Anti-American American Businesses

You know, nothing makes me want to “go Galt” liberal-style more than reading shit like this. Businesses have apparently told Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that they want “complete gridlock” in Washington. And the best part is the “clarification” from DeMint’s camp:

A spokesperson for DeMint reached out to ThinkProgress and provided the following statement: "The story about 'gridlock' was a glimpse of how upset businesses are with President Obama and Democrats in Congress, not DeMint's legislative goals."

Okay, assuming DeMint isn't pulling this out of his ass and is in fact repeating some Chamber of Commerce bullshit, here's my response to that line: Oh, whah. I have a sad.

You’re upset? You despoil our environment and ship our jobs to China and Mexico and locate your corporate headquarters in a Cayman Islands-based Mailboxes-R-Us so you can dodge taxes and set up phony astroturf front groups to deceive the citizens over the public airwaves and you’re upset?

Fuck you. With a rusty slide-ruler. Sideways.

You simply cannot expect to be allowed to rape, pillage and plunder America and not have a few citizens think that maybe this isn’t in the country’s best interests.

I’m tired of hearing that we need to bend and scrape before grand and glorious “business interests” who apparently think a non-functioning government is just peachy. We’ve been doing that for a generation and look where it got us. I’m tired of hearing that being “pro-business” is the be-all and end-all of every legislative endeavor. Whatever happened to being pro-people? Business has its place but it’s not our purpose. There is more to this life than business. And President Obama has done double back flips for business interests, at the expense of the peoples’ interests. And somehow these assholes are still unhappy?

Y'all can just quit yer whining because this consumer is tired of hearing about it. You guys do not deserve one dime of the tax breaks and government contracts that’s making your wallets fat, when you turn around and spit in the American peoples’ collective face spouting some bullshit about how you want “gridlock” in Washington.

American consumers do not want gridlock in Washington, you fools. We want and deserve a government that functions. We elected a president and a Congress to do that.

I am about this close to selling all of my worldly possessions and living off the grid in a yurt somewhere, eating hippie tofu and home-grown vegetables. At least then I won’t be part of your bullshit game.

"Dude You Have No Koran": The Dance Remix

Of course, nothing will ever be as awesome as the Bill O'Reilly dance remix (now pulled from YouTube because someone named get pwned noob claims copyright ... whatever):

Paging Erin Brokovich

Someone ought to go to jail for this .. but we know all know they won’t:

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) has obtained documents detailing the energy giant’s request to the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for a rate hike in 2007. PG&E asked the PUC for permission for a $5 million rate hike to “replace a section of the same pipeline that blew up in San Bruno.” The PUC approved PG&E’s request, allowing it to hike its rates so that it could repair the line in 2009.

Yet the energy giant failed to go through with its scheduled repairs. And in 2009, it once again requested a rate hike from the PUC, again for $5 million. In its request, PG&E warned that if “the replacement of this pipe does not occur, risks associated with this segment will not be reduced. Coupled with the consequences of failure of this section of pipeline, the likelihood of a failure makes the risk of a failure at this location unacceptably high.” Despite these admitted risks, the company could only promise to make its repairs by 2013.

[...]

While the company failed to spend the $5 million it took from customers in 2009 to repair the faulty pipeline, it did spend that exact same amount in the same year on bonuses for its executives, according to TURN.

[...]

Calitics notes that while PG&E failed to use the millions it charged consumers in rate hikes to repair its pipeline, it did manage to spend millions of dollars supporting Proposition 16, which would've allowed it to secure its monopoly over the power sector in the state.

There is always money for politics, power grabbing and pocket-lining.

Protecting the people of California? Not so much.

Utility FAIL. Yes, someone should go to jail. People were killed in this accident. Will they? Well, in our glorious plutocracy, the only people who ever suffer the consequences of this kind of malfeasance are the little ones.

The Party Of Tax Cuts For Millionaires

So now the Democratic Party is the party of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires? When the hell did that happen?

Washington (CNN) – Thirty-one House Democrats, most of whom face tough re-election bids this fall, have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them to extend expiring tax breaks for all income levels, including the wealthy.

Apparently this happened when a few Democrats started to wet their pants over the prospect of losing re-election. These 31 House Democrats want to give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts that will add $700 billion to the deficit that they claim to care so much about. Apparently the conventional wisdom is that a Bush Tax Hike® (hey, he’s the one who designed them to expire this year, remember?) is not a good idea during a down economy.

I just have one question for you people: if giving the nation’s upper 2% of income earners a tax cut was such a brilliant economic stimulus, why the fuck are we in this mess to begin with?

Paul Krugman did a nice piece explaining why high end tax cuts don’t deliver enough “bang for the buck.” If Krugman is too much of a Dirty Fucking Hippie for you, let me direct you to Moody’s:

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

So if the goal is economic stimulus, giving rich people a tax cut won’t do the trick.

But it doesn’t matter if this is good policy or not, because this isn’t about policy. This is about politics. This is about 30+ Democrats in the House who are scared they are going to lose re-election. That’s all these things are ever about: the politics, not the policy. And this is why the Democrats are in trouble. Because if we had people in Washington worried more about governing, not getting re-elected, then maybe we’d have some actual workable policies in place, not more Republican-lite crap. Maybe our economic stimulus would have been stronger and maybe our recession would have been over and maybe people would be back at work and maybe we wouldn’t be talking about letting “Bush-era tax cuts expire” but instead talking about the coming Bush Tax Hike® and maybe those 30+ Democrats wetting themselves over losing re-election might actually be in a stronger position today because the economy is stronger.

But that’s my alternate hippie liberal fantasyland. In the real world we have Democrats who think governing like Republicans is the surest way to success. Despite the fact that time and time again they are proved wrong, they keep doing it.

What a strange world we live in.

[REMINDER]: The tax cuts were set to expire so Congress could pretend they won't add to the deficit:

One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA is that its provisions are designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed. EGTRRA will sunset on January 1, 2011 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent. The sunset provision sidesteps the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of the PAYGO law while removing nearly $700 billion from amounts that would have triggered PAYGO sequestration.

It was a dodge, plain and simple. So does the deficit matter or doesn't it? Who among the Teanuts wants to take that one?

Midterm Messaging

It’s been interesting to watch the narrative take shape regarding the midterms. For the past few months the pundits and media types seem to be in agreement that a Republican sweep of Congress is a foregone conclusion. I’m not so sure, and I’m glad to see Nate Silver debunk some of the conventional wisdom, as well.

One oft-repeated line we hear is that there is an “enthusiasm gap” because the Democratic base is not “fired up.” Writes Silver:

Late in a political cycle, it tends to be easier to motivate a voter than to persuade him, and the Democrats do have some rallying points with their base like the health care bill (even if they are hush-hush about some of the same points when independents are in the room). They also have, as a consequence of the huge reach of President Obama’s campaign in 2008, very good voter lists and databases. There is actually some evidence that Democrats closed their enthusiasm gap late in elections like Massachusetts and the New Jersey governor’s race of 2009, even if they ultimately lost them. And the Democrats have won a couple of elections with strong base support, like the special election in May in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District. Still, the pluralistic nature of the Democratic base tends to make it harder to rally, and much of the party’s work work — even if it were eventually to succeed – remains to be done.

I know the Democratic Party is worried about this supposed “enthusiasm gap” because I keep getting e-mails trying to scare me into voting this year. They point out how scary and fringey the Tea Party candidates are, what wackadoodles Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are, blah blah.

I happen to think this is a horrible message. For one thing, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck aren’t on the ballot. Instead of trying to motivate the base out of fear of right wing crazies, maybe the Dems should try motivating people based on what they see as their accomplishments. Isn’t it better to get people to vote for something, not against something? By not doing so they seem to be conceding the progressive’s point, which is, "We gave you guys the White House and huge majorities in the House and Senate and instead of the promised change we got some left-leaning tweaks."

You know, maybe it's me but I don't happen to think the liberal base is as stupid and uninformed and clueless as, say, the right-wing base is. We can smell the bullshit and as I've said in the past, using Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to scare us into the voting booth makes some of us think that maybe you helped create the Teanut Brigade just so you could exploit them later.

So no, I don’t need any more e-mails from James Carville trying to psyche me up by pointing out how crazy the Tea Party is. I’m well aware of that. If you want to motivate me, tell me what great things you did and what great things you’re going to do. Because what the party strategists aren’t getting is that the base is pissed off and there’s a sense of “you deserve to lose to a bunch of crazies.” That is what you guys are dealing with. So show us why we’re wrong to be pissed off.

