Thursday, March 03, 2005
Now, it should come as no surprise that I dislike Ann Coulter. She a babbling psychopath, whose "contribution" to political discourse is nothing more than insults and semi-coherent rants. She does it so much, in fact, you have to wonder if she's a little...touched.
Well, here is a theory from a poster on another website. And while I can't vouch for his last statement, the rest of it is all true and would explain a lot.
She's also been on the payroll of the Scaife family since her college days (starting the Scaife-funded right-wing "Cornell Review" paper while attending Cornell University). She even was Paula Jones lawyer early on, and once said, "We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the president." She later admitted to leaking information in the case in order to smear Bill Clinton.
This is a woman who rails against Democrats for being lawyers, yet she is one herself. She rails against Democrats for being elitist and wealthy, when she grew up a wealthy daughter of a prominent attorney in Connecticut. She attacks the left for being traitors because they would not give Bush their full support, yet in her own words, she tried to bring down Clinton's Presidency. She criticizes the left for slander and lying, then does it herself constantly. She attacks the left for violating the 10 Commandments, then runs off and has countless sexual relationships out of wedlock, and was even rumored to have had a long affair with Penthouse's Bob Guccione.
Now I don't know about the Guccione thing (I have heard it rumored). And I thought Bill Clinton did deserve to be punished (He lied to a grand jury). But this post is dead on. To hear a lawyer who grew up in New Cannan, CT and attended Cornell to denegrate the "elite" is a joke. Ann's head must be ready to explode from all the hypocrisy and contradiction in that empty melon of hers.
What cracks me up is how she calls the Democrats the party of "lying, adultery, killing" etc.
- And yet she says nothing about the lack of WMD in Iraq, which was the REAL reason we started the war. Bush didn't give two figs for Iraqi freedom until it became blindingly clear that the original rationale for war was shot to hell. Bush et al claimed they KNEW the weapons were there, that Iraqi nucleat capability was inevitable. Obviously, there was a misprint in the text and someone added a "q" instead of a "n". But it was a lie. So where's Ann?
- Bill Clinton was (is?) an adulterer. But so was Henry Hyde. And Mike Bowers. Bob Dornan. Guy Milner. Rush Limbaugh. Mike Deaver. Dan Burton. Bob Barr. Bob Livingston. And so on and so forth. In other words, REPUBLICANS CAN BE ADULTERER SLIME AS WELL!! But in Ann's World (blinders mandatory), they are all goodness and light, leading clean and healthy lives. Puke. It was hypocrisy like this that made me leave the GOP. That and the theo-cons.
- Killing...killing. Oh, she must mean abortion. Ya. Never mind that woman's right to choose thing. Or that 1/100th on one percent of abortions are the PDA version. Or that those occur mainly because of massive defects in the fetus that would result in a short, pain-filled life if it was delivered. Let's ignore all that. That and the hundreds of people dying a month in Iraq from terrorist attacks that could have been prevented had Bush executed this war with one freaking ounce of skill. Cause there's good killing and bad killing in Coulter Country!
How this misanthropic bitch became a mouthpiece for a major political party is beyond me. But she is a walking embarrassment, the epitome of every caricature that cafe-dwelling Europeans slap us with. The day she vanishes from the face of the worldwide media will be one day too late. Good riddance.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
I am sure you all know that arguments were heard today by the Supreme Court over the Ten Commandments being prominently displayed in a public courthouse. This stems from two years ago when Roy Moore had one in the Alabama state courthouse, which was subsequently removed.
The argument in favor is this: America's legal and moral heritage stem from the Ten Commandments. Of course they should be there.
The argument against: The Constitution separates Church and State. The Ten Commandments are a overtly religious symbol and should be removed from any public setting.
Who's right? I side with those who want it removed, but with reservations, which I will explain.
The overwhelming argument against it being displayed is that it is being defined as THE source of our legal code. In doing that, you do blur the line between Church and State. You make a religious code the foundation of the State
And that assumption is incorrect. Our legal heritage is the English Common Law. And that derived from multiple sources: Danes, Saxons, Normans, Romans...it's a long list, people. And all those codes had penalties for theft, murder and the like. We didn't need the 10 Commandments to figure that out.
So, for Roy Moore to border on idolatry with his Decalogue statue was just absurd. And if the 10 Commandments are being held up as the sole source, then it should be removed.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be displayed at all. It is a historical legal code, one that deserves recognition. And, when placed in that secular context, it should be allowed to be displayed. The Supreme Court frieze has this setup. On it you see Moses and the Decalogue, along with Hammurabi (Hammurabi's Code), Napoleon (Roman Law) and others. That is a perfectly acceptable way to show it.
What I worry about is a broad ruling that will either ban or allow religion in the public sphere.
The guiding precept should be intent. There is obvious intent on the part of Moore and his supporters to raise up Christianity as the dominant faith in the way they venerate and present the Decalogue. But should "under God" be stripped from the Pledge? Or "in God we Trust" struck from our coinage? No. Those statements are not endorsements, but historical markers. Besides, they don't say which "god."
Should Handel's "Messiah" be banned from public school concerts? I should hope not!! Yes, the music professes a religious belief. But it's a work of art with historical context. Any school chorus performing it is obviously not pushing a certain faith.
And by the same token, we must endeavor to make sure those who worship a non-Christian faith (or none at all) are not confronted in the public sphere with religious displays that promote Christianity as inevitably entwined with government.
The ruling comes in June.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Over at Slate is a wonderful look at the slag-heap that is WalMart.
Yes, they provide low prices. Yes, they have a wide selection. But, they also pay over half their employees poverty wages. Which means they can't afford even the low-level health care packages. It also means they can only afford to shop at...that's right; WalMart.
