Archive for the ‘Sarah Palin’ category

Tax Shortfalls – Tax Shortsightedness – Right Wrong – Krugman

August 9, 2010

In a wonderful opinion piece this morning, Paul Krugman writes of “American Going Dark” – state and local governments forced into budget cuts that are destroying all those things government typically provides –street lights, roads, schools.  Although the Federal Government could help the states out, Krugman says it is strapped by deficit reducers and, worse, tax deniers – those determined to extend the Bush tax cuts for the top two percent of earners.  Krugman believes that  this is the natural result of a society that has decided (really since Reagan) that all government spending is bad; that it all just ends up in the pockets of “welfare queens.”  (A society that ignores, for example, the government spending that goes into the pockets of Halliburton Kings.)

Actually, that last parenthetical probably doesn’t support my point (or my oversimplification of Krugman’s point), which is that government spending is necessary for a decent community and individual life, and that, in addition, by imposing taxes that allow the hiring of more service providers, government fuels the economy in ways that allowing more money to stay in the hands of millionaires does not.

Palin and others on the right insist that the end of the Bush tax cuts will hurt the “job creators” and further ruin the economic situation.

Once again you want to ask the question “where have these guys (on the right) been for the last ten years?”  If the Bush tax cuts were so great for the economy, why was it in such a mess at the end of his tenure?

More importantly, the end of the Bush tax cuts will be the end of a rather special (and not distinguished for anything good) period of the U.S. economy.   Allowing the cuts to expire is not a forced march into the withering desert of socialism, but a return to the tax regime in place during Clinton’s era–a time, if memory serves, of prosperity, peace, relative deficit reduction, and better employment.

Peace is an operative word in the last sentence; as Bush failed to understand, an ongoing war is not a justification for lowering taxes.   The lowering of taxes in a time of two wars not only weakened us economically, it contributed to a certain blitheness about the wars, a notion that such wars could be maintained with no cost borne by the average American, but only by those GIs, reservists, and National Guardsmen (not usually among the group that profited from the tax cuts) who served tour after tour.

I don’t particularly like taxes.  (I also don’t particularly like electric bills or rent.  If we’re talking about lowering my financial burdens, I would put in a word for lowering the costs of fruits and vegetables, fine tea, and vampire novels.)

But I do like having subways that run on time, streets that are not infested with rats; an educated population; a national park system; culture which does not rely solely on high ticket prices; enforcement of clean food, water, air standards, and other environmental values; a medical system in which a health care provider will actually spend time with you; money that has a stable value; and protection, both at home and abroad.

Those on the “right”, and I hesitate to even give them that characterization, are simply wrong about all this.

More Pants on Fire – Palin on Taxes; Ahmadinejad on 9/11

August 7, 2010

Pants On Fire

I had been planning to write about Sarah Palin today –  I dreamt last night of her scoffing at Copernicus with an aw-shucks smile and a “now, don’t go all helio-what’s-it on me.”

Only that didn’t seem truly apt.   Copernicus’s theory of a sun-centered universe, as set forth in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, was, in fact, revolutionary, hard for many to accept.   (See e.g. what happened to Galileo.)

A better illustration of what I’m trying to get at would be Palin saying that the sky isn’t blue.  (But even that’s not a great example – some could say that color is just an illusion of refracted light.)

What I’m looking for a flat-out lie.  How about focusing on Palin’s statements that Democrats are now pushing the largest tax increase in history and that it will have an effect on every American who pays income taxes.

The Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact characterized this as a “pants on fire” statement.  Poltifact details the various inaccuracies,  but one of the basic points is that the Bush tax cuts expire on their own in 2010; the Democrats are not terminating them.  If no one does anything – something this Congress is quite good at – the cuts will simply end.

More importantly, if Congress were to follow Obama’s and the Democrat’s plan – Palin says they don’t have one but that’s another flat-out lie – only the Bush tax cuts for high earners would be allowed to expire.  This would result in a tax increase smaller than one passed by (hero of heroes) Ronald Reagan.  Even if all the Bush tax cuts expire, and not simply those on high earners, the increase would not be the greatest in American History.  (It’s also worth noting that the expiration of the cuts returns the country to the pre-Bush tax regime; it does not push it to totally new tax altitudes.)

My concern here, however, is not  taxes, but political dialogue; the popularity of the flat-out lie.  One would think that speaking in front of a camera would discourage lying, but the cameras just spread the lie farther, faster, even endowing it with a kind of authority, something Sarah well (shucks) knows.

So, I was going to write about Palin.  And then I opened up the online Times to see Ahmadinejad denying the death toll of 9/11.  “They announced that 3,000 people were killed in this incident, but there were no reports that reveal their names. Maybe you saw that, but I did not,” he blithely announced.  (Where was he?)

I’m not comparing the substance of Ahmadinejad and Palin, or their general truthfulness.   I hesitate to even put them in the same post because I don’t wish to imply that their aims or world view are in anyway comparable.   I am struck though by the similarity of political tactic in this instance–the technique of just saying something that you think will resonate with supporters, even though you must know it’s untrue;  an audacity of cynicism rather than hope.

