January « 2010 « Rumors, Lies, Innuendo, Fear, Uncertainty, and Despair

Counting Cows

January 21, 2010

Two ranchers riding in a pickup pass a neighbor’s spread. “Jesus,” one of them says, “ol’ Seth’s got himself a lot of beeves out there this year.”

“’Bout 418, I reckon,” says the other.

“Now how in the hell did you count them critters that fast?”

“Easy enough,” says the other. “I just added up the number of legs and then divided by four.”

Probably the most underrated political controversy of 2010 is yet to come: the decennial census required by the Constitution. Everybody, and I mean everybody, eventually will claim their constituency, be it a city or state, ethnic minority or majority, religious group, occupational group or whatever, is underrepresented by the census data. Why? Because the census is about votes and money.

The original reason for the census was to determine how the votes were distributed among the states in the US House of Representatives. Votes mean power in congress so the individual states want to show the largest possible (or even impossible) numbers to ensure as many representatives as they can get. Here’s a list of those likely to gain, or lose, representatives in the 435-member House:

Arizona +2
Florida +1
Georgia +1
Illinois -1
Iowa -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Michigan -1
Minnesota -1
Nevada +1
New Jersey -1
New York -1
Ohio -2
Pennsylvania -1
South Carolina +1
Texas +3
Utah +1
Washington +1

And don’t forget, these same numbers impact the votes in the Electoral College. Our president and Vice President are chosen, not by the total popular vote of the nation, but, in most states, by a winner-take-all bloc of votes cast for the winning candidate from the state. Think about the politics of the above states and it will occur to you that the Republicans likely will benefit from the 2010 census.

For this reason, and many others, advocacy groups of every stripe already are putting out propaganda about bias and under counting in the census. A review of news stories over the past 30 days reveals over 400 claims, even before the census has started, of under counts that will cheat these or those people out of votes or money or both. Keep in mind that about $400 billion of the federal budget is distributed to states, counties, and municipalities based on census data.

Some examples:

College students. Under census rules, people are considered residents of the place where they live and sleep most of the time. Many college students are away from their “homes” for 9 months out of the year and will be on April 1, 2010 which is the official counting day (though the census actually takes months). Since one “head” is worth about $3500 a year in federal benefits, localities are eager to claim college students as “residents.”

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials claims Latinos will be under counted by at least a million. The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders agrees. Others say, that because of the high number of illegal Latinos in the US and their general distrust of government, the Latino under count will run into the millions. For the record, citizenship is NOT a question asked by the census.

The Florida Legislative Black Caucus says blacks will be under counted in that state.

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, and the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, claim blacks are always under counted everywhere.

This same bunch also are claiming that prisoners are being counted as residents of the town where the prison is located rather than their “hometowns” thus depriving their home neighborhoods of federal money.

The Montana Department of Commerce’s Census and Economic Information Center says the last census under counted the state’s population by over 14,000 people.

The Arab American Action Network complains that there isn’t a race category for Arabs on the census form. Opponents claim that ‘Arab’ is not a race.

The Korea Central Daily News claims Koreans will be under counted because many of them are in the country illegally and are afraid even to talk to a census taker.

According to Pinoy, Filipinos will be under counted because they fear they will be called for jury duty or other civic responsibilities.

The India Tribune claims Indians will avoid the census and be under counted because many are illegals.

Extra claims teenagers and young adults will be under counted because they are afraid to give any information to the government. (These kids are smarter than I thought).

The Polish Daily News claims Poles will be under counted because many do not read English and will not realize the importance of the census forms when they arrive in the mail.

Utah claims its citizens are under counted because many are Mormons who are out of the country on church missions.

American Indians are complaining that they are under counted for a variety of reasons. I suspect it has something to do with their receiving more federal money per capita than virtually any other identifiable group.

Cities with large homeless populations fear an under count for obvious reasons.

A Pew Research Center report says that as many as 1 in 5 Americans will not respond to the census for a variety of reasons, most having to do with distrust of what the government might do with the data. (Although raw census data are supposed to be kept secret for 72 years, recent abuses of private data by other federal agencies give people no particular reason to trust the Census Bureau).

The list goes on and on. You can bet that the census data will be argued and challenged in court for years to come particularly by the states that are likely to lose representatives and electoral votes: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Too close to call right now is the possibility that Texas may gain 4 seats, instead of 3, and California may lose a seat instead of remaining even.

Looks like another banner year for lawyers.

(Note: The publications cited above are all US domestic publications, most of which represent ethnic constituencies).

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: bias, census, minority, republican | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

Discount Democrats

January 20, 2010

The American people dodged a bullet yesterday when Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s seat in the US Senate. Brown is the first Republican senator from Massachusetts since the Jurassic Period.

Brown’s presence in the Senate will deny the Democrats the 60-vote super-majority they had until last week. This super-majority was their ticket to ramming Obamacare and god knows what else down the throats of a populace that seems to be about evenly divided on everything.

Republicans are high-fiving in the Capitol and in Statehouses across the country.

Not so fast boys. Republicans deserve little credit for Brown’s victory. In fact, Brown won largely because Republicans stayed out of Massachusetts and out of Brown’s way.

Right now, the Republicans are sitting on an extraordinary opportunity to turn America away from its slide towards socialism and big(ger) government. You can pretty much trust them to fuck it up.

The Republicans lack the balls to stand up for the Constitution or seriously to challenge the hare-brained schemes proposed by the Democrats. The Republican version of politics is to react to the Democrats. The Democrats propose something. If the polls say the people really, really want it, the Republicans will come up with some proposal that says, “Great, but we can do it cheaper.” The Republicans become discount Democrats—the WalMart of politics.

If the people are against it, so are the Republicans and everyone goes back to sleep until the Democrats come up with another crazy idea.

Some commentators have said that Brown’s election “is bigger than 1994.” They’re referring to the mid-term elections held 2 years after Bill Clinton became president. Led by Newt Gingrich and others, the Republicans proposed a “Contract with America.” The Contract was a pledge from House Republicans to take specific action on a broad slate of issues. They told the American people ‘if you elect us, here’s what we’ll do.” Virtually every Republican House candidate signed the Contract and the Republicans scored a major victory with the voters, wresting control of the House from the Democrats.

Initially, the Republicans kept up their end of the Contract, rapidly passing some important reforms that the voters wanted. Most significant among these reforms was how Congress itself did business. The Republicans held to the Contract for six months or so but then succumbed to the allure of power politics, Washington style, and things went back to business as usual.

Like the Democrats, they realized that the most important task of a member of the US House of Representatives is to get re-elected. And, since their jobs are up for grabs every two years, they spend most of their time campaigning. Every vote cast on the floor of the House becomes not a question of “is this the right thing to do for my country” but rather “how many votes will I win or lose on this issue?” If congressmen didn’t have to go on the record with those pesky roll-call votes it would be a dick job.

Not since the Contract with America (this was 16 years ago, mind you) have the Republicans come up with any good ideas. They’ve either opposed whatever the Democrats were plotting (not necessarily a bad idea) or backed one ill-conceived, poorly defined, military scheme after another.

Not since Ronald Reagan left office have the Republicans had a leader or a spokesperson who could articulate Republican values. In fact, if you’re a Republican, I challenge YOU to articulate the values of the Republican Party. Pretty fuzzy, aren’t they?

And the Republicans can’t seem to find anyone who can energize voters. John McCain? Nice guy, war hero, and all that shit, but not really a Republican—just a Discount Democrat. Sarah Palin? Easy on the eyes. I even hear she’s written a book, but has she ever read one?

Here are my suggestions for the Republicans:

Find a set of core values worth expressing (the Constitution would be a nice start).
Find leaders who can communicate these values to the voters.
Cast every vote as if your country, not your career, depended on it.

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: constitution, democrat, republican | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

The Book of Glacial Meltdown

January 19, 2010

You may recall the furor over “Climategate” last fall. That was when the world learned that there was a strong bias against scientists who published research challenging the conventional wisdom of global warming. This is when I suggested in this column (Dec 1, 2009) that it was time to form The First Church of Global Warming and Climatological Catastrophe (Orthodox), since global warming had become more a matter of faith and scripture than of science.

Now here’s the story of how at least one of the Gospels, The Book of Glacial Meltdown came to be. Like most scripture, it’s pretty boring. But if you read through it, you’ll see how one uninformed piece of speculation became the cornerstone of The Book of Glacial Meltdown.

