(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)
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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!
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!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Elegy for a Public Option
This was sent to Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) today. If history proves to me anything, it is that I will not receive a reply from my senator, but alas, I'll hope.
Sir:
I am quite disappointed by today's news that the Senate will not allow a public option in the upcoming health reform bill. There are many millions of Americans, like me, who work hard for no benefits and soon they will be unduly burdened by Sen. Baucus' bill.
Sen. Baucus' plan is little more than the status quo. Only now, people who cannot pay for healthcare, will be required by law to pay, lest they incur fines for not doing so. This logic baffles me. People who cannot pay must pay or be fined? Once they're fined, they will be lighter in the wallet and still required to buy health insurance.
The plan to offer tax breaks and vouchers is laughable too. As is, at my income level, I will not qualify for vouchers. A large majority of the uninsured will not qualify for vouchers. And while tax breaks sound nice, they will not pay dividends until after tax season. Were I to be required to buy insurance, the promise of a tax break will do little to keep my bank from charging an overdraft fee.
I feel like our Congress is out of touch with America. Our citizens, who are working hard, full-time, trying to build a family, and have no chance to get ahead. Public polls support a public option. But I suppose that means little. Like Kierkegaard wrote, "...one can speak to a whole nation in the name of the public and still the public will be less than a single real man however unimportant." In this case though the public is less than sixty individual Senators.
I am quite disillusioned with the Democratic Party since its wresting control of the Senate and House in 2006. It would be much more advisable to vote Republican. At least then I'd know they would promise to do nothing for me and keep that promise. As is, every bit of hope I believed in, especially in 2008, has been squandered.
Please, give me some solace to believe that this country is still great. In the last nine years the only messages I have received loud and clear are: We don't count votes (2000 election), we start illegal and unfounded wars, tax breaks go to people with enough money as is, and a large portion of our citizenry are not worthy of a healthy life (instead we play the odds from day to day).
Perhaps I should convert to the Church of Christ, Scientist. Prayer seems to be my only healthcare plan.
Please feel free to send this to your senator.
Sir:
I am quite disappointed by today's news that the Senate will not allow a public option in the upcoming health reform bill. There are many millions of Americans, like me, who work hard for no benefits and soon they will be unduly burdened by Sen. Baucus' bill.
Sen. Baucus' plan is little more than the status quo. Only now, people who cannot pay for healthcare, will be required by law to pay, lest they incur fines for not doing so. This logic baffles me. People who cannot pay must pay or be fined? Once they're fined, they will be lighter in the wallet and still required to buy health insurance.
The plan to offer tax breaks and vouchers is laughable too. As is, at my income level, I will not qualify for vouchers. A large majority of the uninsured will not qualify for vouchers. And while tax breaks sound nice, they will not pay dividends until after tax season. Were I to be required to buy insurance, the promise of a tax break will do little to keep my bank from charging an overdraft fee.
I feel like our Congress is out of touch with America. Our citizens, who are working hard, full-time, trying to build a family, and have no chance to get ahead. Public polls support a public option. But I suppose that means little. Like Kierkegaard wrote, "...one can speak to a whole nation in the name of the public and still the public will be less than a single real man however unimportant." In this case though the public is less than sixty individual Senators.
I am quite disillusioned with the Democratic Party since its wresting control of the Senate and House in 2006. It would be much more advisable to vote Republican. At least then I'd know they would promise to do nothing for me and keep that promise. As is, every bit of hope I believed in, especially in 2008, has been squandered.
Please, give me some solace to believe that this country is still great. In the last nine years the only messages I have received loud and clear are: We don't count votes (2000 election), we start illegal and unfounded wars, tax breaks go to people with enough money as is, and a large portion of our citizenry are not worthy of a healthy life (instead we play the odds from day to day).
Perhaps I should convert to the Church of Christ, Scientist. Prayer seems to be my only healthcare plan.
Please feel free to send this to your senator.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Constitution Day
By Nick Star
In honor of Constitution day having been this past Thursday, it seems appropriate to have a brief discussion about the great document. Now, typically I like to look forward and not complain too much about the things that are already done, but the right wing talking point spouted out so often lately is that President Obama is shredding the constitution, mostly because he wants to make sure all Americans have access to health care, regardless of financial stature (so un-American!). My question is, "Where were these people when Bush was in office?"
