Nobody's Listening

That's a song title, and I can't remember whose song it is, but it perfectly describes the ruling class -- including those who exist in their little bubble in D.C. -- every time the 99% try to make themselves heard -- if they don't just have us pepper sprayed, or worse.

Via Crooks and Liars, this from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-All of Us):

The American people must make a fundamental decision. Do we continue the 40-year decline of our middle class and the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else, or do we fight for a progressive economic agenda that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment and provides health care for all? Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class, or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy? These are the most important questions of our time, and how we answer them will determine the future of our country.

The long-term deterioration of the middle class, accelerated by the Wall Street crash of 2008, has not been pretty. Today, we have more wealth and income inequality than any major country on earth. We have one of the highest childhood poverty rates and we are the only country in the industrialized world which does not guarantee health care for all. We once led the world in terms of the percentage of our people who graduated college, but we are now in 12th place. Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, is collapsing.

Real unemployment today is not 5.8 percent, it is 11.5 percent if we include those who have given up looking for work or who are working part time when they want to work full time. Youth unemployment is 18.6 percent and African-American youth unemployment is 32.6 percent.

Today, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the median male worker earned $783 less last year than he made 41 years ago. The median woman worker made $1,337 less last year than she earned in 2007. Since 1999, the median middle-class family has seen its income go down by almost $5,000 after adjusting for inflation, now earning less than it did 25 years ago.

And, unlike right-wing Randian policy wonks (are you listening, Paul "I've got mine" Ryan?), Sanders actually lays out a plan. Click through to read it -- I suspect that, like me, you're going to find it too commonsensical to need voicing, but then, this is Washington we're dealing with.

I wish Sanders would throw his hat in the ring for 2016 -- might serve to push Hillary to the left.

And check out his website -- it's sort of inspiring.

Dumb Remark du Jour

I've more or less ignored the royal birth -- I mean, royals have babies. That's what they do, when they're not cutting ribbons or waving at crowds. But this observation stopped me cold:

But on CNN, one contributor — CNN Royal Contributor Victoria Arbiter — took the celebration a bit too far, offering her own insights into the relative merits of the baby’s sex:

My first thought, I have to say, was this is how brilliant a royal Kate is. There are women throughout British royal family history that have panicked not being able to deliver a boy, and here we are, Kate did it first time. So it does mean, of course, the change in the next succession conversation is over for another 30 years or so, but we’re celebrating and thrilled that Kate has had a healthy, bouncing baby boy.

The succession issue has already been decided, as ThinkProgress points out, with the passage earlier this year of the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act -- the first-born, boy or girl, is the heir.

But that's not what elevates Arbiter's comment to the realm of once-in-a-lifetime ignorance. The father determines the sex of the child: women have two X chromosomes, so they contribute an X chromosome; men have an X and a Y, so they contribute one or the other. That's what decides the sex of the child.

That's high-school biology.

Sound and Fury

Signifying nothing.

That seems to be the take in the country on the "fiscal cliff" noise coming out of Washington. This is an illuminating story about people's reactions to the "negotiations" and the players.

John Baker, 65, a Denver psychologist, said he had little faith in Congress' ability to fix the problem: "I don't think Congress can fix a flat tire."

"It's a typical Washington, 'Let's hit the panic button and keep people scared so they will let us do what we want to do,'" Baker said in a downtown Denver Starbucks. "Ultimately, it will be fixed but not until a lot of pockets are lined."

That pretty much sums up my feeling. Congress and the President made this mess, it's all kabuki marking time until the next election, and I have no faith in their ability to come up with something that works. I will credit Obama one thing: he's offering options that have a chance of actually working, unlike the teabagger caucus and Grover Norquist. And at least he doesn't seem to be negotiating with himself this time, but who knows how long that will last. I have no faith in the Democrats in Congress, or most of them -- the couldn't find their asses with both hands and a map. The Republicans are even worse -- they just deny that they have asses.

Can you see why I get fed up reading the news?

The Caliber of Our Military Leadership

is sometimes breathtaking. From Gen. Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs:

"Why do you think it would?" interrupted Amanpour. "I mean some of the great allies of the United States have. Whether it’s Canada, whether it’s Britain, France, Australia, even Israel allows openly gay men and women to serve in the military. And they have great armies, great militaries."

