regulation, and trust-busting] and Richard Nixon [Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration]. But it has been most dramatic under Democratic Presidents, such as Franklin Roosevelt, who was responsible for the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Administration, and Lyndon Johnson, who pushed for Medicare and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans fought loudly and bitterly against Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. Franklin Roosevelt, like Obama today, was accused of engaging in socialism.

So, what happened after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s programs were enacted? American capitalism flourished and spread. And it will do so again with “Obamacare.” Far from destroying capitalism, it will encourage Americans to try setting up businesses, because they will never have to worry about finding and paying for individual health insurance for themselves and their families at the same time that they are trying to get a business going. “Obamacare” will be there.

The reality is that the government programs which were instituted to ensure the general welfare and equal protection of American citizens have helped maintain our society. The “America” that they replaced was an America that was obscene in its cruelty and callousness toward the well-being of Americans. Maybe Republicans love “America”, they just dislike and distrust their fellow Americans. We can not let this country fail just to calm their paranoia.

Republicans must remember that Obama has the power and the authority that a majority of the American voters gave him. He is doing what the majority of Americans voters elected him to do. Republicans will have to live with this like I had to live with the fact that George W. Bush was my President for 8 years.

Parlor Wit

2009-08-08T09:29:00.005-04:00

Courtesy of Mike Keefe, The Denver Post and Intoon.com

Constitutional Purposivism

2009-08-01T10:45:00.003-04:00

About a month ago, NPR [National Public Radio] reported about the debate over interpretation of the U.S. constitution. The report noted that conservative jurists, particularly Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, are advocates of “constitutional originalism,” defined as “adherence to the ‘original intent’ of the creators of the Constitution.” We’re talking about strict interpretation of the document. Literalism. Only what is said is covered. If it is not there, it is not covered.

The NPR report suggested that U.S. liberals did not have a coherent counter-theory of constitutional interpretation. My research on the Internet suggests that there is and has been a popular liberal counter-theory: constitutional purposivism. According to “purposivism”, the constitution (and other laws) should be interpreted “in light of the purpose behind the legislation.”

Sometimes our Constitution sets highly specific standards, such as when it says the President must be at least 35 years of age. But elsewhere it uses language which is open to interpretation, such as in the Fourth Amendment, where it says that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

An “originalist” would argue that there is nothing explicitly written in the Fourth Amendment about “individual privacy” or “abortion rights”, so these concepts have no basis for protection under the U.S. Constitution. The stated purposes of the Constitution are irrelevant. The modern consequences of such an interpretation are irrelevant.

A “purposivist” judge, on the other hand, would consider the stated or implied purpose when interpreting the Constitution. There are modern circumstances to be considered, broad language in the source document, and a question about the consequences of applying the law in a literalist fashion: if you applied the law literally, how would the results compare with the intended purpose of the law? The Constitution was written for a purpose. The purpose therefore matters when you interpret it.

You will have guessed that I am inclined toward purposivism. I believe the Constitution should be interpreted with an eye toward the purposes stated in its Preamble. It clearly states that its purpose is to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” I think it is logical to conclude that any interpretation of the Constitution should consider whether the interpretation advances or defeats its stated purposes. Considering the stated purposes of the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment can be read as generally protecting citizens from unreasonable government intrusion into their private lives.

This argument reminds me of Jesus’s reported arguments with the Pharisees [Matthew 12]. The Pharisees accused Jesus of “working” on the Sabbath, which was against the law, because it was the Sabbath and he was busy healing people. Jesus reportedly replied that “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” In my opinion, Jesus was being a purposivist.

"Snowflake" to the Dems in Congress

2009-07-30T18:32:00.002-04:00

When you are bargaining with Republicans, remember that Rush Limbaugh controls them, and he wants you to fail.

[for explanation of "snowflakes" go here]

Non-Violent Means to Democracy: Gene Sharp

2009-06-27T20:11:00.002-04:00

It is not easy to achieve democracy. It is also a struggle at times to maintain one. Here in the USA, we are fortunate that the authoritarian political party, the Republican Party, lies in defeat, a victim of its own irrational and destructive policies. Other countries are not so fortunate. In some countries our democratic brothers and sisters risk their lives and livelihoods to achieve the dream.

