A plea of religious bigotry

If McCain and Palin weren’t so busy trying to trash Senator Obama with some guilt by association through the likes of Tony Rezko, William Ayers or even Reverend Wright, they might actually have a platform to run on.  But, they haven’t chosen to do it that way.  Recently, a Los Angeles Times article revealed that there was a video of some sort of meeting or luncheon that now Senator Obama had that included a friend on the faculty of the university that he worked for at the time, a Professor Khalidi (sic?).  The video was shown to the L.A. Times, but on the condition of anonymity.  Let us insinuate as did McCain and Palin that what got talked about by the two professors during this luncheon or meeting was a professed hatred of Israel.  After CNN let the matter play out for a day or so, only then was there a retraction of sorts, that what McCain and Palin said was blatantly false.  Now let us address the facts of the matter:  Over the last 2,000 years, Christians have really not had love for Israel or the Jewish peoples.  Indeed, as you get closer into the book of Revelations, you find a degree of Christian hatred for Jews, because they ultimately did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.  Today, if you find Christians claiming a Judeo-Christian tradition, it is actually contrary, at least on the surface, to a long history of beating Jews about the head for their failures to fall in line with believing Christians.  Or is it?  Back in 2000 after all, Christians visited Israel to await the coming of Christ and to witness first hand the destruction of Israel…  You can be sure that Senator Obama doesn’t “pal around” with extremists of this sort.  Nor did he have as a pastor, as did Governor Palin, who said that the Jews faced the threat of terrorism because they didn’t believe in Christ.  So, what has Christ done to prevent terrorists attacking a supposedly Christian nation on 9/11/2001?  Oh, that’s right, those internal barbarians such as feminists, pro-choicers, gays, Democrats.

You get the sense that responsibility for one’s own speech and conduct is a matter of political expediency.  When a woman once charged that Obama was an Arab (he is not a Semite, but even if he was, so what?) and McCain said that no Obama was a decent family man…  But since McCain’s half-assed attempt to run a more decent and respectful campaign, he went right back to a refusal to do that by his and Palin’s insinuations, that if you have luncheons or meeting with faculty members who are Palestinian, and we all know how they feel about Israel (non Palestinians by the way call Israel a “terrorist state” as well.), then we can question Obama’s bonafides about being a friend of Israel.  Well now, does McCain recall that those of the Islamic religion also vote Republican?  Many of those people are not exactly “friends of Israel.”  That extreme Christians are not now and never will be friends of Israel?  McCain does want their votes.  And how about the pagans that guys like Pat Robertson declared were the ones responsible for 9/11/2001?  Many pro-choicers, feminists and yes, out right pagans like myself, are in fact Republican.  But after today, McCain and his attempts to yet again tar Obama with a charge that can in fact apply equally to any politician anywhere, didn’t McCain only buddy up to the late Reverend Falwell who had on his 700 Club a day or so after 9/11/2001 Robertson who attacked this country for its “sins” and the wrath of God by way of Islamic terrorism.  Sure, Robertson did apologize.  But the “church” formed as a consequence of his initial speech and has since run accross the country attacking it and our fallen soldiers for defending gays, “thank God for 9/11″ say the signs, but to date, McCain has said not a public word about such a church, now has he?  What he did say, was that if there had been a video of either him or Palin that had surfaced where they sat down with a neo-Nazi…  Well now, lest we forget, the GOP in Congress only gave to a guy who palled around with neo-Nazis some 3.1 million dollars because of so-called FBI and federal marshall bungling.  Randy Weaver.  So, McCain wants to make this as ugly a race as he possibly can, does he?

Then McCain needs to take something into consideration.  A millionaire can invest in a business venture, hire a workforce, create a product, and shipping it out the door; can then expect to reap more millions for his effort.  The millionaire generates wealth for himself and spreads the wealth around by his willingness to invest in this venture in the first place.  The only thing that gvt can do is provide incentives and opportunities.  And it can do that by providing a favorable climate for the business to operate in.  Obama has flat out promised that.  McCain however says that he will personally create jobs, he will create wealth and how?  By shifting the tax burden.  But onto whom?  He offers few specifics.  But the shifting of the tax burden from mega corporations to smaller businesses being one of the few specifics he cites.  The cutting of spending that he doesn’t specifically detail at all, which means that many can be adversely affected by his creating wealth in order to create jobs.  Then the tax burden of McCain’s activist gvt must fall somewhere, on those least likely to afford it.  But, as has been asked elsewhere, just because McCain offers to reward companies with a 25% tax rate who had shipped jobs overseas and not for reasons of taxes, doesn’t mean that the companies will stay in this country even at that specific tax rate.  So, should it come as a surprise that McCain can run a dirty campaign?  There are a lot more questions about his left wing philosophy than there is about Obama’s.

Smart Bombs

(There are some things you can give Gary Crooks of the Spokesman-Review great credit for.)

Think of it as a tax burden

Gary Crooks, in his most recent “Smart Bombs” column discussed the concentration of wealth as it accrued to the 1% of the wealthiest individuals residing in this nation.  That 1% who now had a greater burden of taxes as a consequence of such a concentration of wealth.  Which may be the real reason why McCain wants to shave the tax rate even further for such corporations so that their “tax burden” is reduced accordingly.  Never mind the many ways in which the wealthiest 1% work hard at avoiding paying out on that tax burden at every opportunity.  Such as Tax Shelters.  What McCain breezily promises and avoids taking a close look at anything, he implies some sort of altruistic motivation to major corporations, that if their tax rates were reduced to even more historic lows, why they would create wealth.  Make that, they would have further opportunities to horde the wealth they already have.  So here are some facts that McCain simply doesn’t want to look at.

Taxes that vary from country to country

McCain in his many campaign stops before different rallies mentioned the fact that Ireland has the low tax rate of 11%.  This would be, so he proclaimed the reasons why businesses would relocate to Ireland in order to set up shop.  Don’t expect me to become an over night economist in that I can state right now what a tax ratio to Gross Domestic Product would be; or that I ever had a direct hand in writing tax codes to assume that we had X amount of GDP and can therefore tax according to the actual wealth created by the actual GDP.  But I can still legitimately speculate, that if Ireland has an 11% tax rate, it doesn’t mean that Ireland has a more business friendly environment for businesses to set up shop.  Indeed, if Ireland happened to have labor and environmental laws anything like that of the U.S., it is also highly unlikely that a Microsoft (for example) would move its main office there.   It is because Ireland may have a GDP well below what presumably the U.S. has.  And an 11% tax rate would be about what that nation can produce in state revenues for what its actual production involves.  • We aren’t just talking about taxes now, but also dirt cheap labor.  • You can find all that in India, China, Vietnam and etc.  I find little to no wealth creation in the business of greed first.  What gets me, is that these same companies that rendered their American workforce jobless made the blithe assumption that jobless people would still be spending money (that they hadn’t earned) like crazy.  So it takes awhile before joblessness begins to take a toll on the economy and starts causing collapses in the marketplace up and down the ladder.  So let us put it bluntly, that altruism did not exist when businesses relocated (not just on taxes but also other factors) to other nations, taking away, as they did so, wealth creation in their original states or counties or cities of operations.  Forever seeking short term greed and making the proverbial gazillions on the basis of what has been described above, I can hardly proclaim that if McCain reduced to 25% the tax rate on the gazillions already owned by such corporations, well, it just means they would keep gazillions more in their greedy hands.  It doesn’t mean however, that they would be more inclined to play nice and hire on an American workforce.  Speaking of an innate liberalism behind McCain’s very comments.  The man is definitely operating on some idealistic assumptions.

The Ayn Rand factor?

Ever since Ayn Rand wrote what today is being described as a radical approach to the whole idea of the marketplace:  The individual matters more than group think, altruism is an enemy to success, etc.  There have no doubt been devotees who tried to put Rand’s reverse Communism into action.  Why would I say “reverse Communism?”  Because ultimately, the same people who would at least on the surface support Rand’s ideological views in fiction, still expected the government to “be there” for their collective wants and needs, special legislation that their industry lobbyists would write that would favor the businesses they had come to represent.  The common good was seen as alien, the other, to ideas of success.  But, the common man could fork over for the business interest because who has to pay for the tax break or subsidy?  Who has to pay for the federal grant or loan, quite beyond the business interest?  Who has to fork out for any trade deal that is sure to benefit that business?  If Ayn Rand were to be believed, those who ran the businesses and deemed altruism a terrible threat to their long term profits should have considered that altruism where they can be beneficiaries, can surely be denied as well.  Yeah, reverse Communism.  Not the common good, or all are rendered by the “state” equal, but because I have the money to be heard better than you who don’t, then I can expect something from the state, and your wallet, (and call you “socialist” if you demand the same.)  I had the occasion for reading at least a couple of Rand’s books as a child.  Atlas Shrugged was one I recall, and I think it was, “Who’s John Gault?”  Was he some kind of a fictional character in an already fictional tale?  Where a dude in this story goes out to find him and basically prove his existence.  But, I understood the works to be fiction.  What I did see in any of those books was something of a culture war between men of enterprise and those demanding that men of enterprise develop a social conscious.  When I think about it, Ayn Rand must have been quite apoplectic over Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol” where Scrooge was taught a social conscious with the help of ghosts.  Or did Rand have another thought in mind?  What would happen if men of enterprise really did not care to develop a social conscious and pursued greed at every turn?  Rand wasn’t prescient enough to know what would happen, but today, we do see the outcome.  The global markets crashing.

Altruism

Altruism is behind McCain’s arguments against higher taxes, especially on those who can most afford to pay them.  We can’t have that, higher taxes will not generate wealth creation.  No, but it does obligate people to pay for such things as the roads and bridges they travel on, the military they expect to protect them, the schools they go to for education and etc.  Who do they expect to pay for these things?  It used to be that it was called welfare with the implication of laziness.  The guy who doesn’t think he needs to earn his own keep if he can just insist on gvt taking care of his needs.  Good enough.  Now how about those who also want something for nothing?  The people who go to McCain rallies and hear a something for nothing speech from Senator McCain?  Looks like “welfare” and the “laziness” factor have now migrated (like the spreading of wealth) upwards.

I don’t expect any politician to be thoroughly honest.  To say the right thing all the time and not have his words come back to haunt him.  But, I am prepared to offer far more respect to the fellow who recognizes somewhat how and why we are in the economic situation that we now face.  That we shall have to sacrifice something to pull this nation out of the ditch and give it a future.  Obama admits it.  McCain has yet to.

Be careful, Joe the Plumber

When Senator McCain and Governor Palin aren’t charging “socialism” against their Democratic opponent, Senator Obama, then they are beating the drum on “Joe the plumber” as that poor guy who’d suffer greatly under an Obama presidency.  However, while it is my understanding that “Joe” has many thousands of back taxes that he hasn’t paid, without question, out of ideological protestation of having to pay any at all regardless of what administration we are talking about, Senator McCain none the less used this tax scofflaw to somehing of a political advantage.  At least for the moment.  So, we know who McCain now pals around with, don’t we?  A tax cheat.  But not someone of sufficient morality to obey the law.  And a tax cheat that McCain wants to hold up as a national example of the guy he’d do something for as president.  Oh that’s right, the tax cheat who aspires to be the business man that McCain would do something for.  Sounds like that would be right up his alley.  After all, McCain only helped out S&L guy Charles Keating who was ultimately in a lot of legal trouble because of shady business practices.  So, why would McCain want to parade around a guy who “won the debate?”  Because McCain doesn’t care to learn from history.

However, “Joe the Plumber” even if he thinks that paying taxes is “socialist,” ought to consider the outright socialism of the McCain campaign to make use of  “Joe’s” money and give it away on the behalf of homeowners who bought into toxic mortgages and the lending companies who created them.  That’s what McCain has been promising of late, and if “Joe” only has questions about Obama’s tax plans that ultimately “spread the wealth,” then he should have even harder questions for the guy who said that “Joe had won the debate,” why McCain would flip and flop on whether “Joe” should have as much control over his own money as possible or if instead, McCain would rather assist those companies that engaged in risky practices (but not illegal) that ultimately saw their companies collapsing as did Charles Keating’s Savings and Loan.  Yeah, on “Joe’s” money, and mine and yours.  McCain said that “Joe” should be free to spread his own wealth.  How hilarious would that be?  If “Joe” were say a homeowner who had been invited into a toxic mortgage by Countrywide, this mortgage company ultimately goes belly up because of out of control “risky practices,” would “Joe” on his own spread the wealth to set Countrywide back on its feet?  I highly doubt that, so why should we?  But, that is what McCain promises to the cheering crowds of rabid followers.  Then between him and Palin, turn around and accuse Obama of socialism.