"They have great militaries, great armies," Shelton answered. "But if you check the historical records, Christiane, as you know, we've never lost to any of them. We are the top of the pile. We are the best in the world. And we want to stay that way."

We haven't fought the British and/or Canadians since 1815, long before they adopted their open service policies. We haven't fought France since the 1750s, although I'm not sure that counts -- we weren't us yet. And we've never fought the Israelis.

So how dumb to you have to be to get a chest full of fruit salad?

We Knew That

From this story at NYT:

Republicans, and a few Democrats, assert that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, warning that a tax increase right now, even if limited to the highest income bracket, would hurt small businesses and choke off an economic recovery that is already gasping.

Given the economy’s persistent weakness and an unemployment rate hovering above 9.5 percent, those arguments have gained traction. And because another round of government stimulus spending is considered politically unviable even if it were warranted, the debate over the tax cuts will be laced with promises to spur economic activity and reduce unemployment. The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters that many embrace them as an economic cure-all.

But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest “bang for the buck,” because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.

Point 1: The top 2% already have more money than they know what to do with.

Point 2: Nobody's spending money now because nobody has any. The dribble you get for "extra" in your paycheck ain't going to change that.

Point 3: The Bush tax cuts are a big part of why we have this great honkin' deficit to begin with. How the hell is extending them going to make it better?

Everyone seems to get that except Washington.

Common Courtesy: A Stopgap FGB Post

I know I pretty much promised FGB today, but this will have to do for the time being.

Andrew Sullivan notes this comment by Rod Dreher:

The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian." By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage. To do so would be to set yourself up for hostile work environment challenges, including dismissal from your job, and generally all the legal sanctions that now apply to people who openly express racist views.

Now, we all know that Dreher is full of it -- it's the usual right-wing scare scenario of what's going to happen if. And Sullivan almost gets it right:

But it must and can be perfectly possible for public orthodox Christians to live side by side with politically equal homosexuals. Just as it is perfectly possible for devout Catholics to live and work alongside divorced co-workers, even if they feel the need constantly to profess the impermissibility of divorce. This is not and need not be a binary choice. We can live together as equals. And when we do, we may find the conversation we can have that much more interesting.

My question is, in what sort of civilized context does one feel impelled to be constantly criticizing one's fellows on the basis of one's personal religious beliefs, particularly in a pluralistic and secular society? Has either one of these buffoons heard of a basic concept that keeps the wheels greased: common courtesy?

Yeah, if you feel the need to constantly express your disapproval of those around you, you're going to be marginalized -- not because of your beliefs, but because you don't have the civility to keep them to yourself when expressing them is inappropriate. The shorthand is "manners."

Not the Brightest Porch Light on the Block

It's hard to pinpoint that one, sometimes, but fortunately, it seems lately that all you have to do as a default is check out K-Lo's posts at The Corner. Via John Cole, this gem:

If Obama could go to Germany and give a speech in English and be not only understood but well-received, why does he say we all need to learn another language?

Cole didn't include this part, which I think is even funnier:

I say that as a big proponent of Latin learning. But I'm guessing Obama had other languages in mind ...

Does anyone really wonder why I think the right is just totally clueless?

(And, for those who are about to say I've missed the point, no -- I get it. It's just that Lopez' sense of humor is about as polished as that of any other right-wing hack.)

Which is Which?

From publius at Obsidian Wings, this note about Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana (thanks to reader PietB for the correction) who exorcises demons.

However, this particular tidbit from the actual Pew report (pdf) is depressing:

Nearly seven-in-ten Americans (68%) believe that angels and demons are active in the world.

Who gets to decide?

The Economy

Even AP is calling it "weak."

The Logical End

to identity politics: Atrios summarizes Mark Schmitt:

. . . in basically any non-landslide election almost every nontrivial population subgroup could arguably be the key swing voter group. The key is to find voters you can attract without dramatically compromising on core issues which will alienate other voters who are... part of another key swing voter group.

Mmm -- there you have it.

About the Labels

I pick up on stuff eventually -- when I notice. I finally started tinkering around with the labels for these posts, and of course immediately discovered that if you click on one of the labels, you get all my posts on that subject.

Isn't that neat?