A recent news item concerning the post-election protests in Iran mentioned that democratic protesters in several authoritarian countries have relied upon a book by an American social theorist, Gene Sharp, titled From Freedom to Democracy. You can obtain a free copy here.

The underlying idea is a corollary to what I wrote in an earlier post, The Social Cooperative. Since the social group is essentially a cooperative, it relies upon cooperation to function. If the members wish to disrupt it, one thing they can do is stop cooperating!

In his book, Gene Sharp thoughtfully discusses and weighs various strategies and tactics a democratic movement can use to terminate social cooperation with authoritarian management and achieve full democracy. I think one important point was to de-legitimize the regime, by identifying and attacking its “Achille’s Heel.” I would ask, “What do they say is their reason for leading?” They are probably failing at whatever they claim is the basis for their legitimacy. Point that out to everyone, all the time, by all the means available to you. For example, is the Chinese Communist Party truly protecting China’s working class, given its lax pollution and manufacturing standards? Are the ayatollahs in Iran truly upholding Islamic ideals, or just their personal power? What good are the generals of Myanmar?

Of course, members of the national military establishment play perhaps the most decisive role. I would think that members of that establishment would have to be at least sympathetic to the democratic movement for the democratic movement to succeed.

But I will give the final word to Lech Walesa, leader of the successful Solidarity movement of Poland:
"Lead your struggle in a wise way but do not hit your heads against the wall...If not this time, you will win next time."

World Democracy: Tocqueville

2009-06-20T11:06:00.002-04:00

Events in China, Iran and Myanmar remind us that the will to democracy is alive around the world. It does not need the support of American weapons. It needs the support of the people living under those authoritarian regimes. That support is growing, as the people come to see that authoritarian governments are not ultimately concerned about the general welfare of the people. The allegiance of an authoritarian government is to individuals, dogma or tradition. To protect these things, authoritarian governments set aside the needs and aspirations of their people.

This state of affairs cannot last. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that:

“Variety is disappearing from the human race; the same ways of acting, thinking, and feeling are to be met with all over the world. This is not only because nations work more upon each other, and are more faithful in their mutual imitation; but as the men of each country relinquish more and more the peculiar opinions and feelings of a caste, a profession, or a family, they simultaneously arrive at something nearer to the constitution of man, which is everywhere the same. Thus they become more alike, even without having imitated each other. Like travelers scattered about some large wood, which is intersected by paths converging to one point, if all of them keep their eyes fixed upon that point and advance towards it, they insensibly draw nearer together--though they seek not, though they see not, though they know not each other; and they will be surprised at length to find themselves all collected on the same spot. All the nations which take, not any particular man, but man himself, as the object of their researches and their imitations, are tending in the end to a similar state of society, like these travelers converging to the central plot of the forest.” [Democracy in America, Volume II, Part III, Ch.17]

“The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal; but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or to wretchedness.” [Democracy in America, Volume II, Part IV, Ch. 8]

May the party officials in China apprehend that “democratic centralism” is not democratic.

May the clerics in Iran apprehend that it does not help their religion or their government to insist that their religion and government be combined. [May our Republican leaders in the U.S. apprehend this, too!]

May the generals in Myanmar apprehend that their authoritarian control of the nation is harming the welfare of their people, and the Law of Karma applies. Free Aung San Suu Kyi and all of the people of Myanmar!

Open for Three Years!

2009-06-12T18:05:00.004-04:00

Dear Reader,

Jefferson’s Parlor is now three years old. Like a child, it continues to change and evolve. In 2006 and 2007 I laid out what I believed to be the foundations of democratic political philosophy, citing works by philosophers I considered most relevant. My blog posts in 2008 often concerned the election that year, but I also wrote about common issues faced by democracies. This year my posts have been more current and topical, and I have enjoyed writing them just as much.

In honor of the occasion, I will have this kitten sing “Happy Birthday!” to Jefferson’s Parlor. The kitten will conclude with remarks in a language other than English, possibly Chinese, and hopefully not offensive!