1999 – Syed Hasnain, a little-known scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, makes a claim in a popular Indian magazine that “the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.”
1999 – Fred Pierce, a journalist working for the New Scientist conducts a short telephone interview with Hasnain after spotting his story in the Indian magazine. Hasnain claims he is bringing a report containing his data to Britain. In his New Scientist story, Pearce notes Hasnain’s work has not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal. (Hasnain later admits the claim was “speculation” and is not supported by any formal research). In the interview, Hasnain does not say the Himalayan glaciers would melt entirely by 2035, only that there would be some melting.
2005 – The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) cites Hasnain’s 1999 New Scientist interview in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China.
2008 – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues a benchmark report that claims to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim is the world’s glaciers are melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. The IPCC report gives its source as the WWF study (which cited Hasnain’s 1999 bogus claims). But IPCC goes further, adding that the likelihood of the glaciers melting is “very high,” having a probability of greater than 90%.
2009 – Scientists admit the warning about glaciers is based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
2009 – Glaciologists say that IPCC’s figures are inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035.
2009 – Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, says: “The average glacier is 300 meters thick so to melt one even at 5 meters a year would take 60 years.
2009 – Murari Lal, who oversaw the IPCC chapters on glaciers admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.
2009 – The IPCC refuses to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers is given to oversee such a report.
2009 – Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who has long been unhappy with the IPCC’s finding says, “The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”

And that is how 16,500 people with nothing better to do wound up jamming the halls of Copenhagen in December 2009 to cry about how the glaciers were melting.

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: glacier, global warming | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

Tax the Poor

January 18, 2010

Politicians love taxes. Obviously, they can’t say this out loud so they yammer about safety nets and infrastructure and equity, all of which concepts imply raising taxes, but they don’t actually say the “T” word aloud. When asked how he plans to pay for this or that vote-getting scheme, every successful politician has a song and dance routine designed to assure you that everyone else will pay. You, personally, will be left unscathed.

Given the opportunity, I think politicians almost anywhere would raise taxes to 100%, then redistribute the money according to “need.” This would, of course, insure a just and equitable society (and also pretty much ensure that the politicians themselves were set for life). The Soviets, East Germans, Poles, Czechoslovakians, Romanians, etc. tried this concept but it didn’t work. Not that it was a bad idea; they just didn’t know how to implement it properly.

The problem, of course, is that you have to tax the poor. Why, because:

There just aren’t enough rich people around, as it is.
When taxes increase enough, the rich disappear. They move out of the state, out of the country, into the underground economy, or just quit and reflect on the part of the Constitution that prohibits ‘involuntary servitude.’

What’s a tax and spend liberal or a tax and spend conservative to do? (Keep in mind that the only real difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to taxes is who gets the money).

Well, the poor do have money. It just doesn’t show up in places where it’s an easy mark for the revenuers: payrolls, bank accounts, real estate, 401k’s, etc. It tends to be hidden in pain sight, either in cash or personal property.

Where do the poor get their money? Who cares? Whether it’s from welfare, stealing, selling drugs, wholesaling food stamps, or a minimum-wage job, the poor have money. Individually, not a lot, perhaps. But there are so many of them (according to the government-controlled statistics, anyway), that if you could just squeeze a little out of each of them, you could balance a budget.

The answer is Tax the Poor.

But how? Easy: sales, use, and excise (e.g., tobacco, liquor, gasoline, communications, entertainment) taxes.

Every one knows that even though the poor have no income (and by inference, no money) they own cars and HDTVs, smoke and drink more than most, and don’t seem to have too much trouble paying their cell phone bills, buying gasoline, or tickets to Avatar.

And they’re buying shit all the time. Those folks wheeling bales of Pampers, cases of Diet Coke, Blu-Ray discs, and extra large bags of Ol’ Roy dog food out of WalMart aren’t rich, but they’ve got money to spend.

So the trick is for the revenuers to rake off their share when the sucker opens his wallet. And that’s exactly what they’re doing. There are few places left in this country where they don’t have sales taxes and for good reason: because no matter how poor some schmuck is, if he wants a ham sandwich or a box of nails he’s going to have to pay a tax to get it.

And the sales taxes keep going up! Here we are with unemployment at 10% nationally, over 20% in some locations, and the politicians are whining because they don’t have enough money. After they totally fucked up the economy (and this was a bi-partisan effort), ruined many taxpayers’ life’s savings, shipped good jobs overseas to avoid EPA, OSHA, and the rest of the regulatory pirates, the politicians have the balls to tell us to ‘economize’ or learn to ‘live on a little less.’

And what are they doing? Economizing? Living on less? Hell no, they’re raising taxes. The economy is in the shitter and the politicians are; a) too dumb to figure out why they don’t have as much money this year, and; b) too arrogant to think that, like their constituents they need to learn to live on less.

And on whom do they raise taxes? THE POOR. Why? Because it’s a slam dunk. What’s another penny or two out of a dollar?

