Fled Sanford: South Carolina Governor Having Affair

This is GREAT news for the Republican party. I withheld comment yesterday when I first heard that South Carolina governor, Mark Sanford, had gone missing. Reports were that we had gone "hiking" (guess I can't use that excuse any more!) - but it was eventually determined that he had gotten on an airplane and flew to Sound America...

Now, the cynic in me was expecting that he'd turn up in a gay relationship with a small boy. I mean, these Republicans and so-called, self-proclaimed "conservatives," have a track record, a soiled history if you will, of coming down with the "gay disease" they so often publicly disdain.

I'm still not convinced that the "Maria" Sanford shacked up with, lost his marriage over, and blew his political career is really not Mario. Until I see pictures of "her" (was "she" formerly a man?), and see "her" tell the full complete story, I'm holding on to idea that Maria is Mario.

Here's a great line from Mark Sanford Mistress Photo:Argentina

Mark Sanford met Maria back in 2001 in New York and the two developed a friendship after she asked the politician some advice on saving her marriage.

He's Dick Cheney! "Hey, find me a Vice President."

Technorati Tags: Gay conservatives, gay Republicans, Mark Sanford, "Fled" Sanford, South Carolina governor

Conservatives Have No Clothes

The article below is from the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, a site for which I am now a contributor. This article, and linked podcast, was written by Robert Ellman, a fine contributor to the IBA. The subject of the article and podcast is a book written by Greg Anrig called The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right-Wing Ideas Keep Failing.

I have not read the book, but I did listen to the podcast today. Mr. Anrig is a thoughtful man who is obviously left-of-center, if not far left. He is pragmatic and easy to listen to. I hope to read his book soon.

Conservatives Have No Clothes: An Interview With Greg Anrig

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul wins debate

According to an MSNBC poll taken shortly after the conclusion of the first Republican debate, Ron Paul was the winner.



I'd have to agree with that. He was the only candidate who was believable as a conservative. All the rest pander to their perceived "base." Paul let it all hang out.



ABC News: The Ron Paul Effect: Boomlet or Savvy Supporters?

Flat tax: Fair and simple or Unfair and simple?

The so-called "flat tax" concept has been floating around for about 20 years now. I remember folks like Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes shouting about its virtues. But opponents of the concept, mostly "libs," proclaim that it's a regressive tax, it's unfair, it may lead to bigger deficits, etc.

So who's right? Well, no first world countries have embraced the idea and put it into use. Some former Soviet countries have (read the linked article); therefore, there is no test bed we can look to in order to see its effects.

In theory, though, we can discuss its benefits and drawbacks. First, opponents of the flat tax say it's regressive. I don't see it. It's not progressive, in that higher incomes do not pay a higher rate of tax on each incremental dollar earned. But it's not regressive. Regressive would suggest that each incremental dollar earned would incur a smaller rate of tax. This is simply not the case. In fact, the flat tax is "perfect" in terms of incremental dollars earned. There is no penalty for making more money as with a progressive tax system, nor is there a benefit to working less. If you want to earn more, you can. And at the same effective rate of pay as normal.

I don't see how the flat tax, in its current incarnation, could be considered unfair. Generally, when the media talks about fairness, they mean fairness with respect to the poor. In fact, if anything, the flat tax is unfair to higher income earners. It's just less unfair than a progressive tax.

Here's how the conservative in me sees this: We all can derive the same benefits from the government (federal) by virtue of being a citizen (or legal alien); therefore, we should all pay the same "membership fee" for the right/privilege to derive those benefits. "Rich" people actually use less of the federal government's programs than "poor" people. In fact, most entitlement programs serve poor or less well-off folks. Why should they get to use the benefits of, say, food stamps, and I can't?

Now, before you go off and send me an email telling me what a jerk I am, let me tell you how the liberal in me sees this: Inertia. Let me explain. Poor people tend to stay poor and rich people tend to stay rich; plus, there are a lot more poor people than rich people. It behooves society to provide a safety net that benefits the poor so that anarchy doesn't break out. Plus, I don't want to see homeless and hungry people suffer in the richest nation on the planet. It simply doesn't make sense. And, it's not fair that poor people, en masse, don't have a chance to break out of the rut.

