Questions (and Answers) for Teabaggers

by Nick Star

Despite the fact that last week’s employment evaluations showed that no jobs were created last month, the most recent federal and private estimates show that US corporations are currently profiting $1.6 trillion per year. I’m a numbers guy so I ran a quick, back of the envelope calculation. To employ the roughly 10 million Americans out of work at $50,000 per year (which is higher than the national median salary) it would cost $0.5 Trillion. According to a Wall Street Journal study last year, corporations were already sitting on an estimated $2 Trillion in cash. This has left me with some questions for the Republican party and the tea baggers.

How much more do they need to make before they are comfortable spending less than 15% of their profits to cut the unemployment rate in half?

The answer is there is no amount. No matter what, corporations will never have enough money to start hiring people again. The reason is not simply that they want to bring President Obama down, and they don’t mind taking the country down with them. There is just nobody to buy their products. No matter how much the taxes of the “job creators” are cut, the public does not have money to upgrade their car, buy a bigger house, or even make repairs to the one they already have. Nor can they go to a movie, have dinner at a local restaurant, or buy flowers at a neighborhood boutique.

This left me with a more philosophical question – Who are the “job creators?” Are the real job creators the stockholders of GM or are they the people buying new Chevy Volts? Are they the capital investors who fund the restaurant or are they the families who eat at the restaurant? Are they real estate investors building new homes or are they the families buying that new home?

And are the job creators the millionaires, whining that only 60% of the new jobs bill that President Obama proposed last week is tax cuts? Or are the real job creators our representatives in the federal government who propose to cut tax loopholes to pay for $200 Billion to hire out of work Americans to rebuild our roads and bridges and to educate our children who do not deserve to be in classrooms with 50 other students – money that those Americans will use to, at the very least, prevent foreclosure on their mortgages. Money that will be used to eat out once a month, go to the occasional movie, and someday, upgrade their car. The capitalist response is that without capital, new business could not be formed, new science not discovered, and new technology not implemented. But what happens when the money has all trickled to the top and is in the form of capital and none is left at the bottom for the populous to buy what the capitalists invest in? The answer: the job holders become the real job creators.

Luke Scott

Never trust someone with two names. That's some advice I've been given years back. This morning, I woke up and read the paper, to see a quote from Baltimore Orioles left fielder Luke Scott. It's wonderfully timed as he says, "(Obama's) birth certificate has yet to be validated. If they can counterfeit $100 bills, I think it's a million times easier to counterfeit a birth certificate, if you ask me. So, all it is, let's just see if it's real." The timing of this quote and the ensuing fallout or lack thereof is an interesting study in exactly where Obama's decision will resonate with Americans; it shows why athletes really need to keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics; and it shows an interesting racial dynamic given the tweets this week from Rashard Mendenhall, running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Mendenhall came under fire for essentially peeing on everyone's celebration of bin Laden's death. He had problems with the excessive celebration of the death of another human being. Additionally, he tweeted his doubts that al Qaeda actually pulled off the 9/11 attack. These were poorly timed comments, and (regarding 9/11) under-supported conspiracy bunk that if investigated further may have some valid claims but it is far from a reasonable theory. His dismay over the celebration of a death is not to be discounted, however, and I think he was entitled to these words, and too his credit he has not claimed to have been taken out of context.

Still, there is a palpable rage directed at him for his ill-timed quotes and propagation of a dubious, at best, conspiracy. So where is the outrage for Luke Scott? There is none. It doesn't help that Mendenhall is black and Scott is white. On ESPN's Website, there is not a word about Scott's moronic statements. Yet on the front page of ESPN is still a link to the ever growing Mendenhall statement. Scott is doing the same thing Mendenhall did: He's ignoring a historical success for our nation and focusing on a crackpot conspiracy theory that has all been settled. The lack of outrage towards Scott, shows that it is acceptable to still categorize Obama as not-American. The birther claims hold water to so many people, who may say, "I'm not certain the theory is true, but the people who claim Obama wasn't born here do have some valid points." The simple truth is that Obama has many layers of Otherness that idiots like Scott latch onto. The name, the ethnicity, these are un-American in Scott's eyes, and impossible for him to give validity to Obama as his president and that Obama is nothing more than a birth certificate scandal, despite the fact that he made the gutsiest military order in recent history (more on that down below).

First, I'd like to look at Scott's claims. He says the certificate has not been "validated." If by not validated he means the registrar of vital statistics didn't put his stamp of approval on it, well he's wrong. By not validated he means the document has not been given to public scrutiny, well he's wrong, as factcheck.org, will attest to having seen and examined it.

Next, he makes a false analogy by claiming $100 bills can be counterfeited. Often counterfeiting is done by a small group, which is easier to control the secret from being let out of the bag. In order to counterfeit a birth certificate of this magnitude, the governor of Hawaii would have to be in Obama's pocket as would Alvin T. Onaka, the registrar of vital statistics - their staffs, Obama's staff, his inner-circle, and likely a long list of bureaucrats who would have to be in on this to not let the conspiracy reach the public sphere. This stupid line of it's a million times easier to forge birth certificate is ludicrous. It would take a systemic cover-up that any government cannot sustain.

I know a number of people in government, have studied it a great deal, and if there is one thing I am aware of it is that a large organization like a government is incapable of keeping secrets. Eventually whistle-blowers come forward. If not, we'd never have the UFO stories come to light that we do. These were people sworn to secrecy who come forward and spill the beans. Although their claims are dubious. But look at the Pentagon Papers. It didn't take long for those to come to light, or Watergate. People get jaded, jilted, or a conscience and people then talk.