And here’s another thing. I’m not any great political strategist or message manipulator, but I do believe that Tip O’Neill was right when he said all politics is local. So I care less about Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and more about what is going on in my neighborhood, my city, and my state. So again: if you want to motivate Democrats to the polls, show us what you’ve done, what your plan is, and why your candidates deserve to go to Washington. Simply saying, “because the other side is batshit insane!” isn’t enough.

As for the Republicans, Silver says folks may be overestimating the right’s enthusiasm:

What conservative voters seem to be most engaged by is their distaste for the establishment. But they seem to be somewhat equal-opportunity in this respect, disliking the Republican establishment nearly as much as the Democratic one. So what happens not in a case like Florida where they have nominated a fresh and compelling face in Marco Rubio, but instead in Ohio where they have nominated a familiar and establishment one like Rob Portman? Or in Illinois, where they have nominated a candidate in Mark Kirk who is both establishment and quite moderate?  Will Republican voters have the same gusto — and turn out in the same numbers — for these candidates? In Mr. Portman’s case in Ohio, it might not matter — he is doing well enough with independents that he’s liable to win, even with mediocre base participation. But for someone like a Mr. Kirk, or a Dino Rossi in Washington State, Republicans could find their “enthusiasm gap” isn’t as large as they were expecting.

Indeed, when looking at individual races -- say the Delaware Senate race -- as E.J. Dionne notes, the “enthusiasm gap” may just be on the Republican side:

Ross notes that the state Republican convention endorsed Castle. These are not some shadowy party bosses, but, as he put it, “the grass-roots delegates who knock on the doors and pass out the literature and pound the pavements.”

Wonder how many of those folks will go to bat for Christine O’Donnell? I’m guessing very few. That, and the fact that O’Donnell’s extreme views will turn off independents makes me think the Republican tidal wave is a lot of wishful thinking.

Of course, the economy still sucks and the Democrats are really bad at messaging and the media is not liberal etc. etc. So, as the saying goes: stay tune, more shall be revealed ....

Great Moments In Corporate PR

I guess the Corn Refiners Assn.’s lame “it’s fine in moderation!” ads have been a big fail, as they are seeking permission to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to “corn sugar.” Riiiight! Sorta like when Madonna renamed herself Esther or when Sean Combs became Puff Daddy, then Puffy, then P. Diddy, then Diddy. I’m sure if approved this move will go just as swimmingly.

Vanity Fair thinks “corn sugar” is sorta lame, though, and I have to agree. Their suggestions aren’t much better: “Syruption” and “Freshness”? Surely the brilliant minds at Conde Nast can do better.

I have a few ideas: How about “Freedom Syrup,” in recognition of the tremendous amount of corporate welfare taxpayer money which subsidizes corn production? Or maybe they should take a cue from my spam e-mail box and call it something which has been tested by international marketers: “Winning Notification” or “Miley Cyrus Illegal XXXX.” Surely I wouldn’t be getting so much crap with these kinds of subject lines if they weren’t effective?

Or we could call it “isoglucose” or “glucose-fructose syrup,” two actual alternative names for the stuff according to Wikipedia. Or, what the hell, how about Frankensyrup? Doesn’t sound so friendly, of course, but that’s what it is. Frankenfood created in a lab:

The enzyme process that changes the 100% glucose corn syrup into HFCS 90 is as follows:

1. Cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called oligosaccharides.

2. Glucoamylase - which is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat — breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose.

3. Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50–52% glucose with some other sugars mixed in.

Yummy! So yeah, with long unpronounceable words like “Xylose isomerase” no wonder they want to change the name to “corn sugar.”

I always hated those stupid, “it’s fine in moderation!” ads that we’ve seen courtesy of the Corn Refiners Assn. for the past year or two. Yeah, good luck with the “moderation” part. High fructose corn syrup is in everything, from soups and breads to soft drinks and popsicles. “Moderation” is a fantasy where this stuff is concerned.

A few parody ads were made of the Corn Refiners Assn. campaign. Here’s one:



I just find it so annoying that corporate America thinks we’re stupid.

What Breed Of Liberal Are You?

I'm an eco-avenger. Take the test:

My Liberal Identity:

You are an Eco-Avenger, also known as an environmentalist or tree hugger. You believe in saving the planet from the clutches of air-fouling, oil-drilling, earth-raping conservative fossil fools.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

Fringe Factor

Historian Rick Perlstein wrote an excellent piece of media criticism last Friday which I wanted to call everyone’s attention to.