Why not Include a Public Health Insurance Option?

2009-06-07T22:28:00.004-04:00

As I noted in a previous post, our national Constitution itself declares that one purpose of our union is "to promote the general welfare."

In that regard, our national experience has shown that:
1. We cannot rely entirely on the private sector to insure our access to health care. There are many Americans who are being deprived of health care insurance by the private system.
2. Several forms of optional public health insurance have functioned for decades and remain popular, such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Veteran’s Administration.

I am therefore in favor of having some form of universal public health insurance available in our national health care system. I think it would be easiest to expand the Medicare option to include anyone who wants it, but perhaps experience and investigation indicate that another way is likely to be more effective.

To those who are opposed to having any public health insurance option, I would ask, “What is your opposition based on?” If it is based simply on anti-government dogma, your opposition represents a refusal to consider options, facts and experience, and it is unworthy of consideration in the real world. There are simply too many lives at stake.

Don't Give Up the Fight!

2009-06-03T18:18:00.008-04:00

Get up. Stand up. Stand up for your right!

[AP Photo/Jeff Widener]

Bleeding Kansas

2009-06-01T20:12:00.003-04:00

About 150 years ago, the topic dividing our country and inspiring violence in Kansas was the question of whether the State would enforce ownership of the bodies of Africans for the purpose of agriculture.

Now the topic dividing our country and inspiring violence in Kansas is the question of whether the State will enforce ownership of the bodies of women for the purpose of child-bearing.

Taliban Drug Lords

2009-05-24T20:12:00.003-04:00

From AFP:

“Afghan and international officials say the Taliban earn millions of dollars a year from the drugs trade, including by charging poppy farmers a tax and for protecting poppy fields and trafficking routes from the authorities.”

If I recall correctly, Mohammed prohibited drinking alcohol. I can’t believe he nevertheless encouraged his followers to produce and distribute narcotics. But the Taliban claim to be Islamic scholars, and I am not. They also claim to uphold Islamic morality. Music is bad, but drug trafficking is good?

Parlor Wit

2009-05-22T18:37:00.004-04:00

THE REPUBLICAN MARCH TOWARDS FEUDALISM

[Apologies to Gustave Doré]

Parlor Music

2009-05-17T19:09:00.004-04:00

Relating to my post below:

"Atomic Heels," by The Secret Machines -

You say, “Let them go on fighting, I guess, as long as there’s some place left to visit.”

Why we go on, fighting like this, when we say, “Maybe it’s time we try something else?”

[I found this while sampling clips of artists playing songs by the Beatles. The Secret Machines, joined by Bono, do a good job on "I am the Walrus." Dana Fuchs does a really raw "Helter Skelter!" She sounds a lot like Janis Joplin.]

UPDATE: Here are some more clips I like from the Secret Machines
Now You're Gone
The Last Believer
Under The Concrete

Thoughts for Peace in Palestine

2009-05-09T15:17:00.003-04:00

The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has deep roots. Each side believes their position to be just, and previous attempts to resolve the conflict have failed. Always present are feelings of mistrust, and a reluctance to yield territory to the other side, because this is territory which both sides have possessed, at one time or another. Every incident of violence by the other side reinforces the mistrust and reluctance, and the violence continues to occur from time to time. But every pause in violence renews the desire on both sides for a resolution of the conflict. Indeed, if the conflict has lasted for over 60 years, it should be apparent to both parties that the status quo is not to the benefit of either side.

According to the Times Online, President Obama is renewing the push for peace between them:

“Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect. Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party. The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.”

I offer these thoughts in support of this effort:

For the sake of peace, both sides must set aside the idea of “Total Ownership” of the territory. There are factions on both sides who believe that they have a right by birth to possess the entirety of Palestine and Jerusalem. It should be clear, after 60 years of armed conflict, that this notion is devoid of possibility and meaning. Continued assertions of total ownership will only lead to continued destruction and mutual suffering. The only solution is a division of the territory, and Jerusalem, between them.