And the really good news is that most of the poor, because they attended, (but probably did not finish) our public schools, have no idea that sales and excise taxes are the most inequitable and regressive taxes of them all. They are specifically engineered to place a disproportionate burden on the poor.

I used to hate sales taxes. Now I love ‘em. I’m not rich, but I’m not poor either. I love to see the shoppers at Best Buy getting nicked an extra $80-120 when they buy a big-screen TV. I love to see welfare folks paying an extra 80 cents for a bag of dog food.

I try to buy as much possible on-line. Even if the shipping costs are equal to the sales taxes I would have paid locally, I figure I’m paying Fed-Ex an honest dollar for an honest service.

Rule for living: If it costs more than $25 and weighs less than 200 lbs., buy it on line out of state. There are constitutional issues that have prevented the states from closing this loophole. The states will win eventually because, in the end, the constitution always loses. But, for a while, you can take comfort in ordering from Amazon and avoiding the ‘poor tax.’

What’s the excise tax on beer in your state? I’ll bet you have no idea.

Below is a small sampling of initiatives underway to raise sales taxes. If your jurisdiction isn’t on here it’s only because the size of the complete list would run hundreds of pages.

The St. Louis [MO] County Council voted Monday to put a half-cent sales tax increase on the April 2010 ballot.
City leaders in Jenks [OK] have scheduled a series of public meetings to discuss a sales tax increase.
The least harmful tax to job growth and economic development is a broad based sales tax,” says Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Lincoln Chafee. Rhode Island’s sales tax is already the nation’s second highest, surpassed by only California.
In Olympia [WA] lawmakers are considering extending the state sales tax to consumer services.
Ottawa County [OH] officials are making moves to increase the sales tax in the county from 6.5 percent to 6.75 percent.
A 1 percent sales tax increase already is in place in Indiana.
The Tempe [AZ] city council voted 4-2 to refer a proposed sales tax increase to the general election ballot.
Jackson Hole [WY] town and county voters may be asked whether they want to increase the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent.
Jefferson [OH] county commissioners voted to hold public hearings on raising the county’s sales and use tax rate to 7 percent.
Baldwin County [AL] community leaders are campaigning to gain approval 1-percent sales tax increase that could help lessen the current financial crunch.
Oregon Measure 67 alone boosts state business taxes by more than 40 percent — the largest share of it from the new gross sales tax on corporations that have no taxable income. [Oregon has figured out how to tax POOR corporations!]
Kennett [MO] is currently pushing to raise the total sales tax rate to 6.475 percent.
The sales tax in Rowan County [NC] will increase to 8 percent.
Milwaukee County could raise its sales tax a half cent under legislation that cleared its first hurdle Tuesday.
Earlier this year, Massachusetts state lawmakers increased the sales tax rate to 6.25 percent from 5 percent and eliminated a sales-tax exemption for alcohol sales.
Michigan business leaders would like to slice the state’s main business tax roughly in half. The lost money would be replaced by extending the state sales tax to a host of services.
El Paso [TX] Rep. Joe Pickett said he will ask for a gas tax that would index the rate to inflation. As the cost of living, for instance, goes up, so too would the gas tax rate. [Joe, are Texans so dumb that they don't realize that, as inflation increases, tax revenues will increase automatically without a tax rate increase?]
The Denver Regional Transportation District wants voters were to approve an additional 0.4 percent RTD sales tax.
Debate over Cook County Board President Todd Stroger’s penny sales tax increase — even though it was partially repealed late last year — just won’t die down.
Gov. Sonny Perdue proposed asking Georgians to boost the sales tax by one-cent.
New Mexico proposes expanding sales tax.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is asking lawmakers to pass a 1-cent “temporary” increase in the state sales tax and expanding the tax to include repair services, such as for autos or appliances. [Quick, name a temporary tax that quietly expired.]
South Dakota is considering an increase of 1 percentage point in its sales tax.
Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson is proposing a 1-percentage point sales tax to help rescue the recession-battered state budget from a $400 million deficit. He also proposes increasing cigarette taxes by 55 cents a pack and quadrupling the tax on other tobacco products.

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: excise tax, sales tax, use tax | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

10-16

January 15, 2010

10-16 is the police radio code for a domestic disturbance in most jurisdictions.

Cops do not like to respond to 10-16’s. They are usually difficult and frequently dangerous. Rarely is anyone happy with the outcome. The responding officer is often required by circumstances to make an arrest and then everyone involved in the melee focuses his aggression on the cop.