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Presumably, "promoting the general welfare" would imply access to at least basic health care, as without it you will almost certainly die at a much younger age than you would had you had it, but hey, the pre-amble isn't even an legal document.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech zones, protesters arrested simply for wearing T-shirts that say "Bush Lied," and reporters called and threatened by the White house, the first amendment was clearly not one of W's favorite. This is in sharp contrast with today's protest zones just outside of events - armed teabagers displaying signs with thinly veiled threats of assassination, un-accosted. I don't want to hear any crap about Obama trying to repeal the first amendment (or for that matter, the second)
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To keep this post under 30 pages, we'll just ignore the whole "A well regulated militia" part. The NRA does, and the amendment really is quite lengthy. Although Bush campaigned on not allowing the assault rifle ban to expire, when the day came, the NRA convinced him with great ease that the founding fathers dreamed of a country full of felons and mentally unstable half-wits armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as having said that the most important reason for the second amendment is to protect oneself against the government, but the folks at the Jefferson Library address this on their website, and no such quote is known to be made by him. I, also, hardly think he intended a democratically elected president to provide the blood with which to water the tree of liberty. And frankly, anyone who does should scare the crap out of you.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No complaints here, as one of the few amendments Bush left alone, I never was forced to house soldiers in either my dorm or apartment. Thank you Mr. President.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In all fairness, this amendment didn't apply. After all, it was written over 200 years ago! It was even older than FISA! Isn't there a statute of limitations on constitutional amendments? Sunset provision? Anything?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendments V-VIII are the sole reasons that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not on US soil. The cases of waterboarding, the use of dogs, force feeding foods banned by the detainees religion (and so on), are only allowed in the cases of people we are really, really afraid of. Didn't the framers add that caveat? No? They probably just forgot.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No matter how much it wigs you out, the reason you hate gays is your religion. Banning gay marriage changes nothing in your life, but DOES disparage the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others, not to mention the fact that it revokes their freedom of religion. In fact, banning gay marriage would be implicit "establishment of religion." Any such amendment would be in breach of the first, and like it or not, not all religions condemn gay marriage.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If this is the amendment you think makes health care reform unconstitutional you should try reading it instead of listening to the Fox "News'" very own abridged version. If you cannot make it through the entire sentence of amendment X, then to be perfectly honest, you don't get to have an opinion. Seriously, I'm not even kidding about that.
Throughout history, it has been the liberals, by definition, who have provided rights to peoples. The slaves were freed by a liberal republican while the conservatives fought to maintain their right to own other human beings. The liberals gave women the right to vote while the conservatives fought for the right of men to be the sole "deciders." The liberals fought to allow blacks to go the same places as whites, while the conservatives fought for their right to never have to be near anyone who was a different color. Perhaps most importantly, when the liberals were fighting to break away from the United Kingdom, the conservatives fought for the right to continue to pay taxes to the King to make up for the tax cuts given to the East India Tea Company. Now the liberals are fighting for homosexuals to have the right to marry, while conservatives are fighting for the right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can do in their own bedrooms. The liberals are fighting for the right to have health care, even if you were born into a family that can't afford an extra $1000 per month, while the conservatives are fighting for their right to take advantage of the entire American public, and decide that poor or old people should die. After all, the God in which America trusts, only likes wealthy, straight (or at least closeted) white men, and the women they say are OK.
In honor of Constitution day having been this past Thursday, it seems appropriate to have a brief discussion about the great document. Now, typically I like to look forward and not complain too much about the things that are already done, but the right wing talking point spouted out so often lately is that President Obama is shredding the constitution, mostly because he wants to make sure all Americans have access to health care, regardless of financial stature (so un-American!). My question is, "Where were these people when Bush was in office?"
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Presumably, "promoting the general welfare" would imply access to at least basic health care, as without it you will almost certainly die at a much younger age than you would had you had it, but hey, the pre-amble isn't even an legal document.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech zones, protesters arrested simply for wearing T-shirts that say "Bush Lied," and reporters called and threatened by the White house, the first amendment was clearly not one of W's favorite. This is in sharp contrast with today's protest zones just outside of events - armed teabagers displaying signs with thinly veiled threats of assassination, un-accosted. I don't want to hear any crap about Obama trying to repeal the first amendment (or for that matter, the second)
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To keep this post under 30 pages, we'll just ignore the whole "A well regulated militia" part. The NRA does, and the amendment really is quite lengthy. Although Bush campaigned on not allowing the assault rifle ban to expire, when the day came, the NRA convinced him with great ease that the founding fathers dreamed of a country full of felons and mentally unstable half-wits armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as having said that the most important reason for the second amendment is to protect oneself against the government, but the folks at the Jefferson Library address this on their website, and no such quote is known to be made by him. I, also, hardly think he intended a democratically elected president to provide the blood with which to water the tree of liberty. And frankly, anyone who does should scare the crap out of you.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No complaints here, as one of the few amendments Bush left alone, I never was forced to house soldiers in either my dorm or apartment. Thank you Mr. President.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In all fairness, this amendment didn't apply. After all, it was written over 200 years ago! It was even older than FISA! Isn't there a statute of limitations on constitutional amendments? Sunset provision? Anything?
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendments V-VIII are the sole reasons that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was not on US soil. The cases of waterboarding, the use of dogs, force feeding foods banned by the detainees religion (and so on), are only allowed in the cases of people we are really, really afraid of. Didn't the framers add that caveat? No? They probably just forgot.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No matter how much it wigs you out, the reason you hate gays is your religion. Banning gay marriage changes nothing in your life, but DOES disparage the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others, not to mention the fact that it revokes their freedom of religion. In fact, banning gay marriage would be implicit "establishment of religion." Any such amendment would be in breach of the first, and like it or not, not all religions condemn gay marriage.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If this is the amendment you think makes health care reform unconstitutional you should try reading it instead of listening to the Fox "News'" very own abridged version. If you cannot make it through the entire sentence of amendment X, then to be perfectly honest, you don't get to have an opinion. Seriously, I'm not even kidding about that.
Throughout history, it has been the liberals, by definition, who have provided rights to peoples. The slaves were freed by a liberal republican while the conservatives fought to maintain their right to own other human beings. The liberals gave women the right to vote while the conservatives fought for the right of men to be the sole "deciders." The liberals fought to allow blacks to go the same places as whites, while the conservatives fought for their right to never have to be near anyone who was a different color. Perhaps most importantly, when the liberals were fighting to break away from the United Kingdom, the conservatives fought for the right to continue to pay taxes to the King to make up for the tax cuts given to the East India Tea Company. Now the liberals are fighting for homosexuals to have the right to marry, while conservatives are fighting for the right to tell everyone else how to live and what they can do in their own bedrooms. The liberals are fighting for the right to have health care, even if you were born into a family that can't afford an extra $1000 per month, while the conservatives are fighting for their right to take advantage of the entire American public, and decide that poor or old people should die. After all, the God in which America trusts, only likes wealthy, straight (or at least closeted) white men, and the women they say are OK.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
My New Job: Congressional Bouncer by Luke Krueger
Yesterday was a sad day in American politics. Joe Wilson and his GOP brethren turned a nation with a strong history of civilized debate into one of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) politics.
I find it thrilling to watch a presidential address. There is a majesty, associated with it. And whether it was George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, it is hard not to feel a rush of pride at the gravitas of the office. Even when George W. Bush stood before us and lied, saying Iraq had WMD's, there was still a respect and decorum afforded the chronic liar. The only slight was when the Democrats refused to stand and applaud his money-shot, one liners, but that is an acceptable political slight.
Instead, last night, America saw its number one coward duck and cover while throwing a rancid tomato. Joe Wilson, GOP congressman from South Carolina, tried to anonymously yell, "You lie!"while the President addressed a rare joint session of Congress regarding healthcare.
An aside: Joe Wilson let his state down. Preston Brooks, a So. Carolina congressman, beat (with a cane) Charles Summner on the steps of the capitol because Summner was an abolisionist. So. Carolina is saddened, Joe, that you couldn't throw down a smack down.
There are some ugly moments, but last night reminded me of the WWE. So if you are a political science major, toss your books aside. Read Jim McMahon's biography. Study the Rock's greatest interviews. Do an internship with John Cena. Watch the years of Wrestlemania, and break down how Hulk beat Big John Stud in the cage match. Or study his smack talk when Hulk promised to bodyslam Andre the Giant.
Thus I see a new opening on the government payroll. Congressional Bouncer.
Where was the Sergeant-at-Arms? It's a ceremonial position, and he doesn't do much, save for calling to everyone that the President has arrived.
So I think that if this WWE politics is to continue, the Congress needs bouncers in order to preserve decorum. Cowards like Joe Wilson can't engage in a civil discourse. When he yells out, "You lie," the bouncer grabs him by his suit's lapel and drags him out of the chamber. Outside, we'll say, "Thank you for dropping by. We appreciate your business and we hope to see you back tomorrow, but it's probably time you go home and sleep it off..." or some such thing.
We will also be informed. So when Eric Cantor says there will be "government rationing" a Congressional bouncer will say, "I'm sorry Congressman but that is false and cannot be supported by anything in any of the bills circulating. Please sit down and shut up." This is not limiting their right to free speech. It's simply a reminder to think before they speak. And to pick the appropriate method of expression for the appropriate venue.
Congressional bouncers will be thoroughly professional, pleasant, and focused on respecting the Congressmen. But if they get a little liquid courage in them, we'll bounce the dopes. This applies to Congresswomen as well, but the GOP really doesn't have to worry about that distinction of diversity.
The job will be incredibly dangerous though because it will require that I be given the same healthcare as all members of Congress. This is risky because to hear John Boehner talk, government run healthcare is the devil. And since he has it, I can't imagine how bad it is. It gives him doctors who sign off on his ridiculous fake and bake tan that afford him a preternatural orange hue. This is a scary prospect of what government healthcare offers: You'll be orange like John Boehner.
Nevertheless, I am willing to accept this risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer in order to preserve the civil nature of our political debate. I really think Jefferson would be down with this position. At some point, he advised Chief Justice William Cushing, "I'm not affraid to toss Burr's drunk ass from the hizzy if he doesn't check himself. Otherwise he's gonna wreck-i-dee, wreck himself." Something like that.
I realize congressional healthcare is pretty bad, again, so bad that the members of Congress can't get rid of the insurance despite the cacophany of yelps to rid themselves of such pestilential...
Oh, wait...they're not? Well I'm sure they hate their healthcare. Still, I'll take on that risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer. The healthcare is the most dangerous part of the job. Cowards like Joe Wilson will wilt when confronted.
So wish me luck. I'm not sure I'll be better off, healthwise. Maybe the vomiting and fever I suffered a week ago will be abetted, but I can only imagine that taking this job will offer me only hardship and detriments to my health.
At least I'll get to bounce Harry Reid because the dress code will require a spine.
I find it thrilling to watch a presidential address. There is a majesty, associated with it. And whether it was George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, it is hard not to feel a rush of pride at the gravitas of the office. Even when George W. Bush stood before us and lied, saying Iraq had WMD's, there was still a respect and decorum afforded the chronic liar. The only slight was when the Democrats refused to stand and applaud his money-shot, one liners, but that is an acceptable political slight.
Instead, last night, America saw its number one coward duck and cover while throwing a rancid tomato. Joe Wilson, GOP congressman from South Carolina, tried to anonymously yell, "You lie!"while the President addressed a rare joint session of Congress regarding healthcare.
An aside: Joe Wilson let his state down. Preston Brooks, a So. Carolina congressman, beat (with a cane) Charles Summner on the steps of the capitol because Summner was an abolisionist. So. Carolina is saddened, Joe, that you couldn't throw down a smack down.
There are some ugly moments, but last night reminded me of the WWE. So if you are a political science major, toss your books aside. Read Jim McMahon's biography. Study the Rock's greatest interviews. Do an internship with John Cena. Watch the years of Wrestlemania, and break down how Hulk beat Big John Stud in the cage match. Or study his smack talk when Hulk promised to bodyslam Andre the Giant.
Thus I see a new opening on the government payroll. Congressional Bouncer.
Where was the Sergeant-at-Arms? It's a ceremonial position, and he doesn't do much, save for calling to everyone that the President has arrived.
So I think that if this WWE politics is to continue, the Congress needs bouncers in order to preserve decorum. Cowards like Joe Wilson can't engage in a civil discourse. When he yells out, "You lie," the bouncer grabs him by his suit's lapel and drags him out of the chamber. Outside, we'll say, "Thank you for dropping by. We appreciate your business and we hope to see you back tomorrow, but it's probably time you go home and sleep it off..." or some such thing.
We will also be informed. So when Eric Cantor says there will be "government rationing" a Congressional bouncer will say, "I'm sorry Congressman but that is false and cannot be supported by anything in any of the bills circulating. Please sit down and shut up." This is not limiting their right to free speech. It's simply a reminder to think before they speak. And to pick the appropriate method of expression for the appropriate venue.
Congressional bouncers will be thoroughly professional, pleasant, and focused on respecting the Congressmen. But if they get a little liquid courage in them, we'll bounce the dopes. This applies to Congresswomen as well, but the GOP really doesn't have to worry about that distinction of diversity.
The job will be incredibly dangerous though because it will require that I be given the same healthcare as all members of Congress. This is risky because to hear John Boehner talk, government run healthcare is the devil. And since he has it, I can't imagine how bad it is. It gives him doctors who sign off on his ridiculous fake and bake tan that afford him a preternatural orange hue. This is a scary prospect of what government healthcare offers: You'll be orange like John Boehner.
Nevertheless, I am willing to accept this risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer in order to preserve the civil nature of our political debate. I really think Jefferson would be down with this position. At some point, he advised Chief Justice William Cushing, "I'm not affraid to toss Burr's drunk ass from the hizzy if he doesn't check himself. Otherwise he's gonna wreck-i-dee, wreck himself." Something like that.
I realize congressional healthcare is pretty bad, again, so bad that the members of Congress can't get rid of the insurance despite the cacophany of yelps to rid themselves of such pestilential...
Oh, wait...they're not? Well I'm sure they hate their healthcare. Still, I'll take on that risk and stand as a Congressional bouncer. The healthcare is the most dangerous part of the job. Cowards like Joe Wilson will wilt when confronted.
So wish me luck. I'm not sure I'll be better off, healthwise. Maybe the vomiting and fever I suffered a week ago will be abetted, but I can only imagine that taking this job will offer me only hardship and detriments to my health.