So, is there a compromise? Of course. The negative income tax. I think Milton Friedman conjured this one up. The idea is that if you make under a certain threshold, the government actually pays you to get to that minimal figure. Then that's where the flat tax comes in. The threshold is a moving figure; each year, or 5, or whatever, the government raises it (if there's inflation) or lowers it (if there's deflation). There is a small disincentive for those near the threshold to work. For example, if the income level threshold is $15,000, and my neighbor makes $12,000, he can count on the government giving him $3000. If I make $15,000, I can count on nothing from the government. So my neighbor can work less and get the same income in the end. But this is a small matter. It could be remedied very easily: There could be a sliding scale around the threshold such that the guy who chooses not to work as hard as you (where you are right at the threshold) gets a little bit less than you.

Studies have shown that it's not how much you make that gives you satisfaction. Rather, it's more comforting to know that you're making more than your peers, be they neighbors or co-workers.

I think it's time that the flat tax get another push into the mainstream. It's a sound idea. It seems fair. If the government's accountants can get their heads out of their Social Security asses, they might be able to come up with a rate that actually balances the budget.

What do you think?

The flat tax: It's simple, alluring / But one-size-fits-all idea faces skepticism, too

Do Liberals rule the world or are they about to be taken over by over-breeding red-staters?

I love this guy! Such great word imagery.

Seems Generation Next tend to be more socially liberal and much less worried about the trembling "sanctity" of the failed nuclear family, and are overall less inclined to align with a particular religion. Indeed, it almost makes you want to weep and sigh and go buy a large grass-fed free-range organic hybrid vibrator.

When Liberals Rule The World / Stats say the GOP is dying. But red-staters are breeding like drunken ferrets. Who wins?

Bush worst President ever? Zogby pollsters think so

It finally is dawning on people: President George W. (the 'W' is for Worst or Woeful) Bush is a terrible president, quite possibly the worst ever. I've made myself clear in the past: I voted for Bush the first time around and realized very early on that he was a fraud. He is by no means conservative on any front, unless you think conservative means "Pro Life."

Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. Look at our deficit.

He's never met a tax cut he didn't like. Look at our deficit.

No Child Left Behind. A massive waste of money that's doing its best to leave as many children behind, as long as they're poor and/or non-Christian.

Small government: Fail.
Fiscally conservative: Fail.
Keeping us safe: Monumental failure.
Keeping out of our personal, private lives. Dismal failure.

It may have taken close to 2 terms, but it's clear now that many Americans have seen the light: George W. Bush is a disastrous president who's made the world a more chaotic, more dangerous place.

I wonder what he wins for being the worst president ever? You be the judge.

Nazi

Wikipedia lists these attributes for Nazism:

• nationalism,
  
• racism,
  
• totalitarism,
  
• homophobia,
  
• anti-Semitism, and
  
• anti-communism

The only thing the current administration isn't is anti-Semitical (we love the Israelis, to the detriment, I think, of the entire Middle East and beyond).

George Bush is not a Nazi. But our government certainly shares similar attributes. I will take each point one-by-one.

Nationalism

After 9/11, the overabundance of American flags on cars was ridiculous. I saw many cars and trucks, not with stickers of American flags, but with actual flags. One guy had a full-size Betsy Ross fastened to his pickup truck. That was outrageous.

Now, I was as heart-broken, shocked, scared, and stunned that America had been struck by terrorist as anyone else. I can remember that day like it was yesterday. The horror hasn't left me. The memory of the planes striking the Twin Towers, the fires, and the collapse of the buildings are etched forever behind my eyeballs. I have never been more afraid, on a national scale, than I had been then. I thought the world might be coming to an end.

However, I didn't put a freakin' flag on my car. I didn't wave Old Glory like I was better than anybody else. National pride is one thing. Back then, I was proud to be an American. Now, I am ashamed. I hope, soon, that my feelings will change.

After WWI, the Germans felt deeply ashamed of their plight. WWI caused WWII. The Germans were wracked with debt, inflation, poor self-image, and generally crappy living conditions. They were in the midst of a global Depression when Hitler arose as a national figure. He had charm. He had charisma. One might say that the typical German would like to share a brew with him. He was not looked upon as evil. Even after the atrocities started happening, Germans defended him.

Now, what this American administration has done is nothing close to the Holocaust. But it's pretty bad, not befitting a civlized society. Beatings, torture, detentions without due process. Secret spy planes taking "enemy combatants" to foreign lands and then beating them to death is not something I am proud of.

But we had to do something. What we should have done is kill bin Laden when we could have. And that's not Bill Clinton's fault. It's George Bush's fault, without a doubt. We didn't invade Afghanistan until 2 months after 9/11. Talk about giving the guy a lead! He left Afghanistan and surely fled to another "-stan."

So, we invaded Iraq. That's were the terrorists were (or were to be?), after all. You know, Sadaam Hussein loved the terrorists. I'm sure he was so in love with them that he had them all shot. Because terrorists don't operate well within a totalitarian regime. The dictator usually suffers some sort of delusion and is certainly paranoid that he's going to get blown up by somebody because he's just such a big dick.

Racism

Of course, President Bush is not a racist either. As Bill Maher puts it, Bush doesn't hate people. He just doesn't know they exist. Rather, it's a class thing with Bush and his cronies. There's the lower class, middle class, upper class, and uber class. (See the German reference? Witty, huh?) Bush belongs to the uber class. The uber class, otherwise known as the ownership society, is the only thing that matters. Witness Katrina, the assault on Social Security, the Medicare legislation, etc.

Of course, it only seems as though brown people make up the lower class. They're the ones you see on the news. But it's not true. There are more poor white folks than black, mainly as a function of there are more white people around than black.

So, much of our "racism" is really mischaracterized: It's really "classism."

But the recent electoral diversion called "immigration" has really stirred America's melting pot. A skeptic might call the debate a racist debate. It's a matter of "what's mine is mine." Most Americans are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Only the Native American Indians can truly be called "native." Anybody who wants to keep immigrants out ought to look at their lineage.

I'm all for legal immigration. But ask yourself this: If you were being paid $1 a day and could get $40 a day by crossing an invisible border, which could help you feed your family, would you do it? I'd say you're a deadbeat if you didn't say "Yes!"

It's still all about class, though. It's the case of the "haves" versus the "have nots."

Totalitarianism

If we aren't approaching totalitarianism, I don't know where we're going. From wikipedia:

Totalitarianism is a term...to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior...Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of single-party state, secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people).

This description seems to fit the current state of the union to a tee. Warrantless wiretapping, poring over phone and Internet records without any court orders, Faith-based initiatives, anti-Islam, Swift Boating, secret CIA prisons, FOX News, censored and filtered sound bites and audience participation at Bush rallies: All symptoms of the totalitarian disease.

Homophobia

The Defense of Marriage Act pretty much sums this one up. And the fact that gays cannot openly serve in the military. How many openly homosexual people are employed in Bush's cabinet? Now that the Mark Foley scandal has broken, it seems that there might be a lot of Republicans in the closet, but nobody's sayin'.

Anti-Communism

One of the main reasons 9/11 happened was because the Bush Administration took its eye off the ball (the ball being legitimate, plausible threats) and watched out for the Commies. Secretery of State Rice was selected for Bush's cabinet primarily becuase she's an expert on the Soviet Union (which, NEWSFLASH, fell during Bush I's reign. I guess the boy wasn't payin' attention). Rumsfeld had his first stint when the Soviets were a real threat. I guess he thought they were playing possum.

Anyhow, these guys were preoccupied with the Cold War. They didn't pay any attention to al Qaeda. They're nothing but anti-Communist.

Summary

It appears that the United States shares many of the attributes of Nazism. We've come a long way. Only it's the wrong way.