For the sake of peace, both sides must set aside the idea of their “Right of Return”. Palestinians have often demanded the right to return to their former properties inside Israel as a condition for peace. That alarms the Israelis, who fear that a large increase in the non-Jewish population of their country would mean the end of their Jewish state. At the same time, there are Israelis who insist that they have a right to return to the land they say their God gave them, and to that end they establish settlements outside the borders of Israel. That provokes the Palestinians whose land they are essentially seizing.

It is shared sacrifice that leads to shared benefits. For the purpose of achieving peace, it must be understood that neither side is “surrendering” to the other side. It must be seen that both sides are accepting certain costs in exchange for the benefits of peace. For example, the Israelis would not be simply “offering land for peace” with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians would not be simply giving away their inheritance to the Israelis. Instead, both the Israelis and the Palestinians would be mutually sacrificing certain perceived claims for the prospect of mutual rewards.

To wait for the end of violence is to wait forever. There will always be incidents of violence in the Middle East, just as there are incidents of violence in most of the other regions of the world! If Netanyahu wants to see a perfect calm before he will negotiate the terms of peace, he will never achieve peace. He is making peace a pre-condition for peace.

Remember “Private Investment Accounts”?

2009-04-10T22:36:00.006-04:00

It was only four years ago that George W. Bush was traveling around the United States promoting the idea of partially privatizing Social Security. Yes, in April 2005, W showed us a government filing cabinet and proclaimed,

“The retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It’s time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control that you call your own — assets that the government can’t take away.”

What did he mean by that? On April 29, 2005, he gave more details of his vision:

“I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers will have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.”

So the plan was that younger workers would take some of their Social Security fund deposit and put it instead into some personal financial account, like stocks or bonds, to prepare for their retirement. What would that mean when they retire? Their Social Security checks would be reduced, “because it is expected that some of their retirement income would come from these funds.”

I mention this because the first year for participation was supposed to be 2009, when workers born between 1950 and 1965 could open their private investment accounts. So, how is the stock market today? Don’t you wish you could bet your retirement on it?

Personally, I think we avoided having yet another W disaster. W neglected to mention that it was also possible, under his plan, that future retirees would receive a lower rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.

[By the way, John McCain liked W’s plan, too. He even had a “little straight talk” for the AARP about their opposition to it.] Alex Budarin

Parlor Wit

2009-04-08T20:24:00.002-04:00

Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber

Saturday Night Live, Season 3: Episode 18

A woman brings her sick daughter to Theodoric the Barber for medical treatment. Theodoric tells the woman,

"You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach."

The daughter dies, and her mother calls Theodoric a charlatan. Theodoric considers this:

"Wait a minute. Perhaps she's right. Perhaps I've been wrong to blindly follow the medical traditions and superstitions of past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test these assumptions analytically, through experimentation and a "scientific method". Maybe this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning: the natural sciences, art, architecture, navigation. Perhaps I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth, a Renaissance!...Naaaaaahhh!"

Next: Newt of Georgia, Medieval Prince

The President as Physician

2009-04-04T10:46:00.004-04:00

Back when George W. Bush was President, it seemed to me that his Christian fundamentalist supporters wanted and expected him to act like a “Pastor-in-Chief,” someone who spoke for and enforced the country’s “traditional” religious standards.

I objected to that conception of the Presidency. First, why would anyone look to a politician for spiritual leadership? Second, I hate the stench of theocracy.

I didn’t think again about the metaphorical role of the President until I read the following comment concerning President Obama’s approach to governance:

“While acknowledging public outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid by a financial firm that just months earlier had turned to taxpayers for aid, the administration's economic advisers said President Barack Obama wouldn't ‘govern out of anger’."

What a beautiful expression of wisdom and maturity! What a difference from the Republican philosophy of government! Indeed, anger is not helpful in solving problems. It is a hindrance. A President should not govern on the basis of emotional reactions. A President should govern on the basis of knowledge, reasoning and counsel.

As I thought about it more, I realized that my ideal for the role of a democratic leader would be that of a “Physician-in-Chief.” Ideally, like a good doctor, a democratic leader would:
• use all currently available resources to assess a problem;
• consider the problem based on the latest knowledge and from a variety of perspectives;
• consult with peers and specialists regarding the problem and possible responses;
• evaluate the possible responses without ego, emotionalism, or presumption;
• apply responses on a case-by-case basis; and
• favor the least destructive response whenever possible.