Palin DeFicted as Shakespeare (In Watercolor!)

July 19, 2010

The Newbie Bard?

To refudiate or not to refudiate, that is the question.

Uh…what is the question?

(Unfortunately, no one who likes her will care.)

The Line Between Satire and Sneer–UFO’s and Palin, Tea Partyers and Obama

February 16, 2010

Tea Pot and UFOs

I freely confess that I’m not a Family Guy kind of gal.  I just don’t care for crass.

Even my beloved Robert Pattinson has really turned me off lately with his gross and negative remarks concerning female private parts.   (Better watch out for your constituency, Rob.  You haven’t exactly shown yourself to be Laurence Olivier, after all.)

Because of my dislike of crudity, I haven’t watched the Family Guy clip of the Down’s Syndrome character whose mother is the Governor of Alaska.  I  just wish it hadn’t been aired.   Mainly because I personally think it is wrong and offensive to make jokes at the expense of little children with disabilities.

Secondly (and I’m sorry if I’m being crass here myself), it feeds Palin’s mantle of media martyrdom, consequently diminishing the impact of jokes and criticism justifiably aimed at instances of her hypocrisy and untruth  (that is, meaningful satire.)

How to distinguish between mindless stupid crass jokes and meaningful satire?  I feel a little bit like Stephen Colbert here, who recently tried to use Palin’s calculus for acceptable uses of the word “retard”, distinguishing between what Palin called Rush Limbaugh’s acceptable use of the word as “satire”, and Rahm Emanuel’s unacceptable use (to characterize certain Democrats) .

(Yes, even as I write that, I’m conscious that I’m jumping onto the whole “making fun of Sarah Palin” boat.)

But here’s one of the problems with jumping on to that boat.  There are a lot of frustrated, fearful, angry people in this country who feel that Palin speaks to and for them.

Some of these people, the Tea Partyers, are relatively easy to mock.  They tend not to be “hip”;   they sometimes seem ignorant; some of their views (seccession!) seem pretty outlandish.

I especially cannot understand these people’s take on Obama.  (Some of them view him not only as  a non-U.S. citizen, but terrorist witch doctor).   The people who espouse such views  seem to me like the kind of people who believe in UFOs.  (Particularly UFOs sent into space by the Federal Government.)

But these people are not truly crazy;  they drive cars, hold jobs, pay taxes (reluctantly), raise children, take care of the elderly, work.    But they feel that they/we are in terrible trouble, and they act like people both steaming mad and desperately seeking a cure.  (They make me think of those books that advocate eating nothing but garlic or watermelon.)    The cure they want is to go back to a past that never actually was; to a simplicity that never was.

Making stupid jokes at their expense, sneering at them (and at Palin), is not a good way to quell fears,  ease resentments.

While Obama can be professorial, he is also extremely good at explaining complicated issues in simple, but not reductive, ways.    He needs to use that skill more to remind Americans of how the country arrived at this economic downturn, of why the banking system was saved, of how the Republicans in Congress (and in the White House) both contributed to the current crisis and are now blocking its repair.   He needs to keep it simple, make it direct.

And while hypocrisy may deserve satire, Obama (and his supporters) should avoid the side of the sneer.

George Washington, Sarah Palin, Cherry Pie and Christian with a capital “C”

February 15, 2010

Washington and Cherry Pie

Presidents’ Day.  In my youth, we had Lincoln’s Birthday on February 12 and Washington’s Birthday on February 22.  I don’t remember specific rituals around Lincoln’s Birthday, but Washington’s was celebrated with cherry pie.

And, of course, big sales.

Now, what we mainly have are the sales.

I could not help thinking of Washington today.  Partly because I still had Sarah Palin’s Tea Party speech on my mind, “American Exceptionalism”, and the attempt (apparently among certain members of the Texas Education Board) to characterize the founding fathers as Christian (with the capital “C” and silent “F” of Fundamentalism).

Even when I was little, the one thing we all knew about George Washington was that whole incident with the cherry tree. We had been told that the story was probably not true, but understood that the point was that Washington himself was true; a good man; that even as a child (like us), he could not lie.  (I thought about him as a kind of American Pinocchio.)

Of course, even the true stories about Washington stress the strength and nobility of his character, noticeable in both his age and youth.  I read today, in connection with thinking of Washington’s character, the precepts Washington copied out at sixteen:  Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation, 110 maxims which are believed to have come from a book published in 1664 in London entitled, The Young Man’s Companion, and which, in turn, were derived from rules developed by French Jesuits in 1595.

The Rules are a detailed compendium of how to show respect and consideration to others, both in matters of literal nit-picking as well as “not-picking-upon.”  Although the rules urge a young man to keep the “celestial fire” of conscience alive, they do not seem to teach how to please a Christian God (there are no biblical references), but how to be a good, honorable, admirable person.

