sugarcoated

B3chtel Corporation is a "small business"

2010-09-23T12:34:00.000-06:00

That's right. According to the Republic Party [if they're going to call us the Democrat Party, I'm going to call them the Republic Party], the global engineering and construction firm B3chtel is a "small business."

44,000+ employees + $31.4 billion in revenue = small business

Keith Olbermann says it better than I can:

I just cannot get over the fact that any working or middle class American would vote for this party. They do not have your interests at heart, period.

And you call the COMPLAINT cynical?!

2010-08-31T10:12:00.003-06:00

A news article for you: Voter fraud in Arizona

A 30-second summary, in case you don't have time to read the article:

The Arizona Democratic Party has filed a complaint alleging that Republicans are recruiting "sham" Green Party candidates in an effort to split the Democratic vote. They say the Rs are convincing people to switch their party registration to Green so that they can run as write-in candidates in the primary. Under Arizona election laws, if they get just one write-in vote in the primary, they advance to the general election ballot in November. All of the races they're running in happen to be competitive for the Democrats, so clearly they are hoping to split the Democratic vote with these fake Green candidates, and thereby hand the win to the Republican.

The Arizona Green Party has disavowed these new Green candidates. The Democrats call the evidence "compelling," and say that it shows "an utter disregard for the voters of Arizona." The Republicans have responded by pointing out that what they're doing is not illegal (true, but is it moral?), and call the accusations by the Democrats "cynical."

Who's really being cynical here?

Be afraid

2010-08-30T14:54:00.000-06:00

You should really read Paul Krugman's column from yesterday. It's scary.

How Dummies Protect Marriage

2010-08-25T09:35:00.000-06:00

Target: The joke's on us

2010-08-06T13:28:00.005-06:00

Many progressives refuse to shop at W@l-Mart. Some dislike the store's refusal to pay a living wage and provide adequate benefits for employees. Others believe that the store's "low prices" are a farce, and that we all end up paying for their shoddy employment and trade practices in the long run, through taxes that fund medicare, food stamps, environmental cleanups, and the like. So many progressives turned to Target. Target had all the convenience of its competitor, but was seen as a more progressive alternative. It turns out Target has been laughing all the way to the bank for a long time now.

So let's clear up some misconceptions first. Target did not give $150,000 to a conservative candidate this week. That would be illegal, both under federal law and Minnesota law. Rather, they gave the money to a group called MN Forward. MN Forward is an advocacy group that buys political ads favoring conservative candidates, including Minnesota Republican candidate for governor Tom Emmer. Emmer likes Arizona's approach toward immigration, and dislikes abortion rights and gays. Sounds like a nice guy. But anyway, MN Forward uses money from Target and other corporations to try to get guys like him elected. That's where Target's recent $150,000 contribution went.

By the way, Best Buy gave this group $100,000 too, and Red Wing Shoes and Polaris Industries are other recent corporate contributors. Just in case you were thinking about buying any electronics or snowmobiles in the near future.

But this is far from the first political contribution from Target, not by a long shot. A couple of legal points first:

1) Under both federal and Minnesota law, it would be illegal for Target to give money directly to a candidate.

2) Under both federal and Minnesota law, Target can set up a political action committee that accepts voluntary donations from its executives and employees (but cannot contain any funds contributed directly from Targets corporate treasury) and give directly to candidates from that. There are limits on both how much an individual can give to a PAC, and how much the PAC can give to a candidate.

3) Thanks to the Citizens United decision from earlier this year, Target may now use corporate treasury funds to buy ads for and against candidates. They cannot coordinate with candidates in purchasing, designing, or producing the ads though, and they still can't give money directly to a candidate. I imagine that by giving their money to MN Forward, Target was hoping to disguise their contribution a tiny bit and not attract as much attention for it as they would have gotten for just directly buying an ad themselves, under their own corporate name. Oops.

4) Last but not least, individuals who work for corporations, including Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel, can contribute their own money to candidates in limited amounts. Steinhafel can legally give a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate $2,000. Or he could give $4,800 ($2,400 each in the primary and general elections) to a candidate for Congress.

This is where it gets interesting. Target is crying foul at all the criticism they're getting, claiming they give to both political parties and support diversity, and in particular support the GLBT community. Well, Gregg, I beg to differ. See, the thing is, when you make a contribution above a certain amount, you have to disclose your name & your employer. This makes it fairly easy to track how much money is given by corporate executives to candidates.