All too often the result is something like this:

A state trooper responding to a domestic call at a rural home was fatally shot as he got out of his cruiser. Trooper Paul G. Richey, 40, a 16-year veteran assigned to the Franklin barracks, was killed about 11:30 a.m. by a shot fired from the house, outside Oil City, about 80 miles north of Pittsburgh.

The Associated Press
January 13, 2010

Then there’s the international 10-16:

Yemen has stepped up its operations against al-Qaida in recent weeks with help from the United States, which has increased funding and training for Yemen’s security forces. Washington says al-Qaida’s offshoot in the impoverished country on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula has become a global threat.

Ahmed Al-Haj
The Associated Press
January 14, 2010

In the case of Yemen, it may soon be that the cops responding to the 10-16 are members of the US military. And, as happened with Pennsylvania Trooper Richey, it’s likely the peacemakers who will die first.

At least officially, we don’t have troops in Yemen—yet. President Obama said he does not plan to send American combat troops to Yemen, but then he also said we’d have a ‘transparent’ debate on health care.

Already, Washington is increasing counter-terrorism aid and training to Yemeni forces. Aid and training for the local armed forces usually are a prelude to the introduction of American troops. Invariably, the locals will prove to be too corrupt or too cowardly to do the job and once again the suckers from the land of the Big PX will be called upon to do the dirty work.

Already Yemenis are warning the Americans that this is an internal matter and that we’d be smart to stay out:

“If any foreign country insists on aggression and the invasion of the country or interference, in a military or security way, Muslim sons are duty bound to carry out jihad and fight the aggressors,” said a statement issued by Yemeni clerics.

Ahmed Al-Haj
The Associated Press
January 14, 2010

The clerics are making it clear that this is a 10-16. They don’t want us there. Good guidance that I hope we follow.

In fact, I think this may be the perfect setting in which to conduct a sinister, unethical, but very interesting experiment. We, the United States, will keep out of Yemen. We will send no “advisers”, no troops, and provide no counter-terrorism instruction.

Instead, we will air drop sufficient quantities of ammunition, rifles, light machine guns, light artillery, food and medical supplies to meet the needs of all the combatants regardless of their affiliations or loyalties. We’ll let them fight it out until they are dead, exhausted, or have come to terms with one another.

Callous, perhaps but

Yemini domestic casualties probably will be no higher than they would have been anyway
American casualties will be zero

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: advisors, air drop, counterterrorism, yemen | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

God Damns Haiti—Devil Implicated

January 14, 2010

The Lord God Almighty has seen fit to bring down his wrath upon the people of Haiti, killing at least 100,000, destroying every hospital in the capital of Port-au-Prince, along with the Presidential Palace, the National Assembly, and the Port-au-Prince Cathedral.

By conjuring a 7.0 magnitude earthquake near Port-au-Prince the Lord, in His infinite wisdom and compassion, also has seen fit to render 3 million or so Haitians homeless or without basic services such as water and electricity. Even though relief organizations and governments the world over are rushing aid to this beleaguered nation, the Lord is way ahead of them, spreading disease, suffering, and pestilence in the wake of the earthquake. Typhoid, dysentery, and giardia are multiplying rapidly over Haiti and should overwhelm health services by next week.

Why has Haiti been chosen to feel the wrath of the Almighty? Payback’s a bitch—and it seems the Lord is finally getting even with the people of Haiti for a deal they made with Satan himself back in 1804. As the poem goes, “the Lord moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform.” In this case it took him two centuries, so the Haitians who made the deal are long dead but, by God, God finally got even. (When God wants to swear an oath, upon whom does he call? Does he say something like “By Me, I’ll get even with you bastards?”).

And for exactly what was God getting even? In1804 the people of Haiti wanted to be rid of the French (who wouldn’t?) so they made a pact with the Devil, who promised to oust the French if the Haitians would pledge their loyalty to Satan. Deal made, the Haitians revolted and, aided by the Prince of Darkness, ousted the French.

How, you ask, can I know the mind of the Almighty? How can I, a mere mortal, presume to fathom the mysteries of the Lord? Because I listened to Pat Robertson, millionaire evangelical Christian and total asshole, when he broadcast the 700 Club Wednesday night. Pat apparently has God’s personal cell phone number:

“This was caused by something that happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. The Haitians were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’ The Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.”

Pat Robertson
The 700 Club, January 13, 2010

Pat Robertson

So there you have it. I don’t talk to God but Mr. Robertson apparently does. And this isn’t the first time God has told Mr. Robertson why he fucked up a bunch of innocent people because he was pissed. Here’s why Hurricane Katrina smacked New Orleans and killed 1,800:

“We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America.”

Pat Robertson
The 700 Club, September 12, 2005

So God says to himself, “The Americans have aborted over 40 million fetuses (over some unspecified period of time). I’ll get even by killing 1,800 Louisianans.”

Why Louisiana? Why 1800? Why not 40 million Americans chosen, say, at random? You know, just hit ‘em all simultaneously with bolts of lightning or something. Now THAT’S a message!

Ever wonder why, despite their woolly-headed ideas, the Democrats seem generally to do better than the Republicans? Because the Republicans don’t have the balls to tell supporters like Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition to go fuck themselves.

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: earthquake, god, haiti, pat robertson, satan | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

New Mexico Fat Tax

January 13, 2010

Gov. Bill Richardson has said he doesn’t want to tax food to help solve the state’s budgetary troubles. But Tuesday he said he could live with taxing items such as candy and soft drinks.

“I have serious reservations about bringing up the food tax,” Richardson said. “Perhaps the solution might be to look at some of the loopholes like candy, like sodas.”

New Mexico Independent

As are many states, New Mexico is looking at revenue shortfalls brought on by the decline in the general economy. A decline in natural gas and crude oil prices has also impacted New Mexico’s tax revenues.

The idea of suffering with its citizens and simply getting along on less money horrifies governors, bureaucrats, and legislators.

“We gotta get our hands on some serious cash,” says the governor.

“But sir, you promised not to raise taxes,” says some resident flunky.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson—always a formidable presence in the buffet line

“Yeah,” says the governor, “but that was before the economy went in the shitter. Now people are out of jobs, so they’re not paying income taxes. They’re not buying anything, so they’re not paying sales taxes. What the fuck are we supposed to do, live on our income?”

“Well, sir, that is what the taxpayers have to do.”

“Just because the taxpayers have to tighten their belts, doesn’t mean we have to. We’re the government, for Christ’s sake.”

“Hmmm. Taxpayers tightening their belts. Sir, I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you raise taxes on fattening foods? You know, a sort of ‘fat tax’. I mean it fits in with the whole idea of belt tightening and everything.”

“You mean like taxing Beef Wellington or Chateaubriand?”

“Well, sir, I was thinking more of things like candy and soda. You know, stuff real people eat.”

“Yeah, right. Good idea. What did you say your name was?”

“Perkins, sir.”

“Perkins, change your name to Rodriguez, give yourself a 20% raise, and get my press agent on the phone.”

“Yes SIR! Here he is now.”

“Paolo, Bill. Listen pal. I’ve got this great idea. We’re gonna raise taxes on candy and sodas. Get something out to the media quick. You know, ‘governor comes out for healthy eating, fitness, cardio, balanced budget, all that shit.’ Make it sound like this is good for everybody and it won’t really cost anybody anything. What? Oh, I don’t know. Say something like they’ll save more in gym fees than they’ll pay in taxes. You’ll think of something. No, I am NOT going on a diet. People expect me to have a certain gubernatorial corpulence. Besides, most of this fat I’m carrying was paid for by investment company lobbyists anyway. Yeah, see ya tonight. Giovanni’s Grill. Eightish.”

“Grace, order me a couple of new corsets. Better make ‘em a little larger than the last ones.”

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: bill richardson, fat tax, new mexico | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

Lessons from Jimmy Carter

January 12, 2010

The 70’s had to have been exciting.

In 1972, President Richard Nixon was re-elected by a landslide. His opponent, George McGovern, won the electoral votes of only one state. A year later Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro Agnew, was forced to resign in order to avoid jail time for accepting bribes. Under the 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution, Nixon appointed Gerald R. Ford, the House Minority Leader as Vice President. Congress ratified Ford’s appointment in December 1973.

Less than nine months later, in August 1974, President Nixon was forced to resign or face certain impeachment and removal for an aromatic potpourri of scandals usually described under the umbrella of “Watergate.” Ford became President and, in turn, nominated former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. Thus, for the only time in the history of the United States (December 19, 1974 – January 20, 1977), we had both a President and a Vice President who had not been elected to either office.

It is something of an attest to the inherent stability of our Republic that it did not collapse during those uncertain years. The NFL played its regular schedule, airplanes still obeyed the laws of physics, and cows continued giving milk.

Ford ran for re-election, but lost. He wasn’t a bad guy but he was uninspiring and he was smeared from head to foot with the excrement of his predecessors’ scandals even though there was nothing tying Ford himself to the wrongdoing.

Jimmy Carter

America needed to forget about Nixon, Agnew, Watergate, and, perhaps most of all, its dreadful failure in Viet Nam. So they rejected Ford’s “re-election” bid (actually, he had never been elected in the first place) and selected a well-meaning, but inept, peanut farmer from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. Carter had served one term as governor of Georgia.

Carter’s presidency was appropriately undistinguished in the sense that, while not much happened during his administration, the stench coming out of Washington abated enough so that even turkey farmers said the air smelled better.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Kohmeini

A few will claim that because Iranian dissidents ousted the Shah of Iran during the Carter administration, Carter’s presidency marks the beginning of the modern era of Islamofascist terrorism. Carter was not a master of foreign policy, to be sure, but it’s hardly fair to blame him for the excesses of Iranian royalty.

Besides, the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Kohmeini. And this guy was the most sinister religious figure around until Pope Benedict. All over Iran, I’ll bet they still terrorize little kids at the madrassahs by showing them Kohmeini’s picture.

But I digress. The reason for this little piece is to discuss two things Jimmy Carter has done in the past decade, one up-front and courageous; the other, a bit sinister.

Good Boy, Jimmy

My own Southern Baptist Convention leaders ordained in recent years that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors, chaplains in the military service, or teachers of men. They based this on a few carefully selected quotations from Saint Paul and also Genesis, claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin. This was in conflict with my belief that we are all equal in the eyes of God. The Roman Catholic Church and many others revere the Virgin Mary but consider women unqualified to serve as priests.

This view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or tradition. Its influence does not stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths, creating an environment in which violations against women are justified.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had– and still have– an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.

Speech by Jimmy Carter to the Parliament of the World’s Religions
Melbourne, Australia
Dec. 3, 2009

Jimmy Carter was a devout Southern Baptist. When I read the above quote I thought “If you believe in equal rights for women, why would you associate yourself with an outfit like the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)? You ought to get out.”

I did some research and discovered that Carter did get out—in 2000. Carter left the SBC because of its stand on the second-class status of women. I admire him for this because I’m sure it was a very difficult decision for him. He had to turn his back on a lifetime association with the SBC, including something like 65 years of teaching Sunday School and Bible studies.

Bad Boy, Jimmy

But in the same speech quoted above, Jimmy had this to say in reference to The Elders, an internationally select group of retired politico-religious activists:

We are no longer active in politics and are free to express our honest opinions.

So there we have it. Carter, speaking for fellow Elders such as Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, and Desmond Tutu finally lets slip the secret of politicians the world over.

While you are in politics, you are excused from the truth.

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: agnew, carter, ford, Islamofascist, Kohmeini, nixon | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

Arabs and Muslims

January 11, 2010

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution published a worthwhile piece “Beating the Dead Terrorist Horse,” in the National Review Online. It is a brief but well-done survey of what we should have learned about terrorists over the past decade. Hanson’s lament is that many of the facts in his essay quickly are being forgotten (if they ever were understood).

After reading Hanson’s essay I noted that he may have made the naive assumption that most of his readers understand differences between an Arab and a Muslim. I believe many Westerners don’t or, perhaps more correctly, they presume that Arab and Muslim are pretty much the same thing. There are, of course, significant differences worth noting.

The following is hardly intended as a tour de force. But the facts should help readers differentiate the two. Please forgive slight misconceptions that may result from the brevity of this piece. Also note that census numbers used here are from reputable sources but that they do not necessarily agree with other, also presumably reputable, sources.

Arabs

An Arab is someone whose native language is Arabic. This may sound like a tautology but there are disputes (particularly among “Arabs”) as to who is Arab and who is not. Some consider a person Arab only if he is genealogically descended from desert nomads (Bedouins) of the Arabian Peninsula. Political scientists draw a less rigid definition, considering an Arab to be a citizen of any country where Arabic is either the only language or the principal language of the country.
There are 20 countries, plus Palestine that meet the political definition of “Arab.”
The total number of Arabs is 300-360 million.
All Arab countries combined have a smaller manufacturing capability than Finland (5 million people).
The largest Arab country is Egypt with 90 million citizens. Egypt is almost three times as populous as the next-largest Arab country, Algeria. Or maybe not. Many Arabs living in other countries do not consider Egyptians to be Arabs unless they also are Muslims. Others maintain that no Egyptians, except for about 1% who are of Bedouin descent, are Arabs. The wise traveler will simply keep his mouth shut should this topic arise.
Distribution of Arabic as sole official language (green) and one of several official languages (blue).
Almost all Arab countries are in North Africa or on the Arabian Peninsula.
Though varying significantly by country, about half of all Arabs live in cites and larger towns; the other half live primarily in small villages.
The largest expatriate population of Arabs (12 million) lives in Brazil.
There are approximately 3 1/2 million Arabs living in the United States.
In Europe, France has the largest Arab population, 6 million, or about 10% of French citizens.
Four countries often mistakenly assumed to be Arab are NOT: Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
Twenty per cent (1.5 million) of the population of Israel is Arab.
Approximately 95% of all Arabic speakers are Muslim.

Muslims

A Muslim is an adherent to Islam, a set of religious beliefs. Islam means “one who submits (to God).”

Approximately 23% of the world’s population—1.3-1.6 billion—is Muslim.
Islam is the second largest religious faith in the world. Christianity has 2.1-2.2 billion followers. (About half of all Christians are Roman Catholic).
While there are many minor sects, most Muslims are either Sunni (90%) or Shi’a (10%).
Arabs account for only about 20% of all Muslims.
Approximately 62% of the world’s Muslims live in Asia, with over 683 million adherents in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.
Darker colors represent larger percentages of Muslim population
There may be as many as 65 million Muslims in China.
Approximately 50 countries have Muslim majority populations.
In the Middle East, the countries of Turkey and Iran (which are non-Arab) are the largest Muslim-majority countries; in Africa, Egypt and Nigeria have the most populous Muslim communities.
Theology. The following is an aggregation of commonly-held Muslim beliefs. Because of sectarian differences, not all of these observations apply to all Muslims:

Islam seeks to regulate not only individual relationships to God but also human relationships. Thus, Islam is not only a religious institution but also a body of law governing society. Not until the 20th century did a few countries, such as Turkey, sever the religious elements of Islam from the legal elements.

Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through Muhammad via the archangel Gabriel.

Muhammad was God’s final prophet.

The Qur’an is the holy book of revelations Muhammad received from God over a period of more than twenty years

The Qur’an recognizes Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus as prophets of God.

The Qur’an acknowledges God as the Creator of the universe but does not specify the time or a timetable for Creation.

Adam preached the message of Islam—submission to the will of God.

The Qur’an states that the name Muslim was given by Abraham.

Muslims reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Jesus, comparing it to polytheism.

The Qurʾān is rigorously monotheistic.

Belief in angels is essential to Islam. Angels communicate revelations from God, record every person’s actions, and take a person’s soul at the time of death.

Muslims believe Satan is present and active in the world and will be until the “Day of Resurrection”.

Belief in the “Day of Resurrection” is crucial for Muslims.

On the “Day of Resurrection,” when the world comes to an end, the dead will be bodily resurrected and God will pronounce judgment on every person.

The Five Pillars of Islam
* Shahadah, the basic creed of Islam must be recited under an oath: “I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”
* Salah, or ritual prayer, which must be performed five times a day. Each salah is done facing towards the Kaaba in Mecca.
* Zakat, or alms-giving.
* Sawm, or fasting during the month of Ramadan. The fast is to encourage a feeling of nearness to God.
* Hajj, a the pilgrimage to the city of Mecca.

Jihad is to “strive or struggle, exerting one’s utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation.” The object of jihad may be a visible enemy, the devil, or aspects of one’s own inner being.
For some, jihad also means military exertion against non-Muslims in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state. Most Muslims today interpret Jihad as only a defensive form of warfare.

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: beating the dead terrorist horse, victor davis hanson | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

The “A” Word

January 10, 2010

Holy Mary, Mother of God, please bring us the playoffs in clear, sharp HDTV in 1080p. And, if it's not too much trouble, could you arrange for Phil Simms to call in sick?

OK, I’m not allowed to use the “N” word apparently not because the word is demeaning or offensive but because I am not black. If the word were really pejorative then I’m sure comedians like Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, and Kat Williams would not use it as liberally as they do. It must be a religious thing.

Ah, here’s the evidence now! Three churches in Malaysia have been firebombed following a court ruling that allows the country’s Christians to use the term Allah to refer to God. Horrors! There are Catholics in Malaysia that are using the “A” word!

I’m not a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Believer of any sort. Where does that put me? Can I use the “A” word? Or are both the “A” word and the “N” word off limits. Since I’m not a Believer is the “G” word also verboten? Who decides these things? Where was I when the voting took place?

Leave a Comment » | Commentary | Tagged: allah, chris rock, dave chappelle, kat williams | Permalink
Posted by Lloyd Williams

Rumors, Lies, Innuendo, Fear, Uncertainty, and Despair