This point is paramount to my rejection of 9/11 conspiracies that it was an inside job (and a repudiation of Mendenhall's ideas). I listen to people expound their theories, and while they will make valid points, I can't shake the fact that the government would never be able to keep it a secret. People come forward. Or people slip up. There is a question as to whether Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11. Rumsfeld while over in Iraq, slipped up and said, the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. Now, I know I'm opening a whole can of worms with this, and I'll pursue it no further. The point of bringing it up is that Rumsfeld's misstep at least opens the door to the idea of a cover-up as to how the plane went down, although there is little to disprove that the passengers did not heroically try to retake the plane - the evidence overwhelmingly supports they did - whether their efforts brought down the plane or our planes did does not in anyway take away from the facts of their heroism.

Finally, to Scott's overall political bent, he is clearly on the far right- who believe that government is a devil, an insuperable testament to inefficiency. The government can get nothing done in Scott's political world. Yet, he seems to believe they are capable of a mass conspiracy to create a fake birth certificate. Moreover, the birther movement seems to believe that Middle Eastern governments, along with our own, carefully drafted a plan to take a boy born in 1961, and anoint him the future president in some large scale plan of malfeasance. How can Luke Scott reconcile his belief that government is inept with this unfathomably complicated plan that was hatched back in 1961? Clearly these two components of the far right's beliefs don't jive. Frankly, if they could put together a plan like this and sustain it over 50 years, well, shoot, I think they could be pretty good with solving our jobless problems.

One little addendum to this, why does Luke Scott not question whether McCain was born in the US? The story is McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone on a US military base, but does that fit the Constitutional requirement of native born? And can we really prove he wasn't born off base in a Panamanian hospital? His grandfather, a high ranking military officer would immediately know that citizenship was vital for his grandson, and would have had the ability to forge a document on base saying his grandson was born there. But this is just me trying to play the part of conspiracy theorist. And I certainly do not entertain these thoughts as more than satirical what-if. It's not that I'll buy whatever is told to me; but what ever skepticism I may have I let reason and facts dictate how long I will hold on to that skepticism.

To other things that bother me with Luke Scott. He is still unconvinced. He has a right to that opinion however idiotic it is. As a person in the public sphere, his words will get out. Derrick Rose, recently showed up at an Obama fundraiser, to drum support for the president. There Rose said he enjoyed meeting Obama and his cabinet. One problem, Obama's cabinet was not there. His advisors were, his reelection team was, but no individual cabinet member attended, and the fact that Rose did not know this difference let me know that he was speaking purely from admiration, but he was not a voice of authority, nor did he really try to come across that way. (Scott makes it sound like he knows what's up.) Moreover, he was there as a private citizen, and did not use his locker room/place of employment for his political stump, as Luke Scott and Curt Shilling have - and I guarantee you, either one of those guys would jump all over actors spouting political twaddle at award shows.

Still the timing of Scott's comments, as were Mendenhall's, was awful. At a moment when the president made one of the biggest military gambles in recent memory, Scott had to drum up that tired old chestnut of accusing the president of not being American and thus not patriotic. This does a great disservice to what Obama has demonstrated. Without flinching he ordered the neutralization of Somali pirates threatening US citizens. Then this last week he ordered an incursion into foreign nation, with 60-80% certainty according to the CIA that bin Laden would be there.

Starting from he disastrous raid into Iran by Jimmy Carter (which was a huge risk) let's analyze the risk level of engagements since then. This is not intended to disparage or minimize the risk our troops have taken. They took the orders and executed them well, but from the standpoint of a president's butt being on the line, I look at the risk (1 being the least riskiest to the president and 10 being the greatest).

Grenada: A small island defended by Cuba. Let's face it, Cuba was not a major military power. We made it a big deal because they were communist, but honestly, there was no real threat of failure. It was hostage rescue, thus the danger of dead Americans was a real danger, but the thought that we would not be in control of the island was never in doubt. Ronnie Reagan's butt on the line, a 3.

Panama: George Bush's first military issue. We went up against that central American power in Panama, with a defense force of 5,000, to get our old CIA shill Manuel Noriega; he who wore red bikini briefs because it brought him good luck. Scary. We had control of the nation in a day. The risk was to the Panama Canal, but since our forces were already there and in charge, the likelihood of any damage to the structure was negligible. Butt on the line, a 1.

Iraq/Kuwait: Bush's second military venture was risky. Iraq was in the top five militarily worldwide. They were battle hardened from an eight year war with Iran, and we were trying to coordinate a coalition of unwieldy size. The risk was high, although the end result seemed to easy. We obligated ourselves to only liberating Kuwait, and not occupation. Additionally, the military equipment of the Iraqis was so odd of date, and clunky that they did not stand a chance. Still, butt on the line, 8. Only in hindsight can we say it was really a 4.

Somalia: Clinton got this one dropped in his lap when he came in. It was as if Bush said, "Screw you for beating me; I'm putting troops into Somalia, ya jag." He had to rely on advisors and military personnel whom he was just starting a working relationship with. He ordered a high level take down in a heavily Aidide part of Mogadishu, and the results were disastrous. His defense secretary was fired, and we were made to look like fools, butt on the line 8.

Bosnia: After Somalia, Clinton had brass ones committing us to ending ethnic cleansing in. Again, he inserted us into a civil war, which is a bad idea to involve an outside party in. On top of that, Clinton sent in SEALS to capture and bring to trial Serbian war criminals. Much of the military operations were from the air, and in the midst of the Lewinsky debacle, Republicans were crying for Clinton to be impeached for Bosnia as well. They kept saying Clinton did it to distract from the Lewinsky trial. End result, criminals were brought to trial, ethnic cleansing was halted and Milosevic was toppled and brought to trial, where he died in captivity. Butt on the line, 9. Clinton later launched cruise missile attacks into Iraq for their plot to assassinate former president Bush. So despite dumping Somalia in Clinton's lap, he held no grudges and stood up for his predecessor.