I am happy to see that this is President Obama’s ideal, as well. I do not want my President, or my doctor, to take actions based on selective information-gathering, dogmatism, prejudice, or emotionalism. Only Republicans can look at Bush’s mess and fail to see the lesson.

Mr. Republican's Political Philosophy

2009-03-03T18:30:00.009-05:00

The core principle of the Republican Party
comes from the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States,

in order to form a more perfect union,

do ordain that every man is for himself."

Actually, one stated purpose of the Constitution is "to promote the general welfare," i.e., to promote the general well-being of US citizens. Alex Budarin

Mr. Republican & The Ideal Government

2009-02-28T13:31:00.003-05:00

I want a Government that is
Small, Cheap, Fights a lot of Wars,
and Gets into Our Private Lives!

Mr. Republican & Social Philosophy

2009-02-27T10:18:00.005-05:00

My favorite philosopher is Jesus, who said:
“Love thy neighbor,
if thy neighbor is a heterosexual, conservative, self-sufficient, English-speaking Christian,
like yourself.”

Mr. Republican & The Stimulus Plan

2009-02-24T18:25:00.004-05:00

Screw the Unemployed,

my Stocks need a Tax Cut!

Mister Republican & Universal Health Care

2009-02-23T20:33:00.011-05:00

If you can't afford health care,
then you don't deserve it!

**Jefferson's Parlor**

Newt Lectures Romney on Ethical Conduct

The Masses Will Not be Managed 大量不會被處理

President Assad الرئيس الأسد

Gotta Walk the Talk

Разделенное Россия

Democratic Philosophy, Out Loud and Proud

The Virtue of Compassionate Government

Cut and Hoard Republicans

Political Labels

When Compromise Becomes Appeasement

A Suggested Presidential Speech

The Prez Speaks His Mind

Class Payoff Doesn't Create Jobs, Either

President Obama: Declare a War on Unemployment

Saudi Women Defy Driving Ban

The "Just" Society for Republicans

It’s not Welfare, It’s Production Demand Subsidy

A Progressive Anthem

Thank you, Mr. President

The Violation of (Political) Expectations...

Abolish At-Will Employment

Thug Government

Rules of the Road

Uncle Sellout

The Middle is Muddled

America Held Hostage: Day 10 Update

America Held Hostage: Day 10

America Held Hostage: Day 9

I Help Pay Your Mortgage

The Market is Not God

Consumers - Even Poor Ones - Give Us Jobs

We Can Do More

Ni Marco, Ni Rubio, Ni Correcto

Not Going Back

A Butterfly for Progress

Promote the General Welfare!

Contra Christian Nationalism

The Little Teabag Realty Company

A Republic AND a Democracy!

Deep Thought

The Philosophers' World Cup

The Reasons for Jefferson’s Parlor

The Texas Board of Catechism

Parlor Wit

The Mother of All Commencement Addresses

It’s Not in the Constitution!

Tea Party Fear Factor

Drill, Baby, Drill!

What Has Obama Done?

Colorado Springs, Teabagger Paradise

Thank You, Barack Obama

Progressivism is International

Observations of a Townhall Tea Party

Coming Soon to an Airport Near You!

Scott Brown DOES NOT CARE

Parlor Wit

Kudos to Sanders, Clyburn and Wyden!

Deficit Spending

Another Basis for a Public Option

Parlor Wit

Integrationism

How Does Private Health Insurance Work?

Parlor Wit

Back to the Capitalist Utopia!

The Progressivati

Thank You, Harry Reid,

3 Things I Learned from Buddhism

Parlor Wit

Saluting Our Veterans

Thank You Nancy Pelosi

Five Years Ago

The Beatitudes, Conservative Revised Version

The Need for Political Philosophy: Hobhouse

The Best Message: Universality of Benefits

Parlor Wit

Status Orientation, Conservative v. Liberal

Snowflake to the D's in Congress

"Snowflake" to the President

Republicans Behaving Badly

Jefferson's Parlor