At least I'll get to bounce Harry Reid because the dress code will require a spine.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Georgia’s Great Money Laundering Scheme
by Nick Star
Today, for the third time in a month, I was forced to sit through the sales pitch for the money laundering racket known as Georgia Annotated Section 48-7-29.16. State law permits Georgia residents to receive, in the form of a tax rebate, 100% of a donation up to $2,500 (for a married couple, or $1,000 for single residents) to qualified scholarship funds to send students to private schools rather than public ones. In addition, the donor receives a federal tax deduction for the donation. Why is this immoral, unethical, and perhaps even unconstitutional? As the principal of the private school where I teach iterated, and reiterated, "this is not a donation, it is a redirection of tax monies to our school instead of Uncle Sonny," presumably referring to Governor Sonny Purdue (as if the governor is even the one taking the money). For a "donation" of $2,500, a family in the 20% federal tax bracket would receive a $3,000 refund, $2,500 of which is paid by hard working Georgia citizens, and the other $500 paid by the tax payers of the United States. Anyone who has watched many mafia shows or movies like "The Sopranos" or "The Godfather," understands that money laundering works by channeling funds through businesses under the guise of "services" or "products." This is no different than paying citizens with public money to "donate" money to private interests.
The argument that is always made is that this is "to help kids transition from public to private schools." Not the least of the offenses with this argument is that it implies that public schools are inherently less beneficial to students (and arguably, society) than private ones, but that is a whole other discussion. The real problem is who is paying for the tax refunds. When I was a child, my family struggled financially. My father worked a full time job, usually with overtime, as well as a "part-time" job that typically totaled around 40 hours per week. My mother, while a graduate of MIT, stayed home to take care of the kids due to health problems as well as the fact that child care was more expensive than her salary when she worked as an architect in the early- to mid-80's. We lived in a small house without the luxury of cable TV or air conditioning. We ate out only when my grandparents took us. The birthday money from my grandparents paid for the dues so I could play soccer in the town league, as it would have otherwise been too expensive, even at the meager price of a shirt and shoes. Occasionally I would show up to cub scout meetings with an "IOU" for the den leader because we weren't able to find a dollar to send with me. We received WIC benefits for most of my childhood, and occasionally even from a local food bank. While we likely qualified for welfare, we only applied and received it twice in my life. I never considered myself poor because I always knew people financially worse off than I was. I never went to bed hungry one time, but I knew kids who did. I tell you about this, not because I want any shred of sympathy for my family - these struggles are what made me who I am today, but instead, empathy for those like my family. Those families, like mine, pay their taxes dutifully, but could never, even with a 100% tuition scholarship, begin to afford to pay for just the books and uniforms. Yet these families' tax dollars are going to subsidize the private school tuition of the upper middle class who can't afford the entire cost of a private school education, only part of it.
I have nothing against private schools, I obviously teach in one. The students are very respectful, and if the families have the means to pay for it, they have every right to pay to send their children to private schools where their academic education is augmented with religion. I want to make a difference in children's lives, and this is the best way I know how at the moment. I do however take offense with forcing those with nothing to pay to subsidize the tuition of students who drive cars more expensive than their teachers' salaries. This program has been marketed as "a great way to help needy students," but nobody here has any idea what needy is.
Today, for the third time in a month, I was forced to sit through the sales pitch for the money laundering racket known as Georgia Annotated Section 48-7-29.16. State law permits Georgia residents to receive, in the form of a tax rebate, 100% of a donation up to $2,500 (for a married couple, or $1,000 for single residents) to qualified scholarship funds to send students to private schools rather than public ones. In addition, the donor receives a federal tax deduction for the donation. Why is this immoral, unethical, and perhaps even unconstitutional? As the principal of the private school where I teach iterated, and reiterated, "this is not a donation, it is a redirection of tax monies to our school instead of Uncle Sonny," presumably referring to Governor Sonny Purdue (as if the governor is even the one taking the money). For a "donation" of $2,500, a family in the 20% federal tax bracket would receive a $3,000 refund, $2,500 of which is paid by hard working Georgia citizens, and the other $500 paid by the tax payers of the United States. Anyone who has watched many mafia shows or movies like "The Sopranos" or "The Godfather," understands that money laundering works by channeling funds through businesses under the guise of "services" or "products." This is no different than paying citizens with public money to "donate" money to private interests.
The argument that is always made is that this is "to help kids transition from public to private schools." Not the least of the offenses with this argument is that it implies that public schools are inherently less beneficial to students (and arguably, society) than private ones, but that is a whole other discussion. The real problem is who is paying for the tax refunds. When I was a child, my family struggled financially. My father worked a full time job, usually with overtime, as well as a "part-time" job that typically totaled around 40 hours per week. My mother, while a graduate of MIT, stayed home to take care of the kids due to health problems as well as the fact that child care was more expensive than her salary when she worked as an architect in the early- to mid-80's. We lived in a small house without the luxury of cable TV or air conditioning. We ate out only when my grandparents took us. The birthday money from my grandparents paid for the dues so I could play soccer in the town league, as it would have otherwise been too expensive, even at the meager price of a shirt and shoes. Occasionally I would show up to cub scout meetings with an "IOU" for the den leader because we weren't able to find a dollar to send with me. We received WIC benefits for most of my childhood, and occasionally even from a local food bank. While we likely qualified for welfare, we only applied and received it twice in my life. I never considered myself poor because I always knew people financially worse off than I was. I never went to bed hungry one time, but I knew kids who did. I tell you about this, not because I want any shred of sympathy for my family - these struggles are what made me who I am today, but instead, empathy for those like my family. Those families, like mine, pay their taxes dutifully, but could never, even with a 100% tuition scholarship, begin to afford to pay for just the books and uniforms. Yet these families' tax dollars are going to subsidize the private school tuition of the upper middle class who can't afford the entire cost of a private school education, only part of it.