Afghanistan: W, nearly didn't do this one. His delay allowed for bin Laden and Mullah Omar to bolt to the hills before we could arrive. Initially, he let the Northern Alliance do the battles, with our air support and Special Forces advisors. America was clamoring for retaliation. He had to do something. What he did was relatively safe: the Afghan national army was hardly ready for the conventional war we brought to them, and thus they fled. Butt on the line, a 1.

Iraq: W really screwed this one up. I'd put butt on the line at 9 because we were invading a nation against worldwide outcry, to occupy the nation, on the pretense that WMDs were so prevalent in Iraq, that we'd be tripping on them as soon as we crossed the border. But as soon as the invasion was over, and no WMDs were found, the mission was recast as spreading democracy, and who doesn't like that? Suddenly we were so magnanimous and doing God's work. Moreover, the Iraqi army was a shell of itself from the Gulf War. They had no chance. The ensuing guerrilla war was disastrous, but since W and Rumy thought it nothing more than deadenders, I'll hold them to it. This was a war sought because they thought we could end it before breakfast of the next news cycle for nothing more than the cost of a cup of coffee at the Waffle House. That's how they saw it, that's how they cast it and thus, butt on the line, 1. This proved true since W was reelected.

Obama and Pakistan: To recap above. The intelligence was not certain. The choice Obama took required that multiple helicopters could evade a decently equipped radar net, land in a building that had been re-conned by satellite, had children in the line of fire, and no idea what the extent of the resistance would be. On top of that, the whole mission would fail if the firefight was prolonged and bin Laden got away. Dead troops would mean leaving them behind, or taking assets to recover the body. If the mission was delayed, the Pakistanis would show up guns ablazing. Not to mention this was a major military town. He ran the risk of the Pakistanis saying the action was an act of war. Pakistan is on edge with India. Both nuclear powers, they might think they were under attack from India and launch. Nothing was guaranteed in this operation, but Obama weighed the risks, and took a reasonable gamble, and it was successful because he believed in the ability of our military and intelligence services, didn't cherry pick information like Cheney did, and went in knowing the risk, but also confident in the reward.

And then Luke Scott has to go shoot his mouth off about a stupid conspiracy theory that leaves no lingering questions now that it has been resolved. So Luke Scott, in military parlance: Sierra, Tango, Foxtrot.

Amani Toomer an open letter

Dear Amani Toomer:

You have proven once again why a Michigan education is completely worthless. You're latest comments that Roger Goodell is "Gestapo-like", touched my last nerve regarding this ridiculous freaking labor dispute. I want so desperately to side with the players, but your ignorant, uninformed and offensive comment proves that there is no one to side with, and if the work stoppage continues through the season I won't give two wet farts about it.

I thought Michigan was a top school, a public ivy so to speak. Clearly they never taught you (not history) but basic literary coding. So you accuse Roger Goodell of being "Gestapo-like". Okay, let's explore that: The Gestapo hunted down and sent Jews to the gas chamber. I TOTALLY see that happening in the NFL. Goodell, the man tasked with making the brand "NFL" worth nine billion dollars, wants to protect that brand and punishes the athletes when they embarrass the brand by GASSING THEM. That is TOTALLY what happened to the Jews. Not. And this is what pisses me off about the comment.

NFL players are suffering an existence which is NOTHING like that of the Jews under Nazi occupation, you dumb fuck, Amani. Does Goodell come into players homes and replace the water line with mainline to Zyklon B? You over-privileged stupid shit. You got paid good money (a full ride to Michigan) and they couldn't put one once of good sense in your head to realize that athletes who willingly play a sport which compensates them at the MINIMUM of a salary that is more than ten times the average American's wages are not exploited. They play this game, and benefit from a NINE BILLION dollar pool of revenue. Your problem is that they don't get enough of the NINE BILLION dollar gravy-train And he has the unbelievable stones to compare himself to Jews gassed at camps throughout Europe.

Now, this is offensive for the simple use of the analogy, but...if he is drawing a comparison, what he is saying is that if the plight of the NFL player is like that of Jews hunted by the Gestapo, he is saying that the six million Jews who died were over-compensated brats who sought out trouble when they weren't playing because they had nothing better to do...that's essentially what NFL players are.

Amani... there is no simile I find that would make me want to hock a gigantic goober into someone's mouth...except this one (comparing someone/something to the Nazis). You dumb fuck. My feeling with an open letter is this, to tell certain people to shut the fuck up. And that's what you should do. Shut the fuck up. Jews were not over-privileged brats like the many NFL players are tending to demonstrate (see Adrian Peterson and slavery). You want me to stop watching the NFL, keep saying stupid fucking comments like yours, you dumb fuck.

Since Michigan didn't put an ounce of good sense into your head (I excuse Adrian Peterson because Oklahoma is a football factory and doesn't even pretend to turnout student-athletes), I will. The Jews were not over-privileged millionaires. Hitler did not authorize their extermination because they were damaging the Nazi brand. And it's not just the Nazi simile you made. If you compared him to the KGB- sorry. Goodell is not even close to an organization, which under Stalin, wiped out 30 million Russians/Ukrainians/Uzbecks/Poles/ etc. through execution and sending people to Siberian gulags. Last I checked, Amani, your mansion is no gulag.

So please, I beg you, shut the fuck up. You're embarrassing Michigan. Clearly you garnered nothing from your time there.

As for the lockout. I'm beyond caring now. The draft will come. Used to love that day. Now? Who cares? A new crop of two hundred and something dumb fucks who didn't learn a shart's worth of anything in school except, "Me hit, bad man" will get a bunch of money. After which they can say, "I'm like those people who wear the funny beanie hats, who were economically crushed before being loaded up like cattle into trains, and shipped off to camps to die of starvation or Zyklon B. Except, I'm a Christian and they aren't so I'll go to heaven at least. Praise Jebus." Way to go Amani, you dumb ass. STFU.

