Anti-gay, or pro-discrimination?

Following on previous comments about gay marriage (1, 2, 3), prop 8, and the increased change of falling skies... I was very pleased to encounter this extremely well argued vid on Ed Brayton's blog. He demonstrates both strong logic, and the ability to construct his argument from facts. Something he demonstrates to be lacking in the christian opposition. If our opponents actually argued like this, the debate might even be interesting! I'm experiencing some issues with WordPress and embedded video - so click here for the video on Youtube

Continue ReadingAnti-gay, or pro-discrimination?

What are the teabag protests really about?

What are the teabag protests really about? Their message is so incredibly incoherent, that it's clear that these sparsely-attended "protests" weren't really about what they were supposedly about, at least for many of the protesters. Therefore, we need to explore the subterranean reasons. On Keith Olberman's show, Janeane Garofalo suggests that what really upsets the teabaggers is that there is a black man in White House. With her theory, Garofalo is echoing one of my suspicions. And check out the blogger who took the microphone at one of the protests and had the protesters eating out of his hand, to demonstrate the incoherence.

Continue ReadingWhat are the teabag protests really about?

Isn’t it NEWS when the daily newspaper fires one of its prominent columnists?

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently fired one of its prominent columnists, Sylvester Brown. Why? Here's all you'll find even if you carefully scour the Post-Dispatch: A one-paragraph "Note" that Sylvester Brown acted unethically and that he deserved to be gone. But isn't it a big news story whenever the only daily newspaper serving a major metropolitan area fires one of its columnists for a purported isolated ethics infraction? Doesn't it deserve more coverage than a one-paragraph "Note to Readers"? Isn't this story news? What about when the columnist (who wrote three full columns per week) disputes the Post-Dispatch version of the facts? Isn't that news? You won't read about both sides of this dispute in the Post-Dispatch (though you can read about it here). What about the fact that Brown often criticized the Mayor of St. Louis coupled with the fact that the Mayor is on the paper's "Advisory Board?" Isn't that news? Should a newspaper ever have politicians on its "Advisory Board"? Isn't that issue big news? I decided to put out my own "edition" of the St. Louis Daily newspaper. I called it the St. Louis Post-Disgrace. Click on it to see the "paper" full screen." It contains the headlines that illustrate various aspects of the Sylvester Brown story that the Post-Dispatch failed to cover. I'll be waiting and watching to see whether the Post-Dispatch ever advises its readers any of these issues.

sylvester-brown-mockup-b-and-w

Continue ReadingIsn’t it NEWS when the daily newspaper fires one of its prominent columnists?

Time to yank some professional licenses . . .

Based on the release of additional torture memos of the Bush Administration, Mike Dunford of The Questionable Authority suggests that it's time to revoke some professional licenses. I agree. Here's an excerpt:

Reading these memos, it's very clear that there are quite a few CIA employees who are allegedly medical professionals. Those people need to find new professions. I would strongly suggest that you take a few minutes - particularly if you're a doctor or a psychologist - to suggest to your colleagues at the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association that it might be good to take some formal steps along those lines.

For additional information on the way the American Psychological Association facilitated the torture, consider this DI post, based on Amy Goodman's book, Standing Up to the Madness.

Continue ReadingTime to yank some professional licenses . . .

Who needs a tea-bag? – The truth about income, taxes, and the past 30 years

I got involved in a discussion on Ed Brayton's blog earlier today, which referenced yesterday's Tea-bag 'protests'. As a result, I ended up doing some research on pre/post tax income from 1979 to 2006. Taxes in this case is defined as 'effective' tax rates according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) guidelines, not some 'subset', or arbitrary, or marginal rates. These are the taxes actually paid, and the income actually retained. Based on the data presented by the CBO, with all dollars equalized to the 2006 value, the richest 1% of Americans saw their incomes after taxