Quote of the Day -- Conservatives and Coronavirus Edition

"Mask refusers appeal to liberty. But even staunch libertarians know that checking the spread of disease is a legitimate government function. The hostility to masks isn't libertarian. It's nihilistic. Nihilism has come to characterize a significant part of today's 'conservatism.'" --Bill Kristol @BillKristol

Libertarianism: The Only Thing Worse Than Being a Republican

Wouldn't it be great to be a billionaire and then fund Libertarians and the Libertarian cause---so you could destroy government, lower your own taxes and so, make and keep yet more money?


Wouldn't that be great?

It's Cool to Trash Gubmint

I am really more than a bit tired of the trend--because that's all it is, a trend--to be against or to out and out hate government.

Like most trends, it's tiresome but this one goes beyond that. It's not just wrong but wrong-headed, too

Seems Right Wingers and Republicans and Libertarians, all, at minimum, like to rail against government. They sometimes literally say or will write, on social media, that "government doesn't do anything right."

To that I like to point out just a few of the things government has gotten us all.

The Interstate Highway System

The Social Security system, which lifted millions of Americans out of poverty and keeps millions more out of same.

Social Security Keeps 22 Million Americans 

Out of Poverty

And then there's Medicare.

Medicare Keeps Americans Healthy for the Past 50 Years

And Medicaid.

Medicaid keeps adults healthy and employed

Note that's "healthy and employed" so they can stay at work and be productive and benefit our society, locally and nationally. So there aren't just costs to Medicare and Medicaid, to be clear. There are benefits as well.

Heck, "gubmint" took us all, took man to the moon, for God's sake, no small task.

May 25, 1961: JFK's Moon Shot Speech to Congress

Government cleaned up some of our dirtiest and most-polluted rivers.

A Brief History of the Clean Water Act

Including, of course, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency.

These Photos Show How the EPA 

Transformed America

Heck, at one point, at least a few of our rivers were so polluted, they actually caught fire.

Cuyahoga River Fire

And these are just a few, quick examples of how government actually not only works for us but helps us all, individually and collectively.

A Success Story, with Many Chapters Still to Come

Breathing Easier Because of the Clean Air Act

Cleaner air linked to bigger, stronger lungs 

in Southern California

Again, this is a case of all of us benefiting, too, due to "gubmint", these regulations called the Clean Air Act of 1970 and what it's done for us. We live longer lives, better lives, healthier lives and so, more productive lives because we require companies to pollute less. It's a total win for all, including those companies.

Have governments, has our government, at times gone wrong, done wrong by the very people it is to serve?

Of course.

Has there been, is there waste in government?

Most certainly.

But it's up to us, the people, to keep our government on the "straight and narrow." Things will go wrong, things will be done poorly or wrongly and/or not at all, at times. But government can do and has done great things, over time, certainly.

Government is, after all, us, we the people.

If Your Pet Were Libertarian

The Dog's Bark

Saw this yesterday and loved it.

That is one brilliant dog.

The Republican, Libertarian Lifeguard

God forbid he's your lifeguard and you need him.

Presidential Candidate Has a Message for Missouri, too

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders made yet another statement on his political stances in his Democratic Party campaign for the presidency:

Bernie Sanders on the death penalty: The state shouldn't be in the business of killing people

Not since 1988 has a presidential candidate for a major political party declared themselves opposed to the death penalty. In announcing his run for the presidency, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has thrown down his gauntlet. During an appearance on “The Thom Hartmann Show” on May 1, a caller asked Sanders if he would end executions of the mentally ill. Sanders replied that he opposes all executions, offering a moral explanation for his position.

CALLER: Execution of the mentally ill, I think […] I’d be more inclined to vote for you if you were to sign an executive order to stop or make a stay on executions of the mentally ill. I think the right wing is actually using that subliminally so that we be afraid of them. […]

SANDERS: Let me just give you an answer that I suspect not everybody will agree with. I am against capital punishment in general. I understand, and certainly for people who are mentally incapacitated who don’t know what they’re doing or what’s happening to them—I think people have been executed who were not even aware of what was going on, and that’s not something that a civilized nation should be engaged in. But in general, this is what I think. Look, there are people who commit horrendous, horrendous, horrendous crimes: we all know that. And we are furious at them, we can’t understand their barbarity. But I think, as with so much violence in this world today, I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people. So when you have people who have done terrible, terrible things they’re gonna spend the rest of their lives in jail, and that’s a pretty harsh punishment. But I’m against capital punishment.