NRA to Arm Fetuses

The NRA is back in the news with their support and push for a bill making its rounds in the Texas statehouse allowing for concealed carry on college campuses. Despite the objections of nearly every person involved in the day-to-day work of people who work in higher education, this bill is being supported on the premise that it will save lives. The NRA and its members have long stipulated that had students been armed at Virginia Tech, less people would have died and the shooter would have been party to a "peer editing" of sorts.

Given this controversy, I reached out to a good friend who is a member of the NRA and well placed in their national leadership. He or she (the NRA does have a number of female members, I'm not making that up), wanted to defend the Texas bill, the NRA and upcoming plans for the security of America. He or she agreed to the interview on the condition that his or her real name would not be used. Thus, he or she chose the name Awlaki.

American Che (AC): Let's start with your pseudonym: Awlaki.

Awlaki: Yes, it's the Finnish god of vengeance.

AC: Why not something more American: Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin --

Awlaki: Let me stop you right there. There's two reasons I didn't use a name of a founding father. First, Ben Franklin is not a founding father. He was a vegetarian which quid pro quo means he's a gay.

AC: No he wasn't.

Awlaki: Yes he was.

AC: We'll table that issue. Why no founding father name?

Awlaki: When you're baptized into the NRA, they give you a new patriot name to work in tandem with your Christian name. So to use my baptismal NRA name would be blasphemy.

AC: Why not use a different founding father?

Awlaki: That would be a major transgression to use another name other than the one you were baptized with.

AC: Right...well, the one other thing, Awlaki is the American born terrorist currently hiding out in Yemen.

Awlaki: I don't think so.

AC: It is his name.

Awlaki: Yes, but remember, Awlaki is like John in Finland.

AC: No it's not.

Awlaki: Yes it is!

AC: According to whom?

Awlaki: The NRA. They said it, who in the hell are you to question it?

AC: Let's back off this for a bit, and return to why I'm interviewing you for our marvelous blog.

Awlaki: The Texas law. What's the problem?

AC: It seems counter intuitive to the point of education.

Awlaki: How so?

AC: Well, arming students, moreover, letting them keep concealed weapons in the classroom. Some students get upset, and people are impulsive.

Awlaki: Yes, but they go through a course, they go through training before they can get their license. In that training, we teach them impulse is bad when confronting a good guy, and good when confronting a bad guy.

AC: Who determines good and bad?

Awlaki: The person with the gun.

AC: How can they be so sure?

Awlaki: Usually, the good guy is wearing a white hat, the bad is wearing a black hat - this is commons sense. I don't know why I'm explaining it.

AC: Yet professors, administrators, and campus police are ardently against the potential law.

Awlaki: Frankly, there's really no reason to listen to professors. Their misinformed liberals of the academic elite, and part of the rebel alliance. Now take her away!

AC: You lost me on the last part.

Awlaki: Nevermind. As I understand it, professors are worried concealed carry might cause grade inflation.

AC: How so?

Awlaki: Would you give a kid a C, if you knew he might have a gun.

AC: A C is average. It's not a bad grade.

Awlaki: Sh'yeah right. These days, a C is the death knell. But back to my point, professors are worried that not knowing if a student is carrying will cause them to pass along a grade that the student will find satisfactory in order to avoid being shot. Which in turn might cause more professors to give higher grades and sic semper tyrannis, we have grade inflation.

AC: What do you suggest professors do to put aside this fear.

Awlaki: Grow a pair.

AC: Hm?

Awlaki: I'm kidding of course. They can get a gun too, which is a metaphorically acceptable way to grow a pair. Granted, we'd rather professors not be armed. Then they will literally make their education dangerous. In trial experiments on campuses around the country, we've found that if professors carry a concealed weapon, 100% of professors identified as Liberals executed students who didn't agree with them.

AC: Where's this study?

Awlaki: With the NRA. And they said it. But you're missing my point. We won't infringe upon the right of a professor to carry a gun.

AC: So if...

Awlaki: One draws, so does the other and they shoot it out as God intended, look it worked at the OK Corral! Again, I'm explaining stuff that's common knowledge. Ever wish you'd get your money back for your fancy degrees?

AC: So the professor's objections have nothing to do with safety concerns.

Awlaki: Not in the slightest. They don't want grades to get inflated.

AC: And passing this bill will do away with violence on campuses.

Awlaki: Absolutely. Now there might be a stray shooting here or there, but with an armed student body, the shooter will be peer edited as we like to say, (here Alwaki laughed for a solid minute), anyways, they'd be peer edited early on. Or they might not even act if they think, "Hmmm someone else might be armed."

AC: But if they're insane and have a death wish and rules of common logic are out the window, wouldn't they go about the attacks regardless?

Awlaki: Eh...you're treading on ground I'm not familiar with. Look, the NRA has one solid principle we believe in wholeheartedly.

AC: What's that?

Awlaki: There isn't a problem a gun can't solve.

AC: Poverty? Can a gun help with that?

Awlaki: Yup.

AC: How? Arm the homeless?

Awlaki: Really? Really?

AC: It's all I can think of...you could...oh, wait...you're not saying we should take'em out and shoot them?

Awlaki: I'm not saying. I'm just saying.

AC: That's pretty barbaric.

Awlaki: Then get a job.

AC: So a gun can solve any problem according to you.

Awlaki: Darn right. Look at that thing in Wisconsin.

AC: Now come on! You're saying shoot the protesters?

Awlaki: No! They have a right to be there, but not forever. Smelling, fucking hippies, get home and shower. But look, enough's enough. Government business needs to be done. If Generalisimo Walker had told the police to pull out a gun, the spineless hippies would run.

AC: Fine, whatever. Let's get back to the big point. You had a big NRA announcement.

Awlaki: Yes...you're sure no one's gonna know it's me.

AC: Not a soul.

Awlaki: 'Cause the guys in the NRA hate when a surprise is ruined.