I have nothing against private schools, I obviously teach in one. The students are very respectful, and if the families have the means to pay for it, they have every right to pay to send their children to private schools where their academic education is augmented with religion. I want to make a difference in children's lives, and this is the best way I know how at the moment. I do however take offense with forcing those with nothing to pay to subsidize the tuition of students who drive cars more expensive than their teachers' salaries. This program has been marketed as "a great way to help needy students," but nobody here has any idea what needy is.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Obama’s Address to Students
Obama’s Address to Students
I can understand why people are frustrated with President Obama’s administration. They have a legitimate concern that the White House is taking on an agenda that will result in an increased national debt that Americans will end up paying off in more tax hikes. I can understand why parents are afraid that the lesson plan originally attached to the President’s speech, could exploit our nation’s youth as a means to a political end. After reading the text of the President’s address, however, what I cannot understand is why this speech is so controversial that it cannot be shown in our classrooms this Tuesday.
In 1988 and 1991, former Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr. delivered similar speeches that focused on the value of a good education and the importance of staying in school. Obama’s prepared remarks echo those sentiments. In a climate where the struggles of left vs. right and conservative vs. liberal have overshadowed the needs of the American people, it is refreshing that our President is taking time to speak about something that transcends political affiliations. Have we become such a polarized society that we cannot take time out of our day in a public school to listen to what the President has to say?
While I respect the difficult decision that the Spartanburg County School Districts have made, I feel that it is a decision which will ultimately teach our student’s the wrong lesson: that if you disagree with someone or don’t like his politics, you don’t have to listen to what he has to say. At a time when listening to each other may be the only hope of solving our biggest problems, we will instead be teaching our students the exact opposite. I hope this is a lesson that can be untaught.
I can understand why people are frustrated with President Obama’s administration. They have a legitimate concern that the White House is taking on an agenda that will result in an increased national debt that Americans will end up paying off in more tax hikes. I can understand why parents are afraid that the lesson plan originally attached to the President’s speech, could exploit our nation’s youth as a means to a political end. After reading the text of the President’s address, however, what I cannot understand is why this speech is so controversial that it cannot be shown in our classrooms this Tuesday.
In 1988 and 1991, former Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr. delivered similar speeches that focused on the value of a good education and the importance of staying in school. Obama’s prepared remarks echo those sentiments. In a climate where the struggles of left vs. right and conservative vs. liberal have overshadowed the needs of the American people, it is refreshing that our President is taking time to speak about something that transcends political affiliations. Have we become such a polarized society that we cannot take time out of our day in a public school to listen to what the President has to say?
While I respect the difficult decision that the Spartanburg County School Districts have made, I feel that it is a decision which will ultimately teach our student’s the wrong lesson: that if you disagree with someone or don’t like his politics, you don’t have to listen to what he has to say. At a time when listening to each other may be the only hope of solving our biggest problems, we will instead be teaching our students the exact opposite. I hope this is a lesson that can be untaught.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Obama’s Speech to Children AHHHH!
Hide the children, board up the houses because evil is coming to our school system on Tuesday at noon. The President of the United States, the democratically elected leader of the greatest republic ever seen on this earth, wants to speak to our school children. He wants to speak about communist principles of personal goal setting because all Communist states are well known for individualism. The President also is going to push the idea of staying in school so you can be a productive member of society. We most definitely do not want this to happen; we do not want an educated society. We want a nation full of individuals who cannot think for themselves, but can dumbly and blindly follow a fearless leader. I mean seriously what good has education ever done for humankind?
Once again I come out supporting the ignorant people who want to block their young children from the traumatic experience of listening to a successful leader of the greatest nation on earth try to convince children to stay in school (it’s not like the United States has the highest dropout rate of any post-industrialized nation) and to set personal goals. Personal goals should never be pushed in a capitalistic society because people might come up with new ideas and allow the United States to stay ahead of the curve in the world.
So please, keep your kids’ ears away from hearing the President speak, he might actually try to help the nation out. Heck, if I do not like people I tune them out; I never want to hear their side of the argument because that could only lead to compromise that actually might mutually benefit both of us. I say keep making America more ignorant, keep teaching our kids not to listen to those who have different viewpoints because an uneducated, uncompromising nation will always outpace anyone!
Once again I come out supporting the ignorant people who want to block their young children from the traumatic experience of listening to a successful leader of the greatest nation on earth try to convince children to stay in school (it’s not like the United States has the highest dropout rate of any post-industrialized nation) and to set personal goals. Personal goals should never be pushed in a capitalistic society because people might come up with new ideas and allow the United States to stay ahead of the curve in the world.