If you visit opensecrets.org, you can view all the political contributions Gregg Steinhafel and his wife have made since early 2009. Just type his name in the search box. It adds up to $67,800. Here's where it went:

$18,100 - Republican Party of Minnesota
$10,000 - Freedom First PAC, run by Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's Republican governor who has presidential aspirations
$10,000 - Retail Industry Leaders Association
$14,400 - Michele "crazy eyes" Bachmann, a Republican member of Congress from Minnesota who says Obama is making us a "nation of slaves" (Bachmann had to return $4,800 because Denise Steinhafel gave double the amount permitted by law)
$8,200 - Erik Paulsen, a Republican member of Congress from Minnesota
$2,400 - Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican in Congress
$2,400 - Lisa Murkowski, a Republican U.S. Senator from Alaska; her daddy gave her his Senate seat when he got elected governor of Alaska and she's one of the oil industry's favorite members of Congress
$2,300 - Norm Coleman, the Republican who narrowly lost his U.S. Senate seat to Al Franken in 2008

One point to make before I blast this "diverse" list -- the Target Corporation's PAC (see #2 above -- Target executives can give their personal money to this PAC, but Target Corp. cannot) did give $30,000 to both the Republican and Democratic parties earlier this year.

So. I think that list of contributions displays about as much diversity as Arizona is going to have if they ever manage to get their anti-immigrant, brown-people-go-home policies fully enacted. In my opinion, Mr. Steinhafel's political contributions speak loudly and clearly of his moral values, which do not jive with mine. He wants to see elected people who oppose gay rights and a woman's right to choose. He favors low taxes for the wealthy. I could go on, but I think you get my drift. Call me unfair. Accuse me of making assumptions about him based on this data. But why? Why would he give tens of thousands of dollars to these people if he didn't want them making decisions for the rest of us? And he is the leader of the Target Corporation too. His moral values have a big role in guiding the company.

Do you want to spend your money there? Do you want to help line his pockets so he can continue to support narrow-minded and intolerant candidates, not to mention a few total loons (Michele Bachmann, I'm talking about you here)?

And the new question, given Target's direct contribution to MN Forward out of its corporate treasury, do you want to give Target your hard-earned money so that they can attempt to undermine the well-being of your family by electing people whose policies and beliefs do not benefit the middle and working classes of America? I don't.

Now where in the hell am I going to shop?!

I am a geek

2010-01-27T10:45:00.000-07:00

Have you heard the new economists' rap? It cracks me up. Listen at NPR: Fear the Boom and Bust.

Health care reform is a moral issue

2009-11-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

This is what I was trying to say in this post (see point #4 in the "opinions" section). He says it so much better than I did. I fall on the side of security I guess, but I also believe that with security will come increased vitality.

Knock-knock. Anybody home?

2009-11-20T09:59:00.001-07:00

I happened to be home sick on Monday and found myself firmly planted on the couch in front of the TV when Oprah came on. It was Sarah Palin's big day in the sun. It was like passing a wreck on the highway. I couldn't not look.

The part of the interview that made me the maddest was when she blamed her disastrous Katie Couric interview on her handlers. She said they'd told her that it was going to be a casual, light mom-to-mom conversation, and they didn't really do any prep work with her. Hello?? You're the candidate for vice-president. You should have been prepped before you took the job! That's generally one of the qualities we look for in a vice-president, preparation. The "What magazines do you read?" question should have been an easy one. Reporters love to ask candidates that question. And Sarah Palin calling Katie Couric "the perky one?" Not just mean-girls snarky, but pot-kettle-black.

I also found it interesting (and infuriating) that she is still not able, months later, to offer a coherent reason for why she quit as Alaska's governor. Her stated reason was that she was a lame duck and knew she wasn't going to run for another term. OK, fine. So why did you quit again? She cannot communicate; she is nothing more than a talking point robot. And her talking points aren't even any good.

Why? Why on earth would anyone support her as a candidate for any office higher than PTA president?

A good point

2009-11-19T10:27:00.000-07:00

Gail Collins makes this excellent point in her column in the New York Times today:

Has anybody noticed that the people who darkly warn about government bureaucrats forcing insurance companies to cut back our coverage appear to be the same ones who just voted to force insurance companies to stop covering abortions? Where’s the sanctity of the marketplace when we really need it?

Green is the new red, white and blue

2009-11-18T09:19:00.002-07:00

This is worth a read.

It's not about abortion

2009-11-16T11:13:00.000-07:00

I'm spitting nails over the inclusion of abortion restrictions in the House version of health care reform. I think it was sneaky and dishonest.