AC: So why ruin it.

Awlaki: 'Cause I am bursting with pride. But seriously, no one can know. Last year, I let it slip that to our chapter president that his favorite dancer he gets private dances from at Touch of Class each Thursday was the one hiding in his cake.

AC: What'd he do?

Awlaki: He pistol whipped me.

(I pause for a minute, to see if Awlaki will be aware of the fact that if his chapter president reads this he will know exactly who I am interviewing. Instead, he pokes at his bellybutton. I continue with the interview)

AC: The announcement.

Awlaki: Once we get this whole, arm the students thing done, we're going to help the most helpless of Americans.

AC: The elderly who can't afford their heating bills.

Awlaki: God you're dense...I'm talking about the unborn. The fetuses...feati, whatever the uh...uh..uh...plural of fetus is.

AC: It's impossible.

Awlaki: Not really. We could look it up in a dictionary...oh, you're talking about arming the unborn. Again, I have to explain the common sense stuff. We've got the GOP by the short and curlies and the GOP has Planed Parenthood by the balls. Our GOP shine-boys, are gonna go to the Planned Parenthood folks and say, "Look, we're cutting all your funding." And their gonna be like, "Oh no please don't do that, Mr. Congressman. We need it to make sure we kill every unborn child, so we can impregnate unwed mothers again then we'll have fun and kill another child." And the GOP will say, "You can't do that, but if you want to join us in a good faith display of bipartisanship, you will agree to stop doing abortions." And they'll be like, "No way! We like dead babies!" And the GOP'll be like smacken'em in the face, and be like, "Bitch I wasn't finished. No more killing babies. Instead, when a mother comes in for an abortion, you're going to reach up there and pretend to do the abortion" (Awlaki makes a sound like a vacuum cleaner) And it'll sound like that. And the GOP guy we'll be like, "So when you're making it sound like that, you'll slide a little Derringer up that deadbeat mother's vajayjay. And as the mother is leaving the concentration camp...I mean Planned Parenthood the fetus will recite the line on the Derringer, 'You didn't want to bring me into this world, so I'm taking you out of it!' And Bam! Pulls the trigger. Dead sinner." And the Planned Parenthood babe will be like, "Yay, I'll do it! Now open it up and whip out your big gun."

(This is not an entendre. Awlaki by this point has literally jumped to his feet opened his jacket and whipped out an unbelievably large gun. He says it's a Desert Eagle. I'm beside myself at this point)

AC: Okay, two problems.

Awlaki: Nu-uh!

AC: How will a fetus know how to shoot a gun?

Awlaki: It's what makes us human. God gave us that gift all the way back to the Garden, how to shoot. In fact, people don't know this, but being expelled from the Garden is actually a metaphor for the fact that God didn't kick us out of the Garden; he just took our guns away for a few thousand years.

AC: Problemo numero dos. Don't you think the child will expire once the mother is dead?

Awlaki: Not if God doesn't want him --

AC: Or her.

Awlaki: Fine... her, not if God wants it to die. We're doing God's work, ipso facto, the child will live.

(Beat. I'd punch him, but he has a gun. Which I am totally aware affirms that the people with guns are the ones who have power.)

Awlaki: Pretty bad ass plan, huh?

AC: I think I need a white hat.

Oil spills, the GOP, and More Corporate Welfare

by Nick Star

A Gallup poll published last week reports that a mere fifty-nine percent of Americans believe that BP should pay for the entire cost of the oil spill, no matter the cost. Even a headline above the fold in Friday’s New York Times questioned the president’s demand for the oil company to clean up their own mess. My question is, who do the other forty-one percent think should pick up some or all of the tab?

Should taxpayers be picking up a portion? That seems to be the suggestion coming from the right. On Thursday, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX6) apologized to Tony Hayward for the White House’s “shakedown” of BP in requiring them to pay for the clean-up and damaging effects of the oil spill. Mr. Barton apologized for the apology later that day, but made clear that he still did not agree with the $20 billion escrow account set up to ensure that neither dividend payments nor bankruptcy would cheat gulf coast residents out of compensation. If the past two months of constantly increasing flow rate estimates and failed “kill” attempts have taught us anything, it should be that $20 billion will not come close to paying for the actual damages and clean-up efforts. The republicans seem to be mixing up their populist and pro-corporate talking point memos as Mr. Barton was not the only republican complaining about the “extortion” (Michele Bachmann, R-MN6). Rand Paul even broke from his nostalgia for the Jim Crow era to call the White House’s initial rhetoric calling for BP to clean up their own mess “un-American” on Good Morning America, before it was cool. John Boehner (R-OH8) followed suit counting the federal government as one of the two parties “responsible for the oil spill” who should take some “responsibility for what’s happening” in the gulf. The solution Louisiana legislature proposed was a day of prayer. No word on how long we are to wait to determine its efficacy.

Who, then, should share financial responsibility if charging BP for their own mess will rock the foundations of democracy, and according to Rush Limbaugh, is an attack on the constitution and will somehow fund ACORN. Of course we know who: the taxpayers. (Perhaps we can use the money we save by telling less privileged children to eat out of dumpsters for the summer, at Rush’s suggestion http://mediamatters.org/research/201006170053) Once again we arrive at the disconnect in the minds of conservatives between reality and the Ayn Rand fantasy world where they try to live. The federal government cannot contribute to the cleanup effort, pro bono, without using taxpayer money. How do you suppose the teabaggers will feel about more corporate welfare, GOP? Then again, we all know that no matter what President Obama, BP, or anyone else does, it will still all be Obama’s fault.

