I got your Nanny State right here

Usually, I like reading Jack Cafferty, but this post just pisses me off.  I've read this man's life story in It's Getting Ugly Out There, so I know he's not saying this from a position of having anything handed to him in life.  But Jack Cafferty could probably use some reminding of a few things:
1- His job is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.  His freedom, as well as his boss's freedom, to do the stories they want to do the way they want to do them may not be abridged by Congress and can only be removed for inaccuracies or dishonesty.
2- Jack got his start on public airwaves.  They are rented out for free to networks/stations, in exchange for public service announcements and excluding obscenity.
It's almost as if Jack's opportunity to work his way up from a hellish childhood was made possible by someone watching over.... and protecting his chosen industry....  almost... sort of like... a fucking nanny.

social justice v. charity

before i get into the differences, i think i should note to conservatives that we did get glenn beck's message-  doing anything beyond voluntary charity is communism, or socialism or fascism.  since these ism's are blended together so seamlessly in glenn beck's mind, it's a little difficult to tell whether social justice will lead to killing jews, killing capitalists, or soul-crushing bureaucracy.  or will it lead to all three?  who knows?  more importantly, who cares?

i think it's important to note that countries like france, britain, canada, post-war germany, to name a few, went, at least mostly, down the social justice path.  so far, no communism, socialism, or fascism.  no concentration camps or gulags.  just bureaucracy.  which, for all its negatives, puts people to work.  and longer life spans.  and some sweet-ass vacation time.  for all of conservatives' attacks on our government-maintained safety nets, i don't see these fuckers moving to places that lack them, just complaining about their fellow americans who need them.

i guess now would be a good time to describe why glenn beck has pissed off a lot of christians who normally might agree with him.  christians, traditionally, have considered it one of their church's duties to support and administer programs for the poor.  and, technically, glenn beck doesn't seem to have a problem with this because apparently it's voluntary to give to christian charities.  but many other christians go further.  there is a branch of christianity that interprets the teachings of jesus to avoid wealth and give to others even when it's a sacrifice to oneself.  these christians believe that charity from your excesses is only to impress others instead of actually fostering the sense of unselfishness jesus christ came to spread.  some catholics took this even further to develop liberation theology, which supported the human rights of the poor against the property rights of the rich, especially in latin america.  combined with the catholic worker movement, liberals and those even more leftist in catholicism have kind of carved an unofficial (and unapproved) niche for themselves.  but even pope john paul 2, while no fan of communism, was also no fan of unregulated capitalism and unrestrained greed.  his cyclical on treatment of workers makes andy stern of the seiu look like a libertarian.   martin luther king considered it his christian duty to examine the causes of poverty itself, and attempt to eliminate them.  king called this "a revolution in values", and he called on his supporters to not just fling coins at beggars, but to restructure a system which produced beggars (which is why the right should think twice before insisting MLK actually acted on conservative values).  mormons actually require members of their congregations to donate, or tithe, 10% of their yearly income.  they actually have to state to their bishop that they've tithed every year.  this is not voluntary if you want to belong to a mormon congregation.  even muslims are also in on the act, requiring all muslims to contribute a minimum percentage of their wealth to charity, and to show hospitality to strangers.  this is not considered voluntary in islam.  these contributions are considered a part of improving one's soul and one of islam's five pillars.  social justice has a long history in various religious beliefs, including christianity.  glenn beck may want to pause before he chalks social justice up to marx and hitler.

why is glenn beck so pissed about social justice anyway, and why would he think churches should shun it, and people should shun churches that practice it?  because it's compelled by law.  oh, my stars and garters!  social justice is when you decide you've had enough of an economic system in which people who do the grunt work of a company make poverty wages.  social justice is when you demand that health insurance companies do the job we pay them to do, or the government will step in and do the job better.  social justice is when you decide that some money in taxes to support school lunches is better than seeing kids go hungry.  social justice demands that our economic system value something besides profit.  social justice sees people as more important than profit, and that our economic system must provide for us, not the other way around.  we don't have to support unregulated, unprotected capitalism if all we have to show for it are fat cats and slums.

social justice does not denigrate charity.  in fact, involving oneself in charitable acts is one way in which people learn about social justice.  some who involve themselves in charitable programs see too many decent people who are not afraid of hard work but have bosses who are afraid of paying living wages.  some see too many people thrown away by our economy from sickness, drug addiction, and the loss of one paycheck.  social justice is what you do when you realize that private charities are not equipped to provide the help needed to everyone who needs it, especially in hard times when private charities cannot muster the donations to meet the need.  that is why our government, which can compel you through fines and possibly jail time, maintains a safety net of its own.  this safety net is not voluntary- giving to it doesn't make you look good for your friends, or get one into heaven.  however, this safety net is always there, whether the rich want to pay for it or not.

long story short- if you belong to a church which administers and supports various charitable programs, and your church has not come to question an economic system that treats rush limbaugh better than your own neighbors (who actually do something productive, instead of selling ads on a radio show)- then i'm asking you- how can your church not add 2+2 and get 4?  how can any institution which spends time with the poor not see the numerous roadblocks our economic system puts in their way?  record company profits through layoffs and poverty wages are great for stockbrokers, but end up placing a huge strain on our secular and religious charities.  poverty wages and easy credit nearly destroyed our economy, which also puts a huge strain on charities.  which charities don't see this?  and even worse, which charities see this and choose to do nothing about it because they can't find a bible verse explicitly telling them to?  i guess somebody thinks he can get through the eye of a needle.

ah, good old freedom

yes, i know the public option is out. and i'm pissed about that. in fact, a post about obama weaseling his way out of the public option may be due. but john ensign just leaped into my face with his own nugget of dishonesty and stupidity, and i couldn't resist.

john ensign has decided that the government mandating citizens to buy health insurance is a violation of the of the 5th amendment. because it forces you to spend money you otherwise would have used to buy a big-screen tv on health insurance. ensign has also decided that: 1- the pursuit of happiness is in the constitution, which it's not; and 2- that mandating citizens buy health insurance somehow deprives them of the ability to pursue happiness. ensign has also decided that all americans have the freedom to not buy health insurance, and that this is what people in ww2 fought for.

okay, john, i'm going to explain it nice and slow so you can eventually get it. NOBODY wants to die of disease or injury. NOBODY with cancer wants the freedom to choose to either go broke surviving or die. NOBODY with a broken leg wants to choose to let it to heal deformed so they can't walk normally again but still have an Ipod. you're talking about, and passionately defending, a "freedom" that nobody wants. at least you say you are.

so what's the real freedom ensign is defending? he's not defending the freedom to choose between death or bankruptcy court. he's defending the freedom to NOT CARE that others must choose between death and bankruptcy court. he's defending your freedom to turn a blind eye to those who suffer chronic health problems or die. he's defending the freedom to feel nothing for them, or tell them to go to charities that don't exist, or that have run out of money. that's the freedom john ensign cares about.

the government is mandating the purchase of health insurance because uninsured & underinsured patients' inability to pay their bills is contributing to unnecessary bankruptcies. their inability to pay also forces hospitals to increase their fees for services, which is one of the reasons why health insurance premiums have skyrocketed. which will slowly bankrupt everyone. which is why reform includes a mandate to buy health insurance. it is sad that we've reached the point where those who had to choose between insurance and food have affected people who otherwise wouldn't care about the uninsured. we liberals sure are sorry that their desire to live despite their poverty has affected your insured asses. but we have reached this point, and we need a solution to this problem, and the republicans have only proposed a piece of dreck that insures fewer people, and leaves those with pre-existing conditions in hi-risk (read: hi cost) insurance plans that the bill doesn't even create and that won't even cover the pre-existing condition that requires them to buy the hi-cost insurance in the first place. so unless you have something that will actually be worth paying for, STFU.

just who the fuck voted for her, anyway?!?!?!?!?!?!

