So Nolan Finley has it all worked out for the Dems in this year's Governor's race...yeah sureee.
Look, I've made it perfectly clear that after the disaster that is Jennifer Granholm, on top of a horrid economy, the Democrats have virtually zero chance this fall in Michigan. But the absolute last thing we need is to take advice from Nolan Finley--Finley has a soft spot for Unions like I have a soft spot for...well, Nolan Finley.
Democrats only have to look at Creigh Deeds running against Bob McDonnell in Virginia in 2009. A real Republican versus Republican-lite. Final score: McDonnell 59%, Deeds 41%. And that is exactly the kind of rout that Andy Dillon gets us this fall. Democrats--and more importantly their union supporters--will stay home. As they should--yes, Andy Dillon will be somewhat better than any of the Republican candidates, but why waste your time--and resources--on a sure loser? Especially one that doesn't share most of your values (e.g., pro-choice, anti-union--what the fuck, he's a Democrat?).
Bernero doesn't have a chance, either, but at least he will fire up the base, get us out to vote, and keep the thing competitive. Losing sucks, but a 52-48, 0r 53-47 defeat keeps the Republicans victory in perspective, and keeps us from the dreaded Republican claim of a "mandate." It also gives us something to run on in 2014, especially after people see the Republican candidate has as much to offer as Republicans always have: cut taxes, um, cut taxes, um, keep the homos away from us, um, Tea Party, um, illegal immigrants suck--you get the drift, and in four years--surprise!!--we find out we're even more fucked than we were under Granholm. No one is much going to interested in Republican-lite in 2014.
My favorite line from Finley's piece is this (of Unions): "They accuse him [Dillon] of being more Republican than Democrat (as if that's a bad thing)." Forgetting the triteness of Finley's little add on, for those of us who do not enjoy fellating the wealthy and corporations, it is indeed a very bad thing.
Peace,
emaycee
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The rich ain't like you and me...
Nope, they have a lot more gall, and are much better liars.
I'll be the first to admit, I wasn't a fan of Mitch Albom before I moved to Detroit. Had I read Tuesdays with Morrie (goodie-goodie pap, and not even that interesting of a pap) when I was a young man, I would have tackled writing with much greater fervor--if that shit can get published, I would have thought, anything can get published. His appearances on ESPN's The Sports Reporters always struck me as a little too black and white, a little too self-righteous. Since I moved here, I like him even less so. He isn't particularly thoughtful (like, say, Leonard Pitts, with whom I do not always agree, but respect his honesty and ability to look beneath the surface), his rants on the way parents raise their children ring very hollow (Albom has no children of his own), and his pastoral pieces on the good old days are tripe (they weren't so good--for the most part because we were stupider, and stupid is always bad). It really wasn't the final straw, but his false account of two basketball players meeting up at the NCAA tournament in 2005 finished any chance I might change my opinion of him (and cost the Free Press a great deal of my respect--like Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke, he should have been fired. No journalist is above reproach, regardless of their celebrity).
I wouldn't have thought my respect for him could sink any lower...but his "column" this past Sunday on the estate tax proved me wrong. For starters, the sheer egotism of someone as wealthy as Albom making a case for why the estate tax should be abolished is a bit...well, it's a whole lot self-serving. Please understand, I do not begrudge Albom his wealth--I don't care for the work of Stephen King or Dan Brown either, but like Albom, they found their niche and cashed in. Good for them. And while I've spent the vast majority of my life living paycheck to paycheck (never found that niche, I guess), and it's certainly had its ups and downs, when I die (which I hope is many, many years from now) I will certainly feel as if I have led a wonderful life. It just bothers the living shit out of me that people like Albom seem to think that their wealth was created by themselves and themselves only. Where do you suppose Albom would be without the people whose skills ran the machines that printed his books, without editors (I know of zero writers who don't value a great editor, and let's face it, Albom is hardly John Updike with the English language), without the people who wake at all hours of the morning to deliver the newspapers he's worked for--you get my drift. It's like, hey the little people should be happy with the scraps I've given them, they don't need any more. In a word: No.
Even worse, though, is the utter dishonesty of the column. Albom states the tax is going from zero to 55% overnight--but if you look at this chart on Wikipedia, you can see that 2010 is the only year since the temporary repeal where the tax is zero. The best it has previously been since 2001 is 45%. Albomn cites Sweden, a heavily taxed nation, as one that has done away with the estate tax. Great--give us a tax rate like Sweden's and all the benefits it provides its citizens and I'll gladly give up the estate tax. My guess, though, is that there's a better chance of Albom growing a normal set of ears than his agreeing to that one. Albom claims several times that the money will go to Congress or politicians. No, it won't--it will go to the U.S. Treasury, and from there a portion will go to very worthy things like the NIH, the food stamp program, the Transportation Department for upkeep of our roads, and some will get wasted. Albom also states that the repeal was "...hailed by everyone except tax lovers and charities." However, in the same edition of the Free Press, a business page piece states the estate tax "...has drawn much scrutiny among the moneyed, but little on Main Street." Now there's a ringing endorsement, if ever I heard one: they don't care--they must think it's great!
Nowhere does Albom mention that nearly all family farms and small businesses are exempt. Nowhere does Albom mention that if the money is left to a spouse (and you have a tax attorney who knows anything at all about estate tax law) the estate is exempt. Nowhere does he mention that those noted tax lovers Bill Gates and Warren Buffett support it (all three, see Wikipedia entry above).
As for his claim that it's blatantly unfair: bullshit. The inheritance is received because a loved one died--no death, no inheritance. Just a hunch, but I'm reasonably certain that one day Paris Hilton will be a very rich woman for having done nothing. Nothing. And I'm supposed to pity her because she's only going to get (as an example) $450 million of the billion she inherits? Why--because she can only afford to get her poodle the pink, million dollar diamond studded collar instead of the blue one, too?
But the absolute most galling aspect of the column is Albom constantly making reference to his readers as sharing his plight: "Wouldn't you rather your children have that?" "Aren't your loved ones more entitled to your life's savings than Congress?" You know what? They will get all of my estate! Since there's an exemption (scheduled to drop to $1 million in 2011, but most likely will be raised by Congress in the budget to $5 million--again, see Wikipedia referenced above) that my estate will not even come close to reaching, my family will (see kids, being poor doesn't completely suck!) get all of my estate. And so will 95% of his readers. So what Albom is actually saying is "Don't you think all of my [Albom's] estate should go to my loved ones?" You know what, Mitch? I don't give a fuck. My guess is they're going to do just fine.
And at least be honest in your columns. Just say it: "I'm a greedy, egotistical mother fucker and I don't care about other people. Fuck that pap I got from Morrie--it's all about the Benjamins and I want all of mine."
And when you're done, don't ask me to be like you. Because I don't want--nor do I want any of my loved ones--to be anything like you.
Peace,
emaycee
I'll be the first to admit, I wasn't a fan of Mitch Albom before I moved to Detroit. Had I read Tuesdays with Morrie (goodie-goodie pap, and not even that interesting of a pap) when I was a young man, I would have tackled writing with much greater fervor--if that shit can get published, I would have thought, anything can get published. His appearances on ESPN's The Sports Reporters always struck me as a little too black and white, a little too self-righteous. Since I moved here, I like him even less so. He isn't particularly thoughtful (like, say, Leonard Pitts, with whom I do not always agree, but respect his honesty and ability to look beneath the surface), his rants on the way parents raise their children ring very hollow (Albom has no children of his own), and his pastoral pieces on the good old days are tripe (they weren't so good--for the most part because we were stupider, and stupid is always bad). It really wasn't the final straw, but his false account of two basketball players meeting up at the NCAA tournament in 2005 finished any chance I might change my opinion of him (and cost the Free Press a great deal of my respect--like Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke, he should have been fired. No journalist is above reproach, regardless of their celebrity).
I wouldn't have thought my respect for him could sink any lower...but his "column" this past Sunday on the estate tax proved me wrong. For starters, the sheer egotism of someone as wealthy as Albom making a case for why the estate tax should be abolished is a bit...well, it's a whole lot self-serving. Please understand, I do not begrudge Albom his wealth--I don't care for the work of Stephen King or Dan Brown either, but like Albom, they found their niche and cashed in. Good for them. And while I've spent the vast majority of my life living paycheck to paycheck (never found that niche, I guess), and it's certainly had its ups and downs, when I die (which I hope is many, many years from now) I will certainly feel as if I have led a wonderful life. It just bothers the living shit out of me that people like Albom seem to think that their wealth was created by themselves and themselves only. Where do you suppose Albom would be without the people whose skills ran the machines that printed his books, without editors (I know of zero writers who don't value a great editor, and let's face it, Albom is hardly John Updike with the English language), without the people who wake at all hours of the morning to deliver the newspapers he's worked for--you get my drift. It's like, hey the little people should be happy with the scraps I've given them, they don't need any more. In a word: No.
Even worse, though, is the utter dishonesty of the column. Albom states the tax is going from zero to 55% overnight--but if you look at this chart on Wikipedia, you can see that 2010 is the only year since the temporary repeal where the tax is zero. The best it has previously been since 2001 is 45%. Albomn cites Sweden, a heavily taxed nation, as one that has done away with the estate tax. Great--give us a tax rate like Sweden's and all the benefits it provides its citizens and I'll gladly give up the estate tax. My guess, though, is that there's a better chance of Albom growing a normal set of ears than his agreeing to that one. Albom claims several times that the money will go to Congress or politicians. No, it won't--it will go to the U.S. Treasury, and from there a portion will go to very worthy things like the NIH, the food stamp program, the Transportation Department for upkeep of our roads, and some will get wasted. Albom also states that the repeal was "...hailed by everyone except tax lovers and charities." However, in the same edition of the Free Press, a business page piece states the estate tax "...has drawn much scrutiny among the moneyed, but little on Main Street." Now there's a ringing endorsement, if ever I heard one: they don't care--they must think it's great!
Nowhere does Albom mention that nearly all family farms and small businesses are exempt. Nowhere does Albom mention that if the money is left to a spouse (and you have a tax attorney who knows anything at all about estate tax law) the estate is exempt. Nowhere does he mention that those noted tax lovers Bill Gates and Warren Buffett support it (all three, see Wikipedia entry above).
As for his claim that it's blatantly unfair: bullshit. The inheritance is received because a loved one died--no death, no inheritance. Just a hunch, but I'm reasonably certain that one day Paris Hilton will be a very rich woman for having done nothing. Nothing. And I'm supposed to pity her because she's only going to get (as an example) $450 million of the billion she inherits? Why--because she can only afford to get her poodle the pink, million dollar diamond studded collar instead of the blue one, too?
But the absolute most galling aspect of the column is Albom constantly making reference to his readers as sharing his plight: "Wouldn't you rather your children have that?" "Aren't your loved ones more entitled to your life's savings than Congress?" You know what? They will get all of my estate! Since there's an exemption (scheduled to drop to $1 million in 2011, but most likely will be raised by Congress in the budget to $5 million--again, see Wikipedia referenced above) that my estate will not even come close to reaching, my family will (see kids, being poor doesn't completely suck!) get all of my estate. And so will 95% of his readers. So what Albom is actually saying is "Don't you think all of my [Albom's] estate should go to my loved ones?" You know what, Mitch? I don't give a fuck. My guess is they're going to do just fine.
And at least be honest in your columns. Just say it: "I'm a greedy, egotistical mother fucker and I don't care about other people. Fuck that pap I got from Morrie--it's all about the Benjamins and I want all of mine."
And when you're done, don't ask me to be like you. Because I don't want--nor do I want any of my loved ones--to be anything like you.
Peace,
emaycee
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Jobs, Justice, and Peace
My first reaction to the efforts of the UAW and the Rainbow Coalition was to roll my eyes--another march, ho-hum. But the more I thought about it, the more I figured at least they're trying, and as the song says, "...from small things, Mama, big things one day come."
And then I did a little research on the combined effort and came across this--written by some hack on an AOL sponsored site. Honestly, this guy is defending Toyota, a corporation who put profits before people's lives, and questioning the motives of the UAW and Rainbow Coalition who are striving to create jobs, improve working conditions, and aspiring for a more peaceful world. This idiot (no surprise he shares a last name with the sadist/fascist from the movie Animal House) is compelling reason for making abortion retroactive.
Methinks August 28th would be a good day to join a march for jobs, justice, and peace....
Peace,
emaycee
And then I did a little research on the combined effort and came across this--written by some hack on an AOL sponsored site. Honestly, this guy is defending Toyota, a corporation who put profits before people's lives, and questioning the motives of the UAW and Rainbow Coalition who are striving to create jobs, improve working conditions, and aspiring for a more peaceful world. This idiot (no surprise he shares a last name with the sadist/fascist from the movie Animal House) is compelling reason for making abortion retroactive.
Methinks August 28th would be a good day to join a march for jobs, justice, and peace....
Peace,
emaycee
Can't Buy Me Love
Unless, of course, you're the Michigan State Supreme Court, the best that corporate money can buy.
In yet another defeat for the working people of Michigan, the state Supreme Court sided with the insurance companies (surprise, surprise), and said it was perfectly fine to base car insurance rates on credit score history. So...if you've never had an accident, but accidentally missed a credit card payment...you pay more. As stated by Butch Hollowell, this is about nothing more than insurance industry greed (Michigan insurance companies are the most profitable in the nation--little surprise, as I pay twice here in Detroit what I paid in St. Louis, with the same driving record and an excellent credit history).
Why do I note this? It was a Democratic administration that enacted the ban against using credit history in an effort to save consumers money. It was the three justices elected byDemocrats who dissented because the evidence that credit history reflects on insurance claims was inconslusive. And the people of Michigan want to put the Republicans back in charge? Good fucking luck with that--you're just screwing yourselves and giving corporations even more control over your lives and your bank account.
And for those suggesting the way to lower insurance premiums for Michigan residents would be to lower the amount of personal injury coverage--are you people out of your fucking minds? As healthcare costs continue to skyrocket it would be a good idea to decrease coverage? And anybody who thinks we'd see rate decreases is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. All that would happen is Michigan insurers would get even more profitable at our expense.
Shout Out to the Tea Party: Here's your voice of reason, the Detroit News, fully supportive of corporations gouging you to pad their profits. Free market my ass--it's the rich looking out for the rich....
Peace,
emaycee
Monday, July 5, 2010
Hey, Boo
Nothing like watching Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird to stoke the fires in your better self....
There's lazy journalism, and then there's Nolan Finley. This piece encapsulates in a microcosm why I will never be a conservidiot. The terminology is straight out of right-wingnutoville of...well, the fifties, the sixties--Christ, for those old enough to recall, it could have been Archie Bunker on All in the Family (only that was supposed to be satire). The politics is inane (yeah, right, captialism is going to save us, all evidence to the contrary), the comparisons dim-witted and trite (one more idiot calls Obama a socialist and I'm going to puke), and the scare-mongering pathetic (hippies, peaceniks, and tree huggers...oh my!). All of this over the Social Justice Forum, which from what I've read, probably share a lot more in common with the majority of Americans than does Nolan Finley (to quote Elvis, "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"). Finley closes with this gem: "If we don't come to our senses in November, this is what the whole country will look like soon." If it means more power to the people, Nolan, we can only hope you're right. Looks a damn lot better to me than what we have now.
Lazy journalism, part two: Brian Dickerson, trying to ensure that the pundits at the Free Press are just as inept as those at the Detroit News, tries to turn an Obama victory (he handled the Gen. McChrystal situation about as well as could be done) into a defeat, claiming the General was deliberately careless with his words because McChrystal thinks Afghanistan is a loser and doesn't want it hanging around his neck, thus leaving the mess for Obama. Nice try, but the plain truth of the matter is McChrystal was careless with his words because he's used to an American media that is more interested in preserving the status quo than speaking truth to power. Unforunately for the General, Mr. Hastings was not your usual lazy icon of American journalism and the cat was out of the bag.
Apparently, there was a group session to discuss the U. S. debt, which all Americans were invited to. Unfortunately, unlike Pete Peterson and his minions, I have to work for a living and wasn't able to attend. My two cents: get out of Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday, create jobs with government spending on infrastructure, cut defense spending in half, raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and enact National Health Insurance. I'd also like Salma Hayek to greet me at the door tomorrow when I get home from work wearing a skimpy negligee--just kidding, Beautiful Girl! (Note: Wonk's piece cited above once again noted each of us owes $43,000 for the national debt--I will not rest until this bullshit ceases. It's just a scare tactic, and means about as much as telling me I'm responsible for x amount of stars in the night sky. Want to reduce the debt? Shut the fuck up and spend government money on infrastructure jobs--more taxes collected, national debt goes down. It's as simple as that.)
Nice piece on the only Democrat running for governor in Michigan--we're going to lose anyway, so why not accentuate the differences, and when whatever dipshit Republican wins we have something to run on in 2014. Virg Bernero might be a little rough around the edges, but he's a far sight better than Republican-lite Andy Dillon. Which slogan is better: A) We're going to work for the working people of Michigan, or B) We're going to fuck over the working people of Michigan slightly less than the Republican candidate? Quod erat dictum.
Good to see our teachers rallying in the capitol--the last thing we need is to solve Michigan's (or the nation's for that matter) budget problems on the backs of working people. The problem isn't the teachers--it's the wealthy and corporate welfare.
Is it just me (perhaps it was Obama's election) or does it seem more and more as if the big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we actually want to solve problems and they just want to whine about why everything can't be like the good old days? Word to the (not so) wise: the good old days weren't so good, and they're long fucking gone.
Peace,
emaycee
There's lazy journalism, and then there's Nolan Finley. This piece encapsulates in a microcosm why I will never be a conservidiot. The terminology is straight out of right-wingnutoville of...well, the fifties, the sixties--Christ, for those old enough to recall, it could have been Archie Bunker on All in the Family (only that was supposed to be satire). The politics is inane (yeah, right, captialism is going to save us, all evidence to the contrary), the comparisons dim-witted and trite (one more idiot calls Obama a socialist and I'm going to puke), and the scare-mongering pathetic (hippies, peaceniks, and tree huggers...oh my!). All of this over the Social Justice Forum, which from what I've read, probably share a lot more in common with the majority of Americans than does Nolan Finley (to quote Elvis, "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"). Finley closes with this gem: "If we don't come to our senses in November, this is what the whole country will look like soon." If it means more power to the people, Nolan, we can only hope you're right. Looks a damn lot better to me than what we have now.
Lazy journalism, part two: Brian Dickerson, trying to ensure that the pundits at the Free Press are just as inept as those at the Detroit News, tries to turn an Obama victory (he handled the Gen. McChrystal situation about as well as could be done) into a defeat, claiming the General was deliberately careless with his words because McChrystal thinks Afghanistan is a loser and doesn't want it hanging around his neck, thus leaving the mess for Obama. Nice try, but the plain truth of the matter is McChrystal was careless with his words because he's used to an American media that is more interested in preserving the status quo than speaking truth to power. Unforunately for the General, Mr. Hastings was not your usual lazy icon of American journalism and the cat was out of the bag.
Apparently, there was a group session to discuss the U. S. debt, which all Americans were invited to. Unfortunately, unlike Pete Peterson and his minions, I have to work for a living and wasn't able to attend. My two cents: get out of Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday, create jobs with government spending on infrastructure, cut defense spending in half, raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and enact National Health Insurance. I'd also like Salma Hayek to greet me at the door tomorrow when I get home from work wearing a skimpy negligee--just kidding, Beautiful Girl! (Note: Wonk's piece cited above once again noted each of us owes $43,000 for the national debt--I will not rest until this bullshit ceases. It's just a scare tactic, and means about as much as telling me I'm responsible for x amount of stars in the night sky. Want to reduce the debt? Shut the fuck up and spend government money on infrastructure jobs--more taxes collected, national debt goes down. It's as simple as that.)
Nice piece on the only Democrat running for governor in Michigan--we're going to lose anyway, so why not accentuate the differences, and when whatever dipshit Republican wins we have something to run on in 2014. Virg Bernero might be a little rough around the edges, but he's a far sight better than Republican-lite Andy Dillon. Which slogan is better: A) We're going to work for the working people of Michigan, or B) We're going to fuck over the working people of Michigan slightly less than the Republican candidate? Quod erat dictum.
Good to see our teachers rallying in the capitol--the last thing we need is to solve Michigan's (or the nation's for that matter) budget problems on the backs of working people. The problem isn't the teachers--it's the wealthy and corporate welfare.
Is it just me (perhaps it was Obama's election) or does it seem more and more as if the big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we actually want to solve problems and they just want to whine about why everything can't be like the good old days? Word to the (not so) wise: the good old days weren't so good, and they're long fucking gone.
Peace,
emaycee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
