The goals of Occupy

I don't remember where I got this list.

Funny, I didn't realize that anarchists could be so, um, organized.

1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform--eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

My response to Mr. Lourie

His letter is here. My original editorial is here.
--------------

Mr. Lourie,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my column. I read your letter with interest. You know, as I re-read your letter, it became clear that you seem to be responding to someone else’s column, not mine. You make statements about things I never wrote about. Examples:

1) “…which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly.”
2) “His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong.”
3) “Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant.”
4) “Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication.”
5) “Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie.”
6) “Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. [Rich] and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change. “

Well, that’s interesting. After eliminating the things I did not write about, there is very little left of your letter. Although I would be happy to discuss those things with you, I don't feel compelled to defend positions I never took.

But, I will address those things that are related to my column:

1) Regarding the lack of a surplus during the 1990s, you may look for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm . This is the government’s own website. Clearly the national debt increased all through the 1990s. Therefore, I did not lie.

2) Ok, so there is no #2. So I guess if you have additional commentary regarding what I actually wrote, I would be interested to read it.

Thanks,

Rich

Dan Lourie's criticism of my editorial

This is a letter to the editor from Dan Lourie, responding to my editorial.

The reactionary right-wing ideology of Rich, as shown in his recent op-ed, is insidious, amoral, dishonest and ignorant of history. It shows not a glimmer of the American experiment in a democracy which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly. His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong. Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant. They are lies and should be challenged.

Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication. Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie. President Reagan had to raise taxes eleven times to keep his “trickle down” fantasy from bankrupting the nation. The first seven years of the GW Bush presidency increased the deficit by almost twice as much as the 32 years from JFK through GHW Bush combined.

Fact: Clinton’s administration bequeathed to President Bush a $236 billion surplus, a 10-year surplus forecast of $5.6 trillion. Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. Rich and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change.

Claiming that “conservatives have opposed deficit spending” after witnessing eight years of Bush profligacy is absolute hypocrisy. Fact: the first two fiscal years of the Obama presidency have seen unprecedented deficit decreases.

I encourage readers to turn off the right-wing Fox News lie machine and seek the truth.

I sent him an email, saying "Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Perhaps you could indentify two or three lies I made." No response as of yet. My response is here.

Uganda's LRA atrocities - FB Conversation

A friend posted a video regarding the ongoing problems in Uganda.

"...President Obama that 100 U.S. advisory troops have been deployed to Central Africa to help combat the LRA and remove Joseph Kony from the battlefield..."

E.J.: The LRA needs to be stopped.

Me: they need to be stopped, but why the US government?

E.J.: Why not the US government? I am not sure why you would not want to see this man stopped at any cost...

Me: Well, would you support the idea of a foreign power landing a strike team in D.C. to take out Obama?

C.H.: Obama and Joseph Kony are very different. If Obama was kidnapping children, and turning the girls into sex slaves and the boys into soldiers who are forced to kill their families, then yes, I would want to see that happen. The things that Kony has done are down right evil.

C.H.: Plus, the country of Uganda has been asking for help with this for years. We are not talking about political figures. They are there to help stop a rebel army.

Me: So you would support a foreign strike team if Obama was evil enough?

C.H.: If he had been terrorizing us for decades, commiting war crimes against the citizens of our country, and was fighting against our own military, then yes. Truly, it's an absurd argument, because like I said, there is no comparison between Obama and Kony. Obama is an elected official, who is doing the job he was brought into office for. Kony is a war criminal that the country of Uganda has been trying to stop for over twenty years. And, we aren't just going in there on our own as some foreign strike team. The Ugandan government asked for our assistance. And, just this last year, a petition went around the US asking our government to give Uganda the aid they needed in this matter. So, this has been supported by citizens of both countries.

C.H.: And, it's not a matter of revenge. Trust me, if there was a better solution, I would be happy for it. But the LRA has to be stopped. An entire generation in parts of Africa has grown up living in fear of their brutality.

Me: Judging by your response, you are hardly in a position to judge absurdity. You just told me that you support the idea of a foreign force assassinating an American president on our soil.

I don't trust you, I don't know you. But I am absolutely sure that there is a better solution than to put Americans into a fight that isn't ours, fighting an intractable problem.