I covered this a while back when I was bemoaning the fact that 2004 would mark the first year that the percentage of workers employed by small businesses in the United State would drop to 50% or fall below that mark. And how critical that statistic was: From my post (and I have made new comments at the end in italics):
The Republican Party has reduced dividend taxes and the upper income tax bracket. The former benefits the large corporations who senior leadership holds large amounts of the company's stock. The latter benefits the top 5% of taxpayers in the economic food chain. It would also benefit small business owners, who are commonly taxed at individual rates as opposed to corporate rates. Except, that as individuals they become subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which has yet to be addressed by Congress or the White House. This regressive piece of 70s legislation effectively boosts the small business owner's taxes much higher, which is a major impediment to growth. Meanwhile the large corporation makes more money on the lower taxes, and apparently they are pocketing the cash since unemployment has risen steadily since Bush took office. (this has now abated somewhat - Teddy)
The Democrats are no better. They have relentlessly battered small business owners with minimum wage increases and tax increases. Minimum wage increases sound good, but are ultimately damaging to both the small business owner and the worker. The owner is suddenly forced to come up with possibly tens of thousands of dollars in increased wages. Where is that supposed to come from? Well, he can either increase the price of his product or he can lay off some employees to pay the rest. The first choice can result in lower sales and increased financial pressure, the second increases unemployment and forces the remaining workers to do more work to maintain sales income. And tax increases, like the AMT, unfairly target small business owners since they pay the high-end individual rate while corporations pay the lower business-tax rate. Small business owners pay the 35% tax rate on every dollar earned after $311,950. Corporations don't pay the 35% tax rate until they hit $10,000,000. Increasing the personal tax rate hammers small business but leaves the corporations in the clear. (The minimum wage may not be that damaging to larger corporations, as new studies have shown. But the effect would be felt more in a small business - Teddy)
The result is that the small business owner is attacked from both ends of the political spectrum. Add in the spiraling costs of both health and liability insurance (thanks to a lack of tort reform and frivolous lawsuits), and it is small wonder that small business owners are on the decline. (Also, it's become obvious that doctors pushing expensive drugs, a lack of consumer education and patent laws being skewed in favor of corporations to make more profit have also pushed health care costs spiraling upwards. - Teddy)
Which suits both parties just fine. The GOP's natural allies are big business. The more people that are employed by corporations, the more people that have an interest in corporations doing well. Democrats’ top allies are the trade unions and public sector services. There is little unionism in real estate, finance, professional services and other areas where small business dominate. Hence, the Democrats have little interest. As a bonus, if the shutting down of small business creates unemployment, then the Democrats can promise those people government assistance and try to tie them to the party in that fashion. People vote their pocketbook, regardless of whether it's a corporate paycheck or government largess that is filling it. (I still think this is true - Teddy)
All this creates an environment that allows the Wal-Marts of the world to dominate. They move in and aggressively cut their prices, knowing they can make up the loss at their other stores. The small business owners, already hemmed in by spiraling insurance costs and wage increases, begin to lose business. They can't raise prices to make up the loss in sales. Eventually, they close down. Now there are maybe 100 or so people out of work. But hey, the new Wal-Mart needs people. So these people - who were probably making $10 an hour at least - are now making between $6.25 and $8.00. If they're lucky, they can work hard and move up to $9.15 an hour after a couple of years. But Wal-Mart is a corporation that has to answer to stockholders. It has a corporate policy for each store of limiting wages to a hard percentage of sales. So when the cashiers start making $10 an hour after all that hard work, they get dumped and new trainees come in at the $6.25 level again. (Sadly, this is still true - Teddy)
As the Slate piece shows, the median wage is $8.50, slightly higher than I guessed, but not by much. And since that is the median wage, it means that half the workers make less than $14,000 per year. And that's if they work 40 hours. Which they may not at WalMart, since they define "full employment" as 34 hours per week.
Funny. The French introduce the 35-hour work week to disguise their rampant unemployment and we call it foolish (which it is). But WalMart introduces an even stupider definition of full employment, and it's hailed as a business model?? C'mon! It's horrible!
How can we say that things are good when WalMart moves into rural and suburban communities and wipes out the local merchants through undercutting costs further than the small businesses can? Then, when those people are working at WalMart making 5.25 an hour, well below the poverty line, not only can they NOT afford the health-care packages WalMart makes available, but they can afford to shop at only one place - WalMart! So the company gets a good hunk of that $5.25 an hour back in the form of sales.
And then there is the aesthetics of WalMart. There is no more soul-crushing, life-sucking store in existence. The harsh lighting. The masses of numbed people milling throughout the store. The underage mothers working the cash register for the pittance that WalMart pays. It makes you depressed as Hell.
This is not to say that corporations are bad. I have said it before; they enable use to enjoy a better lifestyle through economies of scale. What I have a problem with are corporations who blatantly abuse their workforce and damage the surrounding community. And WalMart is the biggest offender.
So what can you do to fight this? Well, I do what I can to buy my goods from local merchants or larger chains that are located in-state. Here in Maine we have a supermarket chain called Hannaford's. I try to shop there, knowing I pay a certain premium over WalMart prices. And if I have to shop at a large conglomerate, I don't choose WalMart, but a more responsible company. I buy my books at local bookstores or Borders. I buy my DVDs from Borders as well.
And that is the way to fight it. Keep other people employed at better jobs by spending a little more out of pocket. Otherwise, the future is this:
Small business flounders and dies while both parties court their own special groups and mass-retailers fill the employment void creating wage slaves who earn just enough to buy the company's own products. Not exactly what I would call the American dream.