Sean Hannity Goes to Heaven-a play by Luke Krueger

(Stage is dark. Bright light slowly floods the stage, blinding the audience. A figure steps into the light so we see only his outline. The light fades to normal stage lights. The man is Sean Hannity. Attached to Hannity is the Statue of Liberty perched on his right shoulder, much like the cover to his book _Deliver Us from Evil_. To his left is St. Peter at a desk. The desk has a computer and is piled high with thick folders. St. Peter looks tired, worn, and resembles something of a young office temp)

PETER: Mr. Hannity. Have a seat. My name is--

HANNITY (moving to Peter): Oh, you need no introduction, sir. I'm a big fan. Big, big fan. (Shakes St. Peter's hand).

PETER: Right. Please, have a seat.

HANNITY (sitting): You look younger than I thought.

PETER: Perk of the job, makes up for the ungodly hours.

HANNITY: It's nice to have you here.

PETER: I don't follow.

HANNITY: This is my show right?

PETER: No. It's heaven.

HANNITY: That's what a lot of my viewers think of the show. I've got the E-mails to prove it. (laughs)

PETER: Uh-huh. Mr. Hann, um Hannity, right?

HANNITY: Call me Sean.

PETER (looking at a file): That's against protocol.

HANNITY: Sure, I understand. Can I call you Pete?

PETER (doesn't look up from the file): Absolutely not. (sets the file down) It says here you were a political talk show host.

HANNITY: I like to say soldier in the Army of God/freedom fighter.

PETER: Well, let's stick with talk show host. What exactly is that?

HANNITY: You never saw it?

PETER: No. (pats the stack of files) I've got enough to do.

HANNITY: Well basically, I engaged guests in political discourse to get to the heart of political issues that are important to the country.

PETER: And which country is this?

HANNITY: You don't know?

PETER: Frankly they're all kind of the same, and up here it makes little difference.

HANNITY: Oh, well, um, the United States of America.

PETER: Oh, yes, I know that one. We get a lot of people from there. Nice folks, but a little fat if you ask me. Um, what's that on your shoulder?

HANNITY: Lady Liberty.

PETER: A memento of your wife?

HANNITY: You don't know Lady Liberty?

PETER: The name sounds familiar. I think that was the stage name for a stripper I admitted not too long ago.

(Pause. Hannity is a little uncomfortable)

PETER: I'm not saying your wife is...

HANNITY: No, of course, I get what you mean. Now, I wanted to ask you --

PETER: Let me ask the questions. There are a number of folks I need to get to before lunch. So to start: What do you think your greatest accomplishments in life were?

HANNITY: My show.

PETER: I mean something that made for a better planet.

HANNITY: My show.

PETER: Besides that. Deeds. What did you do besides talk?

HANNITY: I did my darndest to make sure America was the Christian country it's always been; I made sure the second ammendment was protected, and I made sure hard working families kept the money they earned and that it didn't go to pork projects of the federal government.

PETER: God, guns, and gold?

HANNITY: Sure.

PETER: Sort of like Columbus.

HANNITY: Yeah! Just like that. By the way, I noticed on my way in that he wasn't with the fifteenth century crowd.

PETER: Yeah...how 'bout that.

HANNITY: He got his own suite?

PETER: Let's start with the glory of God part. How did you work for that?

HANNITY: I lead the defense when secularists declared war on Christmas. I fought to make sure kids could pray in school.

PETER: They can I thought.

HANNITY: Well, sure, but it's not mandated everyday.

PETER: What if someone's not Christian.

HANNITY: I was trying to prevent that. I was trying to make sure God was protected in our schools, in our courts, in our homes, across this great nation.

(beat)

PETER: Let me get this straight...you were defending God?

HANNITY: Someone has to.

PETER: Someone has to...stand up for...the Almighty?

HANNITY: The liberals won't.

PETER: Do you think, God is so weak that he needs to be defended like a little brother who's getting bullied on the playground?

HANNITY: No. It's just...I saw God disappearing from America.

PETER: Isn't America continent?

HANNITY: You know what I mean.

PETER: No I don't. I've got a Sunday tee time with God on the links every week. He's not disappearing.

HANNITY: What's his handicap?

PETER: I'm still not clear, why did you have to fight for God? Is he so weak?

HANNITY: The US is a land founded by God-fearing Christians --

PETER: No it wasn't.

HANNITY: Yes it was. And I was saving my country from falling out of favor of the Almighty. Don't you start telling me what God had intended for my country.

PETER: Didn't you read that one little part in the Bible, where Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world"?

HANNITY: That's Old Testament. It doesn't count.

PETER: It's in John.

HANNITY: Oh.

PETER: Hmm.

HANNITY: What?

PETER: It says here you titled a book, _Deliver Us from Evil_.

HANNITY: It was a best seller.

PETER: It's also level two blasphemy.

HANNITY: What!

PETER: You took a piece of the Lord's prayer as a title to sell books.

HANNITY: That's not blasphemy.

PETER: You want me to show you the regs? (beat) Let's just keep moving. The second amendment, as I read it here is about arming a well regulated militia.

HANNITY: It's a little more trickier than that.

PETER: Did you serve?

HANNITY: Huh?

PETER: Were you in the Army, or militia or whatever?

HANNITY: Oh, no.

PETER: Did your country have a draft?

HANNITY: Yes, we did.

PETER: How'd you not get drafted?

(short pause)

HANNITY: The funny thing about the second ammendment is that it goes beyond that narrow interpretation, and it guarentees all Americans can have a gun to protect them and their families.

PETER: And protect God?

HANNITY: Well, sure, they're protecting the safety and lives of their fellow citizens so they can lead a wholesome life in service to God. So in a way, sure, I was making sure that God was protected.

PETER: So you wanted everyone to have a gun?

HANNITY: Law abiding citizens, yes.

PETER: How do you know?

HANNITY: Know what?

PETER: That they'll always be law abiding citizens. I mean one day, couldn't someone just break the law and use the gun illegally?

HANNITY: Sure, but that's impossible to ever know and just --

PETER: The chance you have to take? Couldn't you just not let people have guns?