the fact that michelle bachmann needs an extra "n" at the end of her last name should tell you everything you need to know. okay, i exaggerate. this should tell you everything you need to know about michelle bachmann. she is bugfuck, apeshit insane. she uses already discarded pieces of legislation to argue that stalin is in the building. and the discarded pieces? they didn't even call for what she said they did.

here's what the new serve america act does do: it gives federal funding status to a slew of already existing community service programs (or new ones some goddamned do-gooder dreams up), and also awards increased pell grants for anyone who completes these programs that can be used to pay for college or student loans. it also reinforces rules about what programs do and don't qualify. basically, any program that engages in politics, supports a for-profit company or union, or is religious instruction does not qualify. if you're program is receiving funds under this bill, it can't have any of those goals, and the volunteers can't do any of those things while they're supposed to be doing community service. last, it sets rules for school districts that would like funding as a "youth engagement zone": at least 90% of students must be in a service program, and the high school has to have some "service learning" as a part of the mandatory curriculum. did we save the statue of vladimir lenin? i think we're gonna need it.

it does not stipulate that you can't attend church, work for a union, or tell mccain supporters he fathered a black baby. you just have to do those things on your own fucking time. maybe the problem bachmann has with the bill is that the people in her district don't have any of their own time anymore, what with all their foreclosures. or maybe she thinks that if public schools taught kids to give a shit about someone else for a change, they might not demand tax cuts when they're voting age. why is it that actually teaching americans to care about other americans has mixed republican support, but just about full democratic support? doesn't that say something about how different the parties are, ralph?

and here's what michelle rails about the most- the stuff that got yanked! the bill, originally, would have just looked into whether making some form of community service for young adults mandatory would improve the country. the original version also would have required the government "look into" (read: we'll get back to you when jfk's assassination reports are declassified) creating a 4-year, college-level institution for educating people for public sector jobs. the fact that we would even talk about requiring kids to give a shit about something besides the coolness of their own sneakers (i'm sorry, athletic shoes) and what color their ipods should be is a sign that castro's mind-control experiment has finally succeeded.

why is it that every single action by a government that aims to make this a better place to live is some sort of communist plot? whether it's flouride in the water, social security, the minimum wage, and now some additional government support for teaching young people the value of actually giving a shit. why is banning smoking from public places some sort of outrage? i don't see a right to tobacco anywhere in the constitution. i don't see a right to demand every single dollar your boss paid you in dollars that only have value because the government says so in the fucking bill of rights. but then again, i'm one of those pointy-headed intellectuals whose actually bothered to read the damn thing.

the new low

what dicks. really? you're looking out for tax payers and saving america's auto industry? because it seems to this mere mortal that you're screwing these people (not necessarily in this order):
1- the taxpayers
2- the people who make america's cars
3- the auto industry in general

first of all, maybe the uaw could have caved. but i really don't want to live in a country where a union can be put over a barrel and sodomized with an open umbrella. and how the uaw can now suddenly just agree to shit without a member vote is way past me. it might just be that, instead, the republicans just don't fucking know how unions work.

but here's why these fucktards are screwing us, them, and the cars. they're screwing the taxpayers because a $14 billion loan is alot fucking better than the billions of dollars we'll have to pay in umemployment, food stamps, and medicaid. remember- it's not just the autoworkers. it's everyone who sells the autoworkers shit. it's their grocery stores, their hardware stores, their mortgage institutions, everyfuckingbody. that's alot more unemployed people at a time when anyone with working neurons in the u.s. government wants to desperately keep the jobs that george bush hasn't yet flushed down a toilet with his blow.

the human scumbuckets are also screwing the autoworkers. i love how these anti-centralized economy dickwads are now setting wage caps. call me crazy, but we haven't done that for private sector employees since nixon's price setting. these southern dixies have decided that this is truly the best moment to make belonging to a union useless. it relieves the pressure on the manufacturers in their states (mostly foreign car companies, mind you) to raise wages. manufacturers, i might add, that these mule-raping cross burners were more than happy to woo to their jurisdictions with so much cash (in the form of tax benefits, mostly) it was like toyota was a stripper and richard shelby was howard stern.