So please, keep your kids’ ears away from hearing the President speak, he might actually try to help the nation out. Heck, if I do not like people I tune them out; I never want to hear their side of the argument because that could only lead to compromise that actually might mutually benefit both of us. I say keep making America more ignorant, keep teaching our kids not to listen to those who have different viewpoints because an uneducated, uncompromising nation will always outpace anyone!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Farewell, Uncle Teddy
America lost a great friend this week with the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. Teddy was loved by those on the left, and respected by his colleagues on the right. While some controversy surrounded him for the last few decades, albeit mostly manufactured, Teddy dedicated his life to serving those who were born into less fortune than he. It would be difficult to find a more caring, sincere, and compassionate person, elected or otherwise, than Senator Kennedy
It is because of this that I was shocked by the right wing response to the loss of such a great man. I listened in horror this morning as a colleague laughed and bragged about a neighbor of his who launched fireworks in celebration of Teddy’s death. Rush Limbaugh is warning his listeners that the left will exploit the situation to push through health care reform. Joe Scarborough took the opportunity to trash Kennedy’s record, personal and political, all the while pretending to be objective, in the condescending manner only Joe could pull off.
The right wing has shown their true colors more and more every day since then Senator Obama’s nomination for president, and their behavior surrounding Teddy’s passing demonstrates the vast differences between the two sides ideologically as well as politically. While I believe that President Reagan did more to hurt our country than any president in its 233 year history, we on the left did not take his passing to be an appropriate time to voice these opinions, and there were certainly no fireworks being launched from my yard. The left sat mostly silent as the republican controlled senate and house discussed whether Reagan’s head should be added to US currency or Mount Rushmore.
The best tribute we could pay now is to finally pass the health care reform that Teddy has been fighting for for decades. For a century now, every time the left has proposed providing health care to all citizens, the right has blocked every move. It is no source of embarrassment to the republicans that we are the only industrialized nation for over 90 years now that does not afford all citizens that security.
I have never believed in using tragic events for political gain, but it is also my belief that that vast majority of congress, be they republican or democratic, know in their hearts that the right to affordable health care should transcend economic stature and be provided to all citizens of our country. If Teddy’s passing helps those senators and congressmen realize that people are more important than profit, and convinces them to vote for strong health care reform, then there could be no greater tribute to one of America’s greatest patriots.
-Nick Star
It is because of this that I was shocked by the right wing response to the loss of such a great man. I listened in horror this morning as a colleague laughed and bragged about a neighbor of his who launched fireworks in celebration of Teddy’s death. Rush Limbaugh is warning his listeners that the left will exploit the situation to push through health care reform. Joe Scarborough took the opportunity to trash Kennedy’s record, personal and political, all the while pretending to be objective, in the condescending manner only Joe could pull off.
The right wing has shown their true colors more and more every day since then Senator Obama’s nomination for president, and their behavior surrounding Teddy’s passing demonstrates the vast differences between the two sides ideologically as well as politically. While I believe that President Reagan did more to hurt our country than any president in its 233 year history, we on the left did not take his passing to be an appropriate time to voice these opinions, and there were certainly no fireworks being launched from my yard. The left sat mostly silent as the republican controlled senate and house discussed whether Reagan’s head should be added to US currency or Mount Rushmore.
The best tribute we could pay now is to finally pass the health care reform that Teddy has been fighting for for decades. For a century now, every time the left has proposed providing health care to all citizens, the right has blocked every move. It is no source of embarrassment to the republicans that we are the only industrialized nation for over 90 years now that does not afford all citizens that security.
I have never believed in using tragic events for political gain, but it is also my belief that that vast majority of congress, be they republican or democratic, know in their hearts that the right to affordable health care should transcend economic stature and be provided to all citizens of our country. If Teddy’s passing helps those senators and congressmen realize that people are more important than profit, and convinces them to vote for strong health care reform, then there could be no greater tribute to one of America’s greatest patriots.
-Nick Star
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Soaring Age of Anarchy
Unfortunately I have been out of the loop the last few months because I went on a worldwide tour to see how the rest of the world looks, especially since we Americans are the butt of many jokes for not knowing our world. My line of travel allowed me to see the practices of the Inuit people of Canada, who fortunately for them they have avoided the problems of socialized Canada to socialistic Denmark to the once before mentioned Libertarian society of Somalia (it’s still the model country) to the land of God also known as Peshawar, or at least it will be once the Pakistani military is kicked completely out. From these travels I kept somewhat of an eye on the situation in the United States, and its outward push to become the next socialist power (You know, the type of system that the government takes care of its people, and these countries tend to be healthier, have a longer life expectancy, stronger small business based economy, and a happier society). However, I was happy to see when I returned that outward impressions are not always true! I have attended and have been following these evil democratic practices such as town hall meetings, which for too long have allowed Congressmen to hear coherent ideas and discussions about what they should do to help their constituents in Congress. Yet, now people are finally taking a stand in these meetings, and are using these platforms to yell and scream at their elected officials! I say keep doing that; drown out reasonable debates with shouting and off the wall (maybe dumb) questions.
The most recent one that I have had the opportunity to experience was the recent town hall meeting (or port-a-potty) with Bob Inglis in beautiful Boiling Springs, SC. This meeting contained some of the shouting and yelling, but it also contained some great questions that attacked the government. Which should be attacked, it would be much better if we had no existing government. Seriously, what good has the government ever done for this country? One fine gentleman was irate about the fact that the government wants to improve health care, the system that could one day lead to a death panel, which decides who lives or dies. We must keep that in the hands of private industries. However, I truly believe this older gentleman has never been helped by the government, and will never need be help. I am sure he cannot live a better life with his social security, or as he ages get benefits from Medicare or Medicaid. I think he would agree with a true Libertarian outlook that after he retires from a job at the age of 80, he has confidence that his family (hopefully he has one) will look out for him until his day is done. Yet, they may just keep grandpa around until he is worthless and then they will do what the Inuit people used to do with their old people, put them on an ice float and send them away! That is the way we should operate, however, it might be tough to find ice in the Artic any more so it might be easier to drive grandpa up into the mountains, give him a piece of hard candy and say good luck!
Another issue I was glad to see brought up dealt with vaccinations. I hate the fact that the government thinks that we as a people should be healthy. I agree with this lady, we should go back to the days when dysentery, typhoid, small pox, polio, and measles ran rampant. If we allow these diseases run all over our population again and couple it with sending old people into the sun, then we can decrease the overpopulation in our country. Heck, maybe we could return to the good old days before the Civil War, when this country was at its pinnacle. The country was small, the health and life expectancy were low, and by God if someone ticked you off you could just go shoot them.
There were many other questions and issue brought up at this meeting, but I will not waste any more time bringing up my agreements with these too. These people realize that we live in a truly awful nation which is destroyed by the law and order of a stable, democratic government that does tries to help its people. We have shown that we do not want to be like Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Spain, and Norway, but in fact we should embrace the governments of Somalia, the Congo (either one), Sudan, Mali, Nigeria, Liberia (FREEDOM!!), Zimbabwe, Afghanistan (once a true theocracy, which some would like to see in the USA as an alternative to anarchy), and Ivory Coast. I say keep it up people, and one day a great revolution will return the USA’s lawless past. Not sure when that past was other than the rough Wild West, but I can’t wait either way!
The most recent one that I have had the opportunity to experience was the recent town hall meeting (or port-a-potty) with Bob Inglis in beautiful Boiling Springs, SC. This meeting contained some of the shouting and yelling, but it also contained some great questions that attacked the government. Which should be attacked, it would be much better if we had no existing government. Seriously, what good has the government ever done for this country? One fine gentleman was irate about the fact that the government wants to improve health care, the system that could one day lead to a death panel, which decides who lives or dies. We must keep that in the hands of private industries. However, I truly believe this older gentleman has never been helped by the government, and will never need be help. I am sure he cannot live a better life with his social security, or as he ages get benefits from Medicare or Medicaid. I think he would agree with a true Libertarian outlook that after he retires from a job at the age of 80, he has confidence that his family (hopefully he has one) will look out for him until his day is done. Yet, they may just keep grandpa around until he is worthless and then they will do what the Inuit people used to do with their old people, put them on an ice float and send them away! That is the way we should operate, however, it might be tough to find ice in the Artic any more so it might be easier to drive grandpa up into the mountains, give him a piece of hard candy and say good luck!
Another issue I was glad to see brought up dealt with vaccinations. I hate the fact that the government thinks that we as a people should be healthy. I agree with this lady, we should go back to the days when dysentery, typhoid, small pox, polio, and measles ran rampant. If we allow these diseases run all over our population again and couple it with sending old people into the sun, then we can decrease the overpopulation in our country. Heck, maybe we could return to the good old days before the Civil War, when this country was at its pinnacle. The country was small, the health and life expectancy were low, and by God if someone ticked you off you could just go shoot them.
There were many other questions and issue brought up at this meeting, but I will not waste any more time bringing up my agreements with these too. These people realize that we live in a truly awful nation which is destroyed by the law and order of a stable, democratic government that does tries to help its people. We have shown that we do not want to be like Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Spain, and Norway, but in fact we should embrace the governments of Somalia, the Congo (either one), Sudan, Mali, Nigeria, Liberia (FREEDOM!!), Zimbabwe, Afghanistan (once a true theocracy, which some would like to see in the USA as an alternative to anarchy), and Ivory Coast. I say keep it up people, and one day a great revolution will return the USA’s lawless past. Not sure when that past was other than the rough Wild West, but I can’t wait either way!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)