http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.php Political and Social Commentary. WARNING: Sharp Left Turn Ahead en-us Nucleus CMS v3.64 � Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.php/nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.php http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=93 This excerpt from The Darwin Economy by economist Robert Frank discusses reducing government spending and what happened to California under the "starve the beast" approach.]]> General http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=93 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:27:16 -0700 http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=84
And empathy is a quality in desperately short supply on this court, as blatantly demonstrated by a recent decision in which five Roman Catholic justices again flouted settled precedent by sanctioning a memorial cross on federal land.
This case shows a narrow-minded religious bigotry that is an ugly stain on the integrity of the nation's highest court.

In oral arguments, as reported in the New York Times, an ACLU attorney (with a Jewish-sounding name) said that many Jewish war veterans would not want to be honored by "the predominant symbol of Christianity."

“There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew,” he said.

Justice Antonin Scalia turned uncharacteristically angry. “I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead,” he said. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”

On the contrary, what is outrageous here is the inability of these five Roman Catholic justices to put themselves in other people's shoes and empathize with the families of Jews, Muslims, atheists, and other non-Christians who gave their lives for their country, only to be marginalized in death by the misuse of the cross as a symbol of their sacrifice. Many Jews and Muslims view the cross as a symbol of centuries of persecution or religious war.

Less than a century ago, Al Smith, the first Roman Catholic to run for President on a major party ticket, lost in large measure because of charges that he would take direction from the pope rather than the constitution. It was not until the election of John F. Kennedy in 1962 that Catholicism was erased as a stigma for candidates.

But now the Supreme Court has opened the door to the taint on one of our country's highest institutions, not of taking direction from the Vatican, but of being blinded by a combination of personal religious belief and lack of empathy. These five justices just don't understand the meaning of this religious symbol to millions of Americans.

Thus, the integrity of the court, which has already been eroded by ideological decisions overturning settled precedent in a number of key constitutional areas, is now further tarnished by this appalling decision.]]> Politics http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=84 Sat, 15 May 2010 10:07:10 -0700 http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=67
Now they're writing them for the Democrats. Not so fast, I say.
When it comes to national elections, "It's the economy, stupid," as Bill Clinton's campaign staff observed back in 1992. Or as wags paraphrased in 2008, "It's the stupid economy."

And the public is what economists call a trailing indicator. Voters have short memories, and zero foresight. They will respond rapidly, but not to economic predictions, only to results.

Remember back in 1992, when the smart Bush was up for reelection. He had competently orchestrated a smashing victory in the first Iraq War. But that war ended a year and a half before Election Day (a political mistake that his son was careful not to repeat twelve years later). Public attention was now on the failing economy.

By October 1992, signs of a recovery were clear among leading economic indicators. But most voters don't read the Wall Street Journal. The following month they elected Clinton, who by the next year was receiving credit for the economic boom that clearly started under the unfortunate ex-President Bush.

So what's the lesson for 2010? Indications are that an economic recovery should be well under way by the fall. If that happens, predictions of carnage among the Democratic Congressional majority will turn out to have been grossly premature.

No guarantees, but if it turns out that way, remember - you read it here first.]]> Politics http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=67 Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:35:18 -0800 http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=34 Here, listed in increasing order of plausibility, are the top ten:

10. So what if he's fighting two wars? At least he hasn't started any yet.

9. Consolation prize for losing the Olympics.

8. Nobel Committee office pool: How many congressional Republicans will attack them for this?

7. Model for Middle East: He's been living peacefully for almost a year now with his mother-in-law.

6. He made a speech in Cairo. Maybe he'd make one in Oslo.

5. He's less edgy than Michelle.

Seriously? Here are the four real reasons he got it:

4. An African-American president? America's got its mojo back!

3. He's already improved the tone of U.S. diplomacy.

2. To bolster him and his programs. (Cf. Al Gore)

1. Thank god! He's not George W. Bush.]]> Politics http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=34 Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:28:43 -0700 http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=29
Of course it's not a tax.
Merriam Webster's on-line dictionary defines tax as "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes".

Money spent "for public purposes" benefits everyone, or at least a class of people. If an individual buys their own health insurance, that money is spent for their own benefit. That's not a public purpose. So it's not a tax.

If an individual chooses not to buy insurance, they will have to pay a penalty. That's a fine for failing to fulfill a legal requirement. It's the same as a parking fine, or a penalty for filing a late tax return. None of these are taxes.

Republicans have made a science of exercising power through the careful choice of words. They've made the sad discovery that in achieving their aims, the truth of what they say is not as important as how they say it.

An early Republican, Abraham Lincoln, said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Brett Maverick said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, and them's pretty good odds."

How far have today's Republicans strayed from the party of Lincoln!]]> General http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=29 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:45:52 -0700 http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=27
I blame it on primary elections.
There was a time, back in my youth, when each party's candidates were chosen by political bosses in smoke-filled rooms. Now the smoke's gone, which is good. But the bosses have been replaced by primary elections, and that's bad.

Each party's primaries are dominated by the most committed, and usually the most extreme, voters. Moderate candidates would be more likely to win in the general election, and more likely to govern effectively. But they don't survive the primary.

The solution: Open primaries. Anyone can vote in any party's primary. We sort of have that here in California, but only for voters who did not register in a political party - that is, Decline to State voters.

At the polling place, a Decline to State voter can request a primary ballot from any party that has opted in for that election. The Democrats and American Independents have made their ballot available in all primaries since this started in 2000. So have the Republicans, except in the 2008 presidential primary.

So bring sanity back to California politics. Register Decline to State, and vote for moderates.]]> Politics http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=27 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:49:27 -0700 http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=15
So doesn't it follow that corporations should have the right to vote?
If corporations have the same rights as real people, let's bring back the draft and send some of them over to Afghanistan. Kraft could feed Cheez Wiz to the Taliban until they're too fat to fight. And Archer Daniels Midland could teach the poppy farmers to plant corn for ethanol instead.

But maybe, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out, "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights."

So the extent to which corporations enjoy constitutional rights should be determined by the policy makers in Congress, not an activist Supreme Court seeking to further extend the influence of the rich and powerful over our system of government.]]> Politics http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=15 Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:08:41 -0700 http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=11
As a compromise, the social and political commentary will be tucked away in its own well-padded little cell. Welcome to it.

Longer posts may have to wait until I get up a good head of steam.

But in the meantime, I just have a small question for all the folks ranting against getting the government involved in health care.

Does this mean you will pledge not to enroll in Medicare when you turn 65?]]> Politics http://blogs.toolworks.com/growls.phpindex.php?itemid=11 Tue, 1 Sep 2009 18:16:32 -0700