In particular, this:

The problem is not the Web. Anti-JFK rallies "revealing" to every school child in Orange County, California that Communists planned to colonize the United States by the year 1970 drew bigger crowds than Tea Parties today, with nary a blogger among them.

The problem is that elite media gatekeepers have abandoned their moral mandate to stigmatize uncivil discourse. Instead, too many outlets reward it. In fact, it is an ironic token of the ideological confusions of our age that they do so in the service of upholding what they understand to be a cornerstone of civility: the notion that every public question must be framed in terms of two equal and opposite positions, the "liberal" one and the "conservative" one, each to be afforded equal dignity, respect — and (the more crucial currency) equal space. This has made the most mainstream of media outlets comically easy marks for those actively working to push public discourse to extremes.

Don't blame the minister and his bait-and-switch bonfire either. Once upon a time anticommunist book burnings and threats of book burnings were not unheard of. The difference is that Associated Press reporters did not feel obliged to show up. That shift in news values, not the rise of the Internet, is the most profound way that times have changed.

I think this is correct, however I think Perlstein is remiss in completely discounting the influence of the internet. Certainly our news media’s suckiness is no one’s fault but the media’s. However, I do think part of the problem is that the news media has been so freaked out over competition from web-based “news” sources -- blogs and the like -- that they’ve chucked all judgment by the wayside.

Perlstein is right, news values have changed. But there's a reason. It's because news is a business and there are boards of directors who must be coddled and stockholders who must be pleased and profitability is an issue (even though newspapers remain insanely profitable, for bean counters it’s never profitable enough) so everyone is kinda flailing about looking for a way to stay relevant in this changing environment. This means the news media has abandoned what Perlstein calls its “moral mandate” in a rush to cover every bit of chatter and gossip on the internet. It’s like the entire news media has decided to become the National Enquirer, hanging out at the mall food court and deciding that their very future depends on covering the conversation they overhear, most of which is completely irrelevant.

Just because people are talking about Snookie and Area 51 and a new diet fad and FEMA camps doesn’t mean the news media has to cover it. The media decided it was in competition with the internet and decided to cover whatever idiocy we bloggers are chatting about without bothering to apply any judgment to these stories. Is WikiLeaks news? Yes. Is everything on the internet news? No.

You know, my sister is absolutely convinced that sometime around 2004 there was a nuclear incident of some kind which the government is hiding from us. She's convinced of this because she knows too many people with brain tumors and health issues all of a sudden, while the fact that we’re getting older and happen to know more people of an age where illnesses crop up hasn’t occurred to her. But hey, if she’s lucky, maybe Anderson Cooper or the Associated Press will devote some time to her theory. It's on the internet, after all.

“Dude You HAVE No Koran!”

Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and a skateboarder foil a plan to burn the Koran at Sam Houston Park in Amarillo, Texas:



(H/T, Talking Points Memo.)

Permanent War Economy Redux

[UPDATE]: Wow sure glad we're sending them $60 billion in weapons!

-------------------------

Just heard NBC’s financial spokes bubblebot extoll the economic bonanza which this deal represents:

The Obama administration is set to notify Congress of plans to offer advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia worth up to $60 billion, the largest U.S. arms deal ever, and is in talks with the kingdom about potential naval and missile-defense upgrades that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more.

The administration plans to tout the $60 billion package as a major job creator—supporting at least 75,000 jobs, according to company estimates—and sees the sale of advanced fighter jets and military helicopters to key Middle Eastern ally Riyadh as part of a broader policy aimed at shoring up Arab allies against Iran.

Huzzah. Well, it’s good to know America still manufactures something!

Who wants to guess how this will end? Like this? America is a twilight empire. All we know how to do is build bombers for oppressive Middle Eastern regimes. Our only export is war. I know the corporate news media wants us to clap louder at the “75,000 jobs created” (really? Really? Did you check the numbers on that or are you just repeating the press release?) and my Democratic president is going to extoll the economic win this represents for people who are out of work. But I’m calling bullshit.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

For shame, America. For shame. These things never end well, people. One of these days we will learn our lesson. You don’t build an economy on war. You don’t arm a dictatorship in an unstable region of the world. You don't plant these seeds and expect to reap anything other than a bitter harvest down the road.

I wish America still made things that benefitted the human race, instead of destroyed it. Sadly, when you are an empire in twilight, the simplest most logical things are beyond anyone’s capabilities.