HANNITY: See that's the problem. Then only the criminals would have guns.

PETER: And the police.

HANNITY: Sure, but they can't be everywhere. What if someone and their family were killed.

PETER: They'd come here.

HANNITY: Is that right?

PETER: You saying Heaven isn't a good place to be?

HANNITY: No! That's...I'm not saying Heaven is a...a...a bad place but why should we hasten someone's return to the Father. Don't they have a right to life?

PETER: Oh God, you're one of them.

HANNITY: Well but do you get what I'm saying? About the guns?

PETER: No.

HANNITY: We need them so people can be safe.

PETER: Don't guns kill people?

HANNITY: Exactly, that's how they keep us safe.

PETER: Sounds like doublespeak.

HANNITY: Well, we'll agree to disagree.

PETER: No, we won't. That's not an option. It's doublespeak.

HANNITY: People need to hunt. How 'bout that?

PETER: Fine. Let's move on.

HANNITY: I just want you to know the important facts about this issue.

PETER: Why?

HANNITY: So you understand that my intention behind fighting for the second amendment was for the good.

PETER: Moving on. Pork projects. Explain.

HANNITY: I wanted people to keep the money they earned and not be taxed by an inefficient government that would spend it on silly wasteful programs.

PETER: Like war.

HANNITY: No war is necessary.

PETER: That's good.

HANNITY: What?

PETER: Well, you never served in the military so you have no ulterior purposes when war starts.

HANNITY: I can explain my lack of service --

PETER: It's okay. So if the people...wait, it says you were in favor of tax cuts for the wealthiest of your country.

HANNITY: They earned it. God's blessings fell upon them as demonstrated by their good fortune. They should keep it.

PETER: So the poor are being punished by God?

HANNITY: Yes, but they can work their way back into his favor and get rich.

PETER: You never heard, "A cammel has a better chance of getting through a needle's eye than a rich man does getting into heaven"?

HANNITY: I made it policy not to read Islamo-fascist material.

PETER: Jesus said it.

HANNITY: Look, they had a right to their money to do with it as they want. And rich people aren't all bad guys. They donate to charity. It's great for tax breaks.

PETER: So they got more tax breaks on top of the others by donating to charity?

HANNITY: Great system.

PETER: Seems disingenuous. (to himself) God, I wish for the days of render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's. (To Hannity) So what other wasteful programs did you fight against?

HANNITY: Socialized medicine.

PETER: What's that?

HANNITY: It's socialism.

PETER: And...?

HANNITY: It's bad.

PETER: Why?

HANNITY: Because it's socialism.

PETER: Why is socialized medicine bad?

HANNITY: Because it's socialist.

PETER: Can it kill people?

HANNITY: Sure. That's what socialism does. It's an incidious dogma that looks to wipe from the earth capitalism.

PETER: Capitalism is good?

HANNITY: Bestowed on us by God himself.

PETER: I don't recall the word capitalism in the Bible.

HANNITY: You look; it's in there.

PETER: So explain socialized medicine. I'm not familiar.

HANNITY: Basically, it would tax all the rich people in order to give every person healthcare. It's asinine.

PETER: How?

HANNITY: They want healthcare, they can get a job that gives them healthcare.

PETER: That's a bit of an oversimplification. I just processed a guy who died; worked eighty hours a week, at three jobs, and the companies he worked for wouldn't give him full time hours because then they'd have to pay for health insurance.

HANNITY: Of course, the companies have a bottom line and a responsibility to their stock holders to turn a profitt. That's capitalism.

PETER: It killed him.

HANNITY: Look, I'm not going to get into the economics; you obviously are unaware of how this all works, and I understand because you got bigger things to take care of. But this is the best system we have and people deserve to keep the money they make, and not be taxed to death.

PETER: Except for a war.

HANNITY: Right. We need those.

PETER (jotting down notes in the file): So let me get this right: Your entire life was spent making sure people had guns, which kill people, and also making sure people didn't have health insurance, which could have saved people.

HANNITY: Now, who's over simplifying.

PETER: Excuse me?

HANNITY: Look, I don't need to get dressed down by some office temp. There's no way you are St. Peter.

PETER: You see the name on the door? I'm the real deal, hoss.

HANNITY: Oh, I see! You're a John Kerry lover! Jesus, you Libs, just can't get it through your thick skulls about issues that are more complicated than you will ever know.

PETER: I know quite a bit.

HANNITY: You don't know about America.

PETER: Because we don't care about that here! Mr. Hannity, I'm sorry, but you don't make a strong case for entry. It seems like you spent your whole life making a name for yourself on God's coat tails, and making sure people were expedited to death.

HANNITY: Is this Heaven or Nancy Pelosi's girdle? I don't have to sit here and take this.

PETER: You're right you don't.

HANNITY: You liberal pinheads have destroyed everything. The US, Heaven, everything.

PETER: There's the door, Michael will escort you down.

(Hannity leaps across the table and grabs Peter by his shirt)

HANNITY: You listen to me. I'm Sean Hannity. That might not mean much to you but on Earth it sure as hell does. Now, I'm not going to sit here and let you tell me I'm a good or bad man. Who the hell do you think you are? You go out there, and you talk to anybody from America, who's died in the last twenty years, and I guarentee they will tell you to let me in to Heaven.

(Peter effortlessly removes Hannity's hands. He holds him by the wrists. Hannity is in pain)

PETER: The thing is, Heaven is not a democracy. We don't admit by vote, and frankly, if I go out there, and ask of you, no one remembers who you are because in Heaven your deeds on Earth are like bile here. We have no interest in it, and people soon forget the petty jibes and twaddle you kicked around on the idiot box for so long.

(Peter releases Hannity)

PETER: Now get out of my office.

HANNITY: Fine, I get it. The liberals took over.

PETER: Get out!

HANNITY: I will. This isn't Heaven. This doesn't represent the God I know.