The founding fathers, shaped as they were by the Enlightenment, seem to me to have been big on such precepts, guidelines, universal rules.  One thinks of Ben Franklin, who, in his Poor Richard’s Almanac, published literally hundreds of adages, rules to live by.  While some of Franklin’s adages do mention God (as in “God helps those who help themselves”), and many castigate immorality (especially hypocrisy), the focus is more on prescribing a moral life because it is a key to happiness, contentment, self-fulfillment, societal good:  “Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden but it is forbidden because it’s hurtful. Nor is a Duty beneficial because it is commanded, but it is commanded, because it’s beneficial.”  (Poor Richard’s Almanac, from 1739.)   In other words, a good life is its own reward, and, more importantly, is a reward.

Thomas Jefferson was particularly interested in theology;  he even wrote specifically about Jesus, but again, his interest seems to focus not so much the specific religious meaning of Jesus, but in Jesus as a sublime paradigm of the ethical life.  (Apparently, Jefferson’s book, published in 1820, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, sets forth Jesus’s ethical pronouncements, while editing out the Virgin birth, the miracle stories, Jesus’s claims to divinity, and the resurrection.)

I really do not know as much about the history of these men as I would like, so forgive me (and comment) if I’m mischaracterizing them.  I’m certainly not trying to make them out as “anti-Christian”, but simply saying that it seems bizarrely reductive, simplistic, and manipulative (i) to argue that the use of the word “God” or “Creator” in our founding political documents aligns the founding fathers with the religious right; (ii) to ignore the historical context of these guys (as heavy readers of both the Bible and Voltaire), and (iii) to treat them as if they were somehow more mainstream versions of Joseph Smith, i.e. specific transmitters of divine will.

Agh!

And yes, it’s possible to be ethical and even christian without the capital “C” or the capital “F”, in the same way that one can honor the American flag without being pro-war.  One can even like cherry pie.

(All rights reserved.)

PS- if you like elephants, as well as watercolors, check out 1 Mississippi by Karin Gustafson on Amazon.

Palin on Prosperity – God Help Us.

February 14, 2010

In Chilapa, Mexico

Started out today (Valentine’s Day) intending to write and draw about love and its objects.  With and without elephants.

One object of my love is tea.   My first cup, drunk while reading Frank Rich of the New York Times, unfortunately brought me to ‘tea party’.  And tea party, elephants, Frank Rich, and Valentines (as in who can be as cutesy, hokey, and reductive, as a Hallmark card–sorry, Hallmark!)–brought me to Sarah Palin.

I confess to having a hard time listening to Palin’s Tea Party speech (I had to read the transcript).  There is a teasing artifice that is deeper than the teased hair.   She zings out one-liners which she must know are not true;  she presents herself as  a spokesperson for the “little guy,” while keeping a continual eye on the nontransparent ball of personal enrichment and aggrandizement.

(One of the personally most aggravating inconsistencies is her castigation of government programs while touting herself as the protector of those with special needs.  Who pays for the lifetime care of most people with special needs, Sarah?

Her “solutions” are also one-liners:  on the war against terrorism:  “Bottom line, we win, they lose. We do all that we can to win.”  (Gee, amazing that no one else thought of that.)

One would think that Sarah’s highly-paid exhortations towards an un-fact-based, if strident, agenda would cause her pause, maybe even a little guilt.  But Sarah seems to bypass all those concerns by a pink cloud of religious faith:  as in ‘if we Godly people can only get into power, God will swoop down and save us.’

Palin’s actual words: “you know, we don’t have all the answers as fallible men and women.  So it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again.”

I don’t doubt Sarah’s faith.  I understand people (including myself)  seeking divine support and guidance in times of trouble and not.

But what’s worrisome is Sarah’s casual equation between the search for divine intervention with safeness, security and prosperity; as if hard, fact-based, complex, boring, analysis, could be bypassed.

Putting aside some of the more philosophical questions–didn’t George W. try that?

Secondly, well, is God really that interested in the the bank bail-out?

Third, Sarah, how can be so sure that you have a better pipeline to God than Obama?   (BTW, didn’t your demi-idol Ronald Reagan consult an astrologer more frequently than a pastor? )  (And isn’t this an awfully lot like the type of things that the Taliban preach?)

Finally, aren’t there a lot of religious, even Christian, people who are not particularly safe, secure or prosperous?   (Don’t, in other words, bad things happen to good people?)

She makes me think about a trip to Mexico a couple of years ago.  Mexico is an extremely religious country;  in the small town where we stayed there were fiestas every week in which the “Cristianos” conquered the “Moros” on the paving stones in front of the local cathedral.  At one fiesta, depicted above, a man dressed in satin swaddling clothes was hung from a cross on the back of a truck.

The Mexicans, in short, are not afraid to show, even to parade, their religiousity.   And yet that country suffers from poverty, unemployment and underemployment, terrible drug violence.   Yes, it’s true that abortion, long illegal there, has very recently had a slightly greater allowance in a few Mexican states.   However, anti-abortion rules are on the rise again  (and Mexico’s economic and social problems long preceded any loosening of abortion laws.)

Sarah, please  explain.