The problem for McCain is while he has been superbusy telling his rabid following (they froth hatefully at the mouth with any mention of Obama) about not only extending GW’s tax cuts but making them even more draconian, businesses would get a tax rate now of 25%, what McCain doesn’t mention is who or what would be hurt by such a reduction of taxes on corporations; and if state by state, the GOP supporters of McCain would find their taxes being raised to cut the shortfall of revenue from the fed.  If as McCain suggests, businesses left this nation because of taxes, then they’d have no cause to relocate to this nation as long as they were forced to pay higher taxes to assure revenue state by state.  So, who would pay ultimately in higher taxes?  “Joe.”  Be careful, “Joe,” McCain isn’t honest.  He makes many promises that ultimately he can’t and won’t keep.

Bully boy and whining loudly

If you can’t destroy the politician attack his supporters

Does anyone remember when moveon.org put out an ad in the New York Times describing General Petraeus as General Betray us?  I bet that Michael Barone no longer does.  No, he spends an entire editorial whining about those “liberals” who won’t allow contrary views in such areas as attack ads—The American Issues Project or even Right Change.  Or harsh Obama critics appearing on talk radio.  Or get this one, those “liberal universities” that won’t allow contrary political views on campus.  Oh those poor, picked on people that when Sarah Palin started connecting Obama to William Ayers—We distinctly heard “kill him, kill him.”  Not exactly what I call “free speech” that immediately sounds like a threat against the life of another human being.  But don’t assume that Barone will in fact castigate such utterances of “free speech” that sound distinctly immoral; not as long as it comes from his political side of the fence.

I have heard similar bully boy arguments from those who blog regularly at Huckleberries online.The names mentioned are the screen names of those who regularly comment there.  Such as MamaJD.  You are regarded as “irrational” or “not making sense” by coming up with an argument that “she” can’t counter.  Not only is it an attempt at a put down, but “MamaJD” makes it known quite harshly that she doesn’t like contrarian views.  She also wouldn’t mind in the least if those of contrarian views took their opinions elsewhere.  A “liberal?”  Not according to her.  She is a McCain/Palin supporting Republican.  Wonder why Barone doesn’t mention people like MamaJD.  Or take Bruce who loves to harshly attack all things Democrat and generally leaves the Republicans alone on A Matter of Opinion.  Remind “Bruce” that no politician in Washington, D.C. actually has clean hands, irrespective of political party, and he goes haywire.  Bet that Barone is real careful not to take note that irrespective of the political ideology, there is no one individual, of the more radical bent, that wants to hear a contrarian view.

On to the attack ads:  Right Change and The American Issues Project actually did not exist until a few weeks ago.  That was when they sent out TV ads attacking the Democrats for the financial mess in the so-called “Free Market” that in actuallity, the GOP were just as guilty of creating.  But we don’t want to accept accountability here, GOP; we want scapegoats.  Barone mentions attack ads sent out by The American Issues Project that:  Because Sarah Palin said this, the ad will repeat the talking points verbatim and without attribution.  Or because John McCain said that, right after Right Change put out ads that would later become McCain’s own talking points without attribution.  Barone shudders at the thought that The American Issues Project just might face criminal prosecution.  Then again, ever hear of libel?  It isn’t a “freedom of the press.”  And it can be subject to criminial prosecution.  So can plagiarism.

The fellow who went on talk radio and I’ll assume must have said some particularly ugly things to produce an equally vehement reaction.  The Obama supporters flooding the station with hundreds of phone calls and e-mails.  Well, looking at AOL in the last couple of months, thousands of commenters on blogs and message boards had become quite an echo chamber of hate Obama.  Getting a word in edgewise amidst all the white hot fury, would be quite a challenge.  But of course, Barone doesn’t think about those things, does he?  Or about the University that becomes a proving ground for ideological extremes and no longer an institution for higher education.  ↔  But then, Barone makes the one major gaffe in his editorial (republished from U.S. News & World Report by the 11 October 08 edition of the Spokesman-Review); this is when he claims that Senator Obama spent all of his adult life in higher acedamia.  Oh yeah?  Being educated is a bad thing?  But actually no, he did not spend all of his adult life in the halls of higher acedamia.  He became a community organizer and then went on to become a State Senator, a member of the Senate from Illinois.  And while he served on charitable boards to aid education, he did leave the halls of higher acedamia some years ago.  ↔  Where Barone made that sort of glaring error, how much more may we question the rest of his editorial.

McCain, how childish can he get?

An Obama ad, that describes McCain at one point as “erratic.”  McCain responding some time later about how Obama reacts with a bunch of angry insults.  The record:  About 2 weeks ago, GW, Paulson and Bernanke started pushing a bailout package.  The stockmarket had not yet started going through the basement floor, but GW had finally hit the panic button on an economy that had bottomed out.  After spending months in fact, trying to paint a rosy picture.  The panic button was the Wall Street bailout to the tune of 700 billion dollars.  Senator McCain then “suspends his campaign” is prepared to “forego the debate” and head back to Washington, D.C. to personally “broker a deal.”  No deal, he proclaimed, no debate.  The deal already brokered, even before he got to the capital, also fell apart hours after his arrival.  On the record; Senator McCain is erratic.  Here’s more, a deal not reached, but McCain will debate and does.  McCain’s actions confirm the ad.  2 weeks ago, McCain doesn’t recall what he was doing two weeks ago?  That’s pretty tough, and a bad selling point about McCain.

Source:  CNN.  When McCain started Jacking the jaw about Obama, you would have sworn he was describing himself.  McCain admits to not knowing much about the economy and trying to sow doubts about Obama by projecting his own failures onto his opponent.  I’m not impressed.  Out of McCain’s own mouth, and this is today, he puts businesses ahead of hard working families.  Yes, he makes proclamations about those small businesses the bedrock of this nation’s economy…  However, let us remind the electorate right now that McCain supported an immigration reform bill that would have put some thousands  more “guest workers” into the arms of business interests wealthy enough to employ an American workforce and too cheap to want to do so, and by that token, undercuts the ability of small businesses to compete!  As a small business owner myself, I’m not impressed, but then, I pay attention to the news.  McCain also wants to make the proclamation that Obama is “lying about his own record.”  Really?  McCain has been making a major dash to get away from his own.  From my perspective, 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.

This precedes the town hall style of debate that is to take place tomorrow.  CNN assures us that it isn’t Obama’s best forum.  On the other hand, McCain supposedly shines best at such meetings.  Problem for McCain, he isn’t facing adoring fans, not this time, but rather, uncommitted voters.  Can he “shine” in front of people who could conceivably and actually should ask hard questions?  I’ll bet Obama would do a better job.  He’s been facing tough questions ever since his campaign began.

Now, onto the character issue.  Sarah Palin seems to think that even though we had 24/7 Reverend Wright and even though Obama won the Dem nod despite this, Reverend Wright should be hogtied to Obama in the closing weeks before the election.  Wright didn’t work then, why should he work now?  News for Palin, the stockmarket drove through the basement floor this morning.  The global markets are doing their own nosedives.  I expect that people right about now are more concerned about the losses to their 401(k)s than they are about Reverend Wright.  Or get this, William Ayers who engaged in property damage style bombings as a 60s radical.  Who ultimately did not have to pay for his past misconduct because of FBI screwups.  Let us remind Palin that while Ayers, now a college professor does have some association with Obama, his worst behavior did occur long before Obama knew his name or was of an age to even understand the implications of Ayers actions.  By the time Obama does come of age?  Ayers has moved on from a 60s radical of the Weather Underground to professor of a university in Chicago.  Of course Ayers accounts for his past.  Ayers is unrepentent.  Now shall I add that when I washed dishes at a local resort that I had the occasion to work with gays, guys serving time in jail, those who engaged in knock down drag out brawls in the parking lot.  Because of a working association with such people, my own character is somehow more questionable, right?  Why?  According to biblical scripture, we are actually all responsible, good or bad for what we do.  By that measure, Obama is not responsible for Ayers’, or Rezko’s, or even for that matter, Wright’s behavior. Each individual linked to him is responsible for their own lives and failures.  But if Palin is going to go there, well she is anti-abortion.  Shall we link the violent fringe of the anti-abortion movement to her?  The “base” McCain wants the votes of?  You know, the clinic bombers and the doctor killers.  Sounds fair to me.