PETER: Of course not, because you invented some non-existent God to sell books and get ratings.

HANNITY: Oh, piss off you liberal pile of horse crap. I'm gone.

(Starts to exit)

PETER (Pulling a post-it note from the file): Mr. Hannity. Leave the Statue. I've got a post it note here from up on high that says you dishonored they symbol.

HANNITY: Make me!

PETER: Do we really have to do this again?

(Peter starts chasing Hannity around the office, until Peter finally trips Hannity. With Hannity on the ground, Peter removes the statue from Hannity's shoulder and places it on the desk. Hannity gets up)

HANNITY: Fine, I didn't want it anyway. It's French. It was made by a guttless, coward Frenchman. You can have it.

(Hannity exits. From offstage we hear him shout)

HANNITY: Heaven's full of a bunch of liberal bastards!

PETER (sitting back down behind his desk. Shakes his head. Picks up a phone): Janice, who's next? / How many are there? / Forty? / Yeah, I know. That is a lot for one day / Let's just fast track them / No, I think He'll approve. They're babies, and their moms didn't have access to prenatal care. Just have the paperwork for me to sign when I get back from lunch.

(blackout)

The Tax Cut You Can't Afford

By Nick Star

In recent days I have seen a discouraging and confusing surge in the number of "fair tax" bumper stickers on the road. Yesterday one such sticker was on a Nissan Sentra around 20 years old. My initial thought was "you moron, you can't afford a 'fair tax!'" The real problem with the 'fair tax' is that it is completely regressive, leaving the poor paying higher rates, and the ultra-wealthy paying almost nothing. Unfortunately, the gentleman is merely another victim of the wealthy convincing the poor to pay the taxes of the upper 1% for them.

A review of the FreeTax.org material, however, should sound many alarms for any reader with a 3rd grade education. The first, and most obvious, is that your federal income tax would be replaced by a 23% sales tax, tacked onto your current local and state taxes. In most areas this would mean around 30% sales tax, and in many places, significantly higher. The tax would also be imposed on food sales, which many states forgo at the present time.

But that 23% tax hike replace all of your income taxes? Nope! It only replaces FICA. You are still responsible for your state income tax, local income tax, social security tax, and Medicare tax, not to mention your property taxes. And of course insurance premiums will still be deducted from your check, but more on that later. According to FairTax.org, this would be enough to meet around 70% of the federal income tax it would replace. Not to worry about the $900B deficit though, revenues will increase eventually! While 23% is obviously way too low to pay the bills for all of the roads, schools, military and everything else we use, we will use their absurdly low estimate just for sake of argument.

So your bills for groceries and other consumable items will have a 30% tax on them instead of paying your FICA tax, at least that's all you will pay more for right? Wrong again! If you have ever bought a car you noticed that you pay a sales tax on that new car too. This, too, would be subject to the tax. When you take that car to be repaired, those are also subject to the 30% tax. And if the repairs cost 23% more, and your car insurance pays for those repairs, your car insurance will have to go up by 23% as well, to compensate for the increased repair costs. The same would be true for your homeowners insurance.

Not to worry about your escrow, insurance, car, and grocery, bills going up, in addition to everything else you buy, the government will give you a tax credit in the amount of the estimated taxes paid by a family at poverty level (not including the indirect increases to your other bills of course). The current level for a family of four is $21,200 annually.

According to FairTax.org, every economic demographic under $500,000 salary will save money on their tax bills. Yet somehow, more tax revenue will be collected than under the current structure. The only way for this to be true is if those making over half a million a year will pay significantly higher taxes. I find this hard to believe considering that this is the group of people who actually have money to save for the golden years. What is the tax rate on money you make, then put into investments? Zero. And the money used to vacation in Europe? Zero. The money used to buy lavish mansions? Zero. Granted, their escrow payments will go up too, but those are a much smaller portion of their income that those making the national average salary of somewhere around $50,000. If you buy your private jet elsewhere, you would even be able to escape paying that 30% tax on that too.

Remember that the 23% rate cited by FairTax.org retains the current, nearly trillion dollar deficit left to us by the über-fiscally responsible previous republican administration. That is to be made up by the - wait for it - stimulus provided by this new tax! Allegedly, a 30% sales tax will cause your discretionary spending to increase! When your kid wants a new DVD, and you know that new $30 Blu-Ray will, in fact, cost you $40, and the $75 dinner at your local chain family restaurant will cost you $100, you will be more motivated to spend money! But if, for some weird reason people start spending less money, that 23% tax rate will have to increase just to compensate.

FairTax.org does cite some ways that this will spark economic growth, but most are not related to the tax code. One such change would be to repeal the tax on exports. No mention of how that money will be made up. Granted, that may increase domestic exports. This would be a great thing for a country that, due to laissez-faire economics and the free trade policy of the neo-conservative movement, has lost its once large manufacturing base that probably saved our butts in World War II. Another alleged positive impact of the new tax policy is that, because your mortgage payment is not taxable, every homeowner would effectually receive a tax write-off for their home payments, even those who do not currently itemize. This would generate new home sales and would provide another economic spark. What is seemingly ignored, however, is that this same effectual tax rebate would now also be given to renters, as rent is also not taxable. While it is my belief that rent should be deductible anyway, this new policy would remove the incentive to buy a home, not strengthen it. Using the same argument, cocaine and hookers would become tax deductible!

One of the most valuable things humans learn as they grow is skepticism. When the head cheerleader tells you to vote for her for class president because she will double the length of lunch periods and make first period optional, you know not to believe her. When a guy calls you at dinner time and tells you an initial investment of your life savings in an unknown start-up company will leave you a millionaire a year later, you know not to believe him. And when some multi-millionaire from Texas tells you he has a plan to cut everyone's taxes and still make more money, read his plan before you slap his advertisement on your 1989 jalopy!