and the auto industry. now, as someone who doesn't own a car- which is a truly stupid thing to do in new york fucking city, i tolerate the auto industry because i've been able to drive a toyota prius once. and i drove around on business for three fucking days and went through maybe a 1/4 tank of gas. i liked that (btw, don't go for the full tank option when you have a hybrid- just get the option to only refill what you burned- and ALWAYS get the loss/damage waiver. that's another story). i don't understand our national desire to fucking drive everywhere, or to live in neighborhoods where that's the only option. that's always struck me as a sign of a true dumbass. but u.s. automakers do employ a shitload of people who i'd like to keep on their payrolls instead of on the dole. dealerships also employ a shitload of people. as well as the people who supply u.s. cars' parts. as well as everyone who does something for autoworkers that make union wages. and general clark may be right- maybe we should keep people manufacturing at u.s. owned plants- plants we may need during wartime. i don't know if our use of auto plants to make ww2 war shit can be redone for today's war shit. what i do know is that before the gm plant in janesville, wisconsin, closed, the people who worked there were proud of what they did. they were proud to own gm cars. in fact, old-time janesville residents made a point of owning gm cars. they were proud to work for a u.s. automaker. not because they hated japanese people, but because they were proud of what america could do. with the exception of homes, i don't know of any other manufactured product that people are so proud to make.

the u.s. auto industry doesn't have to die just because some senate republicans would like to help the foreign manufacturers currently working in their home states (until some other state lures them away). the auto industry had just secured some useful concessions from the uaw, freeing itself from future retiree burdens. what we need to do is remind the u.s. auto industry that if they're so near and dear to our hearts that we won't let them fail, then they need to feel the same for us. we need cars that emit less co2. we need cars that stop making smog. we need smaller cars. we need more buses. like the auto industry, we too are too big to fail. and it's u.s. automakers that would receive the help necessary to make the cars americans really need. i love hondas, but the u.s. government has no business giving honda money. that's for japan to do.

okay, maybe i'm being a little idealistic. maybe i have this idea in my head that u.s. automakers would be more interested in serving the general public than in manufacturing some highly profitable machine and creating consumer demand for it by convincing americans that they need tons of space and gadgets they'll never use. i know. but they're u.s. automakers- they fall under our jurisdiction. if we're going to be reminded that we need to help them out sporadically, we can remind them that they're supposed to act in america's interest, at least until the checks clear.

i guess beggars CAN be choosers

as i'm writing this, congress is nearing a deal on wall street's bailout. i don't really know what it will be yet, and i have no clue whether president shit-for-brains will even sign it, and (not if) what signing statements he'll tack on.

but here is what we do know: what data is in indicates that it wasn't the community reinvestment act,(read the pdf from the link- it's only 12 pages and very informative) or clinton's efforts to enforce it. multiple studies (michael barr's report especially has some great info) have shown that a little over half of all subprime mortgages came from banks that had no obligations under the CRA, another quarter came from banks only partially covered by the CRA. only about one quarter of subprime mortgages are even made from financial institutions fully under the CRA to loan back to communities they take deposits from (which is the key requirement of the CRA). on top of that, banks reported low costs to even comply with the law, and that banks didn't consider CRA loans "overly risky" (see michael barr's report). to enforce this law, the federal government posts information on lending to low-income communities for the public, and reviews the percentage of credit to poor areas of banks trying to merge (clinton and reno's change in 1995). if there's a period of low-merger activity, the law just doesn't get as much enforcement.

the data coming in looks bad for lenders. consider what michael barr's report goes on to say- that borrowers, especially non-white borrowers, were "steered" to subprime mortgages, even when they could have qualified for a regular mortgage. flipping, packing, and huge fees that were very profitable made these loans a nightmare for borrowers. lenders sold existing borrowers refinancing loans they didn't need, and maybe even falsely reported the conditions of these loans to underwriters. the problems were so bad, state attorneys general started getting interested. however, the bush administration literally blocked them using the OCC, and a banking law from 1863, with some additonal regs thrown in. the attorneys general of all 50 states objected to and unsucessfully fought this. on top of that, 2005 changes in the CRA (which administration would that be) actually made predatory lending easier, as it changed what could be used as collateral to offer/price a mortgage. even jon stewart can see the bullshit. ("you have a casino!")

so spare me blaming this on blacks, hispanics, or poor people. lenders found easy targets with little financial knowledge, sold them loans they didn't need, suspected greatly they couldn't pay them back, priced them so the borrower would have trouble paying them back, then maybe fudged a few facts to a bunch of other people so they would buy the mortgages, then pocketed the profits. these initial mortgage buyers, including fannie mae and freddie mac, then resold these mortgages with mortgages that haven't failed to other investors, and pocketed their own profits. but this caught up with investors as the income from foreclosed mortgages dried up. by then, a few people had profited greatly, while borrowers lost their homes, small-time investors (read: me and you) lost their retirement savings, and now taxpayers just lost a shitload of government money that could have gone to schools, roads, hospitals, and mass transit. this was (is) the greedy preying upon the ignorant.

others have noted that we socialize loss and not profit in this country. i'll let them expound on this. for now, i'm just going to ask a question- WHY THE FUCK DO WE PUT UP THIS?!?!?!?!?!? where did we put our fucking pitchforks? and torches? where are the tar and feathers? we can complain, and blog, and email jack cafferty all we like, IT HASN'T MADE JACKSHIT BETTER. so here's my answer to my question: we put up with this, ultimately, because to demand change would make us reflect a little on the mistakes in thinking that led to this catastrofuck. we would have to wonder to ourselves why we let wall street police its own when history has shown it can't and won't. we would have to wonder to ourselves why we let living wages fall and be replaced with poverty wages and easy debt. we would have to wonder whether $700 billion could be better spent on things people could actually use, like trains, bridges (to more than 50 people), and schools. we would have to wonder why we actually fall for trickle down economics and free market myths every 20 years or so. and i don't think we'd like the answers to those questions.

i wish these guys weren't such assholes

i hate it when someone tells me how cheap something they bought at wal-mart was. does anyone know why the stuff at wal-mart is so cheap? who hasn't read enough news articles on what wal-mart does to its employees? or the poverty of the people making the stuff? or do people know, and just shrug their shoulders and think, "better them than me"?

wal-mart has recently had sit-downs with department heads and store managers to push their anti-union and anti-Democratic Party message. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html wal-mart is particularly pee-in-their-pants-scared of the Employee Free Choice Act, passed in the House but stuck in the Senate and threatened with George Bush's veto, which would enable a union to be organized if and when more than 50% of a commercial entity's workers sign a card to join the union. oh the horror. wal-mart, and a few allies, are worried that if organizing a union is that easy, they won't be able to talk workers out of joining. wal-mart's current sit-down warns its viewers that if you're in a union, you'll have to- gasp - pay dues! and go on strike! and most importantly, that if labor costs go up, there could be fewer jobs! see the link.

really, there are going to be fewer jobs? i haven't been to a wal-mart for almost a decade, but something tells me that wal-mart doesn't overstaff their stores. the reality is that this is typical union-busting bullshit- that the only way wal-mart (or any business) can run a profitable store is to pay its employees crap. why do we always assume that it's the lot of the worker to be grateful for the pittance she gets? i say that if owners can combine their stakes to maximize their profits, than workers can combine their voices to do the same. after all, wages are the worker's profit. if a corporation can maximize its profits, why can't its employees?

it's this kind of myopic bullshit from wal-mart that makes me wonder if the executives who shovel this down their employees' throats have ever asked themselves why people organize unions in the first place. hint: it's not because they're bored. it's because they're dissatisfied with working for a living but not making a living. well, not dissatisfied- pissed off. they're pissed when the boss breaks the law. they're pissed at getting fired for taking care of loved ones. they're pissed about a buttload of horseshit and unions are how they fight back. so wal-mart can just suck it up.