C.H.: Wow, that is not what I meant at all. I am sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to show a scenario that would make it possible to compare the two. That is why I said it was absurd. Because you can't really compare the two. I was just referring to the fact that Obama is our president, and Kony is not an elected official. Obama could not actually do the things I said and still be president. I definitely do not want to see any harm come to our president.

You have every right to feel that way about the soldiers being there. If you have a better solution, I would honestly love to hear it. This atrocity has been going on for decades, and it has to stop somehow.

If it makes you feel any better, the one-hundred soldiers who were put on the ground are supposed to be there in an advisory capacity, not to actually fight. I hope that really is the case. I don't want to see any of our soldiers put in harms way if they don't have to be.

Me: This is the problem. It all depends on what kind of scenario we speculate upon. Obama himself is not the subject, he is simply a convenient Important American Figure. Insert your own character in the scenario and ask if it would be appropriate or desirable for a foreign force, even one invited by our authorities, to come and kill that person? For example, would it be desirable to invite the Russians to come in and kill Jeffrey Dahmer, or the masterminds of the WTC attack?

The point is, when the scenario playing out in Uganda is compared to a similar situation in the US, suddenly it doesn't seem so agreeable, does it?

We sent advisors to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. We have a demonstrated history of intervening in the affairs of other nations with uniformly disasterous results. We always have a noble cause as an excuse. There is always some atrocity or evil tyrant to stop. What makes you think that the US will limit its involvement to these 100 "advisors?" What makes you think that we will be able fix a situation that has been going on for decades?

My solution is that the US government should mind its own business and stay out of the affairs of other nations.

C.H.: I absolutely agree that we can't be policing the world. Personally, I think it is right to step in and help in a limited capacity if our allies ask for it, but that is just my opinion. There really is nothing in our country that can compare to what the LRA has done and is doing, and I would like to think that if there was, that our allies would help us when asked.

Name calling for me but not thee - FB conversation

Dennis Prager wrote an interesting article that made a few assertions about atheists: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=359933&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150504192403776_22450260_10150504899303776&ref=notif¬if_t=open_graph_comment

Someone made this comment:

"More straw men. Liberals are not necessarily atheists,nor are they in any way "anti-family" ,nor do they think that there is no such thing as right and wrong and that anything should be permissible ,etc.

But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious. They think that they and they alone will go to "heaven" and that all those who do not share their rigid and irrational beliefs are doomed to "hell". Their bigotry toward gay people is despicable.
Their relentless Bible-thumping and arrogance is disgusting."

I replied, quoting him: 'But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious.'

Um, straw man, meet irony.

He replied: SOME liberals and some Christians and some of anything are DISGUSTING...that's not the point.

My rejoinder: 'Tend to be' has now become 'some.' Feel free to backtrack as far as you like.

So, do you HAVE a point besides engaging in the same gratuitous stereotyping that so offends you?

And he responds: Wait a minute, LIBERALS aren't nec anything except, probably GOOD things, and CAN lie, cheat and steal in the name of the CAUSE.

And then this: When neither side is perfect, I can still chose which one is less dangerous.

Me: "Tend to be." "Some." And now, "neither side is perfect." Let's keep those goal posts moving...

Editorial, Baucus on the deficits

Senator Baucus recently sent out an email touting his appointment to what he called the “debt reduction committee,” officially known as “Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.” Here are some excerpts: "…I'm working with my colleagues to come up with a plan to cut our nation's debt." 

Excellent. It’s an issue conservatives have been hammering for decades. But let’s define some terms. The deficit is the yearly budget shortfall, while the national debt is the total of all deficits. Senator Baucus, as you will see, conflates the two. His email included a deficit projection, which shows an immediate large reduction in the deficit, then continuing smaller deficits over the next 10 years. He explains: "...we've already taken major steps out of [the recent large deficits]… the leveling out we see over the next ten years is because of the Budget Control Act we passed in July." 

The Senator is certainly proud of that budget deal, but it was vociferously opposed by the political left, accompanied by their routinely hyperbolic rhetoric about children starving and people dying. I suppose it’s racist and homophobic as well. And lest we forget, conservatives and the TEA party also opposed the deal because it continues to furiously add to the national debt. By the Senator's own admission, there will be deficits for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, these continuing deficits mean the national debt will INCREASE. 

Deficits must be eliminated and a surplus achieved to reduce the debt. Remember, that is his stated goal. "...the 90's we were a time of surplus. Our budget was balanced with money to spare. And we were not adding to the total debt." This persistent myth about the Clinton “surplus” is contradicted by the government's own website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm. A quick review reveals the national debt increased all through the 90s. 

Fewer bank choices - FB conversation

S.B. posted a link to this chart:



S.B.: interesting graphic showing the concentration of financial power into fewer and fewer banks. Certainly THIS can't be good for innovation in the economy or even just the financial sector?

J.L.: ‎*yoink* I knew cats were evil

B.R.: Excellent graphic, it really adds perspective to the argument for deregulating the financial sector. If competition inspires innovation, it's probably best having those four entities as the only ones competing, they have a proven track record of putting American's best interests first. Let's fix this economy with new jobs! More jobs! More money! Buy stuff you can't afford! Hurray for usur...I mean credit!

L.B.: Two words: credit union.

Me: Hmmm, I wonder how many of these got bailed out...

Me: By the way, Travelers is no longer a part of CITI group, been that way for years.

R.B.: Granted I think this source is kind of dated, the following biggest banks from here were bailed out:

Citi Bank - $25 bil
Wells Fargo - $25 bil
JP Morgan - 25 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Bank of America - $15 bil (has since paid back the loan)

Me: So we can conclude, then, that these four banks are hand-picked by the government?

P.H.:handpicked by the government? Uh, yeah...NO. Not even close.

Me: What else is a bailout? Some institutions are deemed worthy of government largess, others not. And now we are left with the four winners picked by government, enhanced at taxpayer expense, which are now poised to really begin taking advantage of us.

By the way, do you have anything like a rebuttal available? Or is it capitalism's fault somehow? Your rudimentary denial brings no value to the conversation.

P.H.: Neither are your comments

Me: No one asked you to read them. Typical leftist.

P.H.: You're right! (Yawn) time to turn the channel...

My final score

As I mentioned before, I intentionally failed every question. They still want me to have the sticker and be a good little scientist. No thanks.

So I took the quiz.

This is the first page of the 5 question quiz. Seems geared to children, or perhaps limited IQ adults.

I took the quiz and purposely tried to get every one wrong in order to see the responses. It is formatted as a series of quotes and responses:

Quote #1 "If you have one volcano in the world, that one volcano puts out more carbon dioxide than everything that man puts out. I don't think [global warming is] a farce, but I think temperatures go up and I think temperatures go down."

Nope, that's not science!

That was three-time U.S. senate candidate John Raese from West Virginia incorrectly asserting that volcanoes today produce more carbon dioxide than humans. When you compare natural factors that affect the climate — such as solar variation and volcanic eruptions — with human activities that affect the climate, scientists have found time and again that humans have been a major contributor to climate change over the last 50 years. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey found that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were less than 1 percent when compared to the global emissions released from the burning of fossil fuels.

Quote #2 "I'm not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring."

Unfortunately, it's true.

This was Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, confirming that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity. He went on to add "If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we'd listen to them."

Quote #3 "This year, we witnessed weather disaster after weather disaster. There have been massive floods, fire, droughts, and heat waves. Yet earlier this year the House passed a bill that repealed EPA's scientific finding that climate change is occurring."

Unfortunately, it's true.

That was Representative Henry Waxman from California, commenting on the number of extreme weather events we've seen recently across the United States. Powerful rain and snow storms and intense drought periods are well-documented consequence of a global warming.

Quote #4 "The EPA has been implementing regulations to force utilities to reduce emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and mercury even though the current emissions are not causing air-quality or public-health problems anywhere in America."

Nope, that's not science.

That was Steven Milloy, Fox News commentator and founder of the website junkscience.com, incorrectly stating in an op-ed in the Washington Times that there have been no health impacts from global warming emissions. In fact, recent Union of Concerned Scientists analysis shows that global warming threatens public health and raises health care costs by increasing ground-level ozone — the primary component of smog, which can exacerbate lung diseases such as asthma and cause breathing difficulties even in healthy individuals.

Quote #5 The planet used to be dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people. To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs weren't driving cars."

Uh-uh, that's not science.

That was Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives attempting to explain away the facts of human-caused global warming by talking about Earth's temperature 245 to 65 million years ago. While it's true that when dinosaurs roamed the planet, global average temperatures were much higher, it's faulty logic to assume that therefore means that the temperature increases scientists have seen in the last thousand years are not caused by human activity. Scientists have found that heat-trapping emissions from human sources over the past half-century by far outweigh emissions from natural sources.