It would be nice if all the Missouri Libertarians and "small government" Right Wingers and even the people who claim to be Christians would all stand up and take this same stance.

It would be the right thing to do.

Libertarian vs Socialist

I saw this earlier and loved it. Naturally, there's at least a bit of truth to it or it wouldn't work.

I ask you, which would you prefer?

We all work together vs. "every man--and woman--for themselves"?

What Libertrarianism Really Is

I have had no respect for the people who call themselves "Libertarians" nearly since I first became aware of them. To me, they are people who realized their political party--the Republican Party--was falling a apart and they wanted smaller government so they came up with this idea they'd be edgy and controversial, create a new political party and call themselves this.

But the fact is, as I've said before, the thing with Libertarians is that they can't collectively decide how small this new, functioning government is supposed to be, among other things.

Then, last week, I saw this and it helped clarify further more of the issues I know I have with these people and their very loosely-formed group. Enjoy:

You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham

Libertarians believe they're rebels, but they are really political children who scream through tears

Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. They're desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity. Their irreverence and their opposition to “political correctness” is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience to—for all their protests against the “political elite”—the real elite.

Ayn Rand is the rebel queen of their icy kingdom, villifying empathy and solidarity. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: “I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

Libertarians believe they are real rebels, because they’ve politicized the protest of children who scream through tears, “You’re not the boss of me.” The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté.

As much as libertarians boast of having a “political movement” gaining in popularity, “you’re not the boss of me” does not even rise to the most elementary level of politics. Aristotle translated “politics” into meaning “the things concerning the polis,” referring to the city, or in other words, the community. Confucius connected politics with ethics, and his ethics are attached to communal service with a moral system based on empathy. A political program, like that from the right, that eliminates empathy, and denies the collective, is anti-political.

Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of America’s most dominant and harmful dogmas. In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style.

I ask you, how do you run a nation of far more than 315 million people with little government? Or very little?

And how small a government is it, when you're done shrinking it? How small DO we go? What do we get out of, completely? Do we have a national highway system? How small do you shrink the military? And believe me, if you know anything of me, I'm all about shrinking our military spending.

Where do you stop with the cuts?  What's left?

I'm left wondering how much of a nation we are, collectively, if we make all those cuts.

Are we together?

Wouldn't Libertarianism mean that if a state wants to secede, you let them? Would that not be consistent with this train of thought? And if it's not consistent, what would be the position taken on such a situation.

As it is, we're becoming less and less the United States of America.

With Libertarianism, I wonder if we would even be the States, let alone United.

One of America's Biggest Political Problems

I've subconsciously thought and felt this about us, about America and Americans for some time. I got to thinking about it this past Sunday afternoon and put it in words. We read about the polarization of the nation, politically and economically and it seems our minds are already made up. We have our opinions, facts be damned, and we're extremely sincere and even emotional about these opinions. The "other side"--or really, anyone who doesn't agree with us---are only to be dismissed or even demonized.

We used to talk to one another. We used to discuss. We used to try to both recognize and evaluate problems and then go further and come to shared conclusions and solutions.

We don't do that any more.

And this is no way to run a country.

We need to get back to being Americans.

All of us.


The hippies were right.

Regarding Ferguson: What's with all the silence from the Right Wing?

Yes, it would be nice if all the Right Wingers---the Republicans, the Tea Party, the Libertarians, etc.--would all have already long since spoken up on this.  Not a peep, standing up for the unarmed man, gunned down by the police. In effect, by "government."

Huh.

Go figure.

Why we need government more than ever

There are two terrific articles in The New York Times today, both brief and both on technology.

The first is

The Most Dangerous Word in Tech

It is about how we have taken innovation to its extreme and we're "innovating" beyond human needs and with not enough or no concern for what said "innovation" might mean for or do to, we humans.  A bit from the article:

We treat innovation like an impersonal force, and a ceaseless outcome of entrepreneurship in tech. If we displace people or distort our culture with innovations that, say, wipe out local bookstores or measure every moment in a warehouse worker’s day, it is the price of a generally beneficial force.

Increasingly, however, economists and social thinkers are challenging the conventional wisdom on innovation.

It goes on to point out that government laid the groundwork for and even began a great deal of the technologies and technological breakthroughs, yet business then privatizes those technologies and reaps all the monetary benefits, thus keeping them from the people and the society. This makes for yet one more way more and more of the wealth of the entire nation, the entire society is whisked away for and to the top "1%", the wealthy or already-wealthy of the society. Clearly this is neither fair or beneficial for that entire society, for the people.

Finally, it also points out that we're far more interested in that "innovating" and concentrating, especially in business, on greater and greater speed and on shorter term investing, as companies, industries and corporations. Clearly that's been a trend that's been building over the last several decades and time and again it's proven itself very short-sighted and even harmful to the very companies it's supposed to be helping, let alone to the people these companies and industries are supposed to be serving, let alone, again, the overall nation, the country, as a larger group.

The second article, again, from today's Times‎, is about a new book: 

A Talk With Simon Head, Author of 'Mindless: Smarter Machines Are Making Dumber Humans'

Simon Head thinks the world has become good for computers, but bad for most humans.

In warehouses run by Amazon and Walmart, he says, workers are monitored by machines, their work output determined by performance optimization programs. At financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, traders and managers depend so heavily on algorithms that they abdicate personal responsibility for events like the subprime mortgage crisis.

The problem isn’t just the machines, however; it’s what machines do to thinking. In his book, “Mindless: Why Smarter Machines are Making Dumber Humans,” Mr. Head bemoans a triumph of computer-led systems thinking and so-called “scientific management.”

These have led to “misindustrialization,” he writes, in which service workers’ emotions are manipulated to optimize retail sales, and Oxford dons are judged by a “research excellence framework” that compels them to publish nonsense to meet irrelevant standards.

And this is why I point out we need government even more now, today, and for two huge reasons.

First, all the industrialization and innovation and dependence on computers and technology is making us, in the business world and so, in the nation and world, overall, far more controlled by those machines and "productivity" and "innovation" so the human factor is being pushed out of the picture, if not ignored altogether.  That can be nothing but dangerous for the people on a small scale but also, in the bigger picture, for, again, the entire nation. We need government and rules to more control the direction of "progress" so all that innovation and technology and progress serves the people instead of the people serving the productivity.

Second, with the coroporatization of America and the world, combined with the wealthy people's and corporation's ability to buy the legislation they want, that will benefit them and their companies, through the very legal but very corrupting campaign contributions, all this gives them strong, nearly unfettered ability to have virtually everything headed in their way so more and more pressure is but on business, those corporations and so, us, the people, for more and more innovation, more and more "productivity", more and more "progress", all at the expense of the people, the worker, the man and woman on the street. The emphasis remains on profits for the companies--and so, the wealthy--people be damned.

That does not make for a healthy, even workable society. No way.

So we need government to not only keep those "at the controls" of society honest--no small feat in itself--but also to keep the wealthy and companies and corporations doing what's best for the larger society and nation, as a whole.

Do I think this will happen?

Absolutely not.  And for a few reasons here.

1) Government and laws never have kept up with technology and advances in industrialization. Government virtually always comes in afterward--long afterward--after there has been a collapse or tragedy of some kind and cleans up the mess. There is no better nor more recent example of this than the 2008 financial meltdown that nearly took America's and the world's economies down;

2) That "innovation" described above is hurtling forward at ever faster speeds, leaving government and our representatives ever further behind;

3) As long as we allow "campaign contributions", it leaves those with great deals of money--again, the wealthy and corporations--virtually if not truly in control of the very government that is supposed to be there to protect the people and nation.

It's all a Libertarian's and Republican's and Right Winger's dream.

It's also the dream of any anarchist.

I don't have my hopes up.

Anyone overly concerned or worried about "big government" in the US, in my eyes, doesn't see what's happened in the last several decades and of late. The "big boys" are in control and they don't like or want "big government" in any way, shape or form and they're getting just what they want, just what they're paying for.

Have a nice Sunday, y'all.

Link:  McCutcheon v. FEC: The 1% versus the .1%

Stubborn Right Wing keeps winning (dammit)

It's so frustrating, seeing people and groups cave to Republicans' and the Right Wing's tactics, time and again.  Yesterday, at The New York Times, I saw yet two more examples, back to back:

Obama Moves to the Right in a Partisan War of Words

In the political fight over income inequality, President Obama and the Democrats have moved in the direction of Republicans, and voters, by emphasizing opportunity.

Immigrant Youth Leaders Signal They May Be Open to a G.O.P. Compromise

There were signs of a willingness to consider something less than a direct path to citizenship for all the estimated 11.7 million immigrants in the country illegally.

In each of these two cases, it's not the end of the world, certainly, so I don't want to overstate it but it seems, time and again, the Left Wing, the Liberals, the Progressives and even the "center", the moderates, have to swing further to the Right in their politics and positions because, as we've seen since at least Ronald Reagan reign rule tenure, these people just won't negotiate. There's no compromise from them, no negotiation. They're stubborn--foolishly, even self-destructively stubborn--yet the rest of us keep giving in to them.

And all I'm really saying is that they--the Right Wing, the Republicans, the Tea Party and all--should do what's best for the country, for the nation, overall and not just for a) themselves and/or b) only the wealthy and corporations.

It shouldn't be too much to ask or expect but to hear them, WE'RE the ones that are unreasonable.

After all, at this point, asking for a jobs/infrastructure bill from this Congress as soon as possible so we can get America and Americans back to work is just far too much to ask.

Right?

The stupid out of Missouri's state capitol one month in

From Progress Missouri today:

We’re not even one month into the 2014 legislative session and they’ve already filed attacks on the middle class that would lower Missouri wages, unconstitutional bills to jail federal employees, 18 bills designed to restrict women’s access to reproductive healthcare and bills to stop a UN takeover of Missouri.

Now comes word that one of Birther Speaker Tim Jones' state reps has upped the ante on outrageous political shenanigans with his plans to file articles of impeachment against Gov. Nixon.

What is it with these people?

What is it with the Republicans and Right Wing and Tea Party people and maybe even some extreme Libertarians? 

Can we not work together any longer? Are we not all Missourians?  Or Kansans?  Or hell, Americans?

I ask again, can we not work together? Can we not compromise?  Ever?  Seriously?

Do we have to try to impeach EVERY leader at the top of some organization, even if they are duly, legally and even, at times, repeatedly elected to their government office, as in the case of President Obama?

First they want to "impeach Obama!", now they're wanting to go after Governor Nixon.

What kind of insanity is this?

What happened to seeing to the government? What happened to seeing to the economy? What happened to "taking care of business"?  The people's business, not just for corporations and the wealthy, anyway.

We need a jobs/infrastructure bill out of this Congress so badly right now, it's outrageous.  And they only scheduled themslves 97 work days out of the entire 365 for the entire year.  Wouldn't you love to have that job?  And all for the same pay because, hey, you're in charge of that, too.

As for Missouri, the people of this state need a newer, better, far more improved I-70 running across the state it's not remotely funny or even deniable.  The thing is narrow and small and antiquated and even dangerous. People are being killed out there on that thing it's in such need of updating.

Then, added to that, think of the business and leisure benefits we'd additionally get out of rebuilding and updating that stretch of highway.  

AND IT GOES FROM ONE SIDE OF THE STATE TO THE OTHER.  The ENTIRE STATE would benefit from its improvement for transportation as well as for the jobs, even if the jobs are temporary.  Years long, of course but not permanent, I recognize.

So we need state improvements and to work together and what are these irresponsible clowns doing down in Jeff City?

They're making paranoid, irrelevant legislation about keeping the United Nations out of our state.

Kudos, guys.  "You're doing a heckuva job there, Brownie!"

Please go here, if you would, and sign Progress Missouri's pettition to ask them to end this nonsense and get to work for the people, for the entire state.  Thank you in advance:  Stop it. Just stop it.

Republicans working for all Americans? For the working class? For middle- and lower-income Americans?

Here’s a list of just some of the bills that Republicans have blocked or attempted to block, since President Obama became President:

- Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas- would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. (Unless you're owned by a corporation, how do you vote against that?)

- Political Ad disclosure bill- Would have required all donors to political campaigns to reveal themselves. Republicans blocked this, not once but twice.

- Subpoena Power for the Committee investigating the BP Oil Spill – Give subpoena power to the independent committee responsible for investigating BP’s roll in the oil spill. 

- The Small Business Jobs Act -would give local, community banks access to billions of dollars to loan to small businesses. Republicans blocked this twice, then failed to block it a third time.

- The DREAM Act- Gives immigrant youth who were brought here as children a path to citizenship by earning a college degree or serving the military for 2 years. Republicans blocked this.

- Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” - The filibuster against the DREAM Act and repeal of DADT also blocked other blocked provisions:
- No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
- Protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces 
- Improvements to Department of Defense domestic violence programs.
- Enhancements to the Troops-to-Teachers Program.
- Fiscal year 2011 increase in military basic pay.
- Comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment by the military health care system.
- Funds to modify or construct facilities to house detainees transferred from GITMO
Anti-Rape Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill 

- Benefits for Homeless Veterans- and homeless veterans with children. Republicans blocked this.

- Affordable Health Care For America Act- Prevents insurance companies from discriminating against you on the basis of “pre-existing conditions”. Requires that insurance companies spend 85 cents of every dollar that you pay on your actual health care. Limits health insurance companies profit margins. Republicans blocked this for months before it finally passed and have vowed to repeal it if they are elected.

- Health Care for the 9/11 First Responders who got sick from being at Ground Zero- Would provide billions of dollars in health care to help the 9/11 First Responders who were at Ground Zero on 9/11 and are now sick because of it. Republicans blocked this.

- The Jobs Bill- Offsets the payroll tax for 1 year for companies that hire new employees, or people receiving unemployment insurance. Also gives other tax incentives to companies hiring new employees. Republicans attempted to block this.

- Wall Street Reform- Puts stricter regulations on the banks, preventing them from becoming “too big to fail”. Curbs reckless spending practices that caused the banking crisis. Republicans attempted to block this.

- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- Pumped billions of dollars into state and local Governments to prevent us from sinking into a second Great Depression. Republicans opposed this but now want to take credit for the parts of it that we know are successful.

- Oil Spill Liability- Raises the liability on what companies can be made to pay to clean up after an oil spill. Republicans blocked this.

- Immigration Reform- Republican suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Now they’re rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation. 

- Unemployment extension bill HR-4213- Would provide additional aid to the millions of Americans still on unemployment who are just trying to support themselves and their families. Republicans blocked this bill for 8 weeks before it finally passed. Republicans blocked this for 8 weeks before it finally passed.

- Fair Pay Act of 2009- Also called the Lily Ledbetter bill. Requires that women receive equal compensation to men for doing the same work. Republicans attempted to block this.

Finally, they never once created, proposed or tried to pass a jobs/infrastructure bill since 2008 in spite of the fact that the nation and people have been suffering through the worst economic downturn and market in 80 years, since the Great Depression.

So, anyone think these people, the Republican Party, is for the people and not for corporate America and the wealthy of the country?

Quote of the day--from Pope Francis

Which, of course, helps explain this:

5 Republican responses to the President's State of the Union message

Why am I reminded of Medusa?

Yet more good indicators on "Obamacare"

Every article that comes out, showing how states and the people of the country are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act, aka, "Obamacare" warm my heart and give my hope, both. There was another one Sunday in The New York Times :

Million-Anecdote Baby

I won't  bore you with much of the article but just a few of the good things that are coming from that much-needed legislation are:

The early indications are that most Americans will be pleasantly surprised. Millions of people, shopping and comparing prices on the exchanges set up by the states, are likely to get far better coverage for the same — or less — money than they pay now. The law, as honest conservatives predicted, before they orphaned their own idea, is injecting competition into a market dominated by a few big names...

In Washington State, nine companies have filed paperwork to offer policies in a region that has long been controlled by three big entities.

“The surprise is that, for many in the individual market, the premiums will be lower and the benefits so much richer,” said Mike Kreidler, the state insurance commissioner in Washington. “Eventually, I can see the Affordable Care Act being embraced like Medicare, because once people get used to this kind of coverage, it’s going to be a pretty abhorrent thing to try and take it away.”

In Oregon, brisk competition will mean real choice for consumers. Starting in October, a 40-year-old resident of Portland can choose between one insurer charging $169 a month or another asking $422 for the same plan. When these rates were first posted not long ago, some of the companies requested a do-over so they could submit lower rates. Yes, lower rates. So much for a government takeover.
In California, 13 companies will compete for the business of 5.3 million or so people expected to purchase insurance through the new exchanges. Officials say the average monthly premium will be $321 — that is, $110 less than the national average predicted by the Congressional Budget Office.

And one of the odd, ironic, possibly even hypocritical things about all this is that the Republicans and Conservatives and Right Wingers and Libertarians and all the Obama haters out there are likely deeply FOR "competition in the marketplace" but against this, which is bringing just that--competition for health care insurance premiums and so, lower prices.

I love the smell of Republican hypocrisy in the morning, don't you?

Ladies and gentlemen, your US Congress

The following productivity--or, rather, lack of it--comes to us all courtesy of our own US Congress:

 

This, among other things, is what campaign contributions and splintered, uncooperative political parties and politicians get us, as a nation, as a people.

 

And we must put an end to it.

 

We must fight to end campaign contributions.

 

As soon as possible.

Maxine on the Right Wing