Reforming our health care system and the question of whether or to what degree abortion should be restricted are two separate issues. It's my opinion that Reps. Stupak (a Democrat!!) and Pitts and those who supported the amendment stuck the abortion restrictions into the health care bill as a poison pill amendment. They didn't think they could derail health care reform using their ACTUAL objections, so they decided to try to kill it another way. There are plenty of people who have legitimate beefs with health care reform, and I think they should bring those concerns up. These things should be debated openly and fairly. You think health care reform is too expensive? That's a genuine concern. We should talk about that. We should talk about just how much it's going to cost as proposed, how it's going to get paid for, and what the alternatives might be.

The problem is, these conservative so-called Democrats and the Republicans who oppose health care reform are afraid their REAL concerns aren't that real afterall. They're afraid that if they get debated, the American people and members of Congress who are on the fence will decide health care reform is worth it in spite of the risks, and it will get passed.

So they stuck abortion in there. It's an issue with huge moral and religious implications, and one on which few people waver. It gives a lot of people who might otherwise support health care reform a reason to oppose it if restricting the right of women to choose abortion is part of the package.

I don't think they even hoped to impose new restrictions on abortion. I think this was a 100% cynical move, intended solely to derail health care reform. In the long-term, I'm sure they would like to restrict abortion, but this was a purely tactical move. This is the kind of thing that provides fuel for the "hate" side of my love-hate relationship with American politics.

Come on Senate, do the right thing. Pass real health care reform without restricting abortion, then stand up for it in conference.

Hypocrisy

2009-11-10T10:15:00.000-07:00

A hypocrite is someone who says they're pro-life and means "I oppose abortion, but murdering doctors who perform abortions is OK." I'm not a student of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure it just says "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill, except for people you don't like."

A hypocrite is someone who says the actions of Major Hasan at Fort Hood are evidence that Islam is a violent faith, yet doesn't apply the same standard to Scott Roeder (he's the Christian who murdered George Tiller).

Health care reform

2009-11-10T09:45:00.000-07:00

First, a few relevant facts:

1. No one is proposing a "government take-over of health care." At least none of the bills in Congress with traction are proposing this.

2. The bill passed by the House includes a public option. This would be a non-profit health insurance plan run by the government. People who need insurance could choose this option, or they could choose a plan offered by a private, for-profit health insurance company. Nobody would be required to drop the coverage they currently have and take the government option. People would pay premiums for the government option, and those who could not afford the premiums might qualify for financial assistance from the government.

3. There are no "death panels" in any of the bills pending in Congress. This is something that Caribou Barbie made up to scare people.

4. Under our current system, most health insurance companies operate in order to earn a profit for their executives and shareholders. This is why they exist. They do not exist in order to provide health care. That is simply the product they sell in order to make money.

5. Under current federal law, health insurance companies are exempt from the anti-trust laws. This means that they are legally permitted to operate as monopolies. They do not have to compete with one another. They can divvy up the states amongst themselves in order to avoid competition, pick and choose their "customers" and charge whatever they want. The reason that federal law prohibits monopolies in nearly every other industry is because they are bad for consumers.

6. The purpose of the public option is two-fold: (a) to offer a low-cost insurance option for people who currently do not have insurance because they can't afford it; and (b) to create competition among health insurance companies.

Now a few opinions on these facts (in the same order):

1. The people who shout about a "government take-over of health care" are either ill-informed or are deliberately trying to deceive the ill-informed. Read the bill, or at least read some unbiased summary of the bill. Don't take Rush or Sarah's word for anything, or Rachel or Ed's either, for that matter.

2. I'm going to say it again, a little louder: NOBODY WILL MAKE YOU GIVE UP YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE AND GO ON THE PUBLIC PLAN. The estimates on what percentage of the American public would initially be on the public plan are in the single digits.

3. Sarah is a liar and a dingbat, and she has set back the opportunities for women in national politics by decades. She is dangerous and must be stopped.

4. This is immoral, and America should be ashamed that this is what we offer our citizens.

5. I think that changing the anti-trust laws to remove the exemption for health insurance companies is a good idea too, but it would have to be done in combination with added regulation of the insurance companies and the addition of a public option in order to make a real difference.

6. If there's a lower-cost, high-quality option, don't you think most people would choose that? When the insurance companies start losing customers to the government plan, maybe they'll decide to lower their rates and provide a better product with better service in order to attract customers.

Last but not least, a suggestion:

If you oppose the health care reforms currently being considered, do some real research before you open your mouth. You don't sound very smart when you say, "Well, I talked to a European yesterday, and s/he was totally laughing at us for being so dumb as to consider a European-style government takeover of health care." (One hint why this doesn't sound smart: Europe is not a country.)

Equality in California?

2009-11-10T09:25:00.000-07:00

This initiative is circulating in California with hopes of landing on the November 2010 ballot. Do you think Californians could get it right, given a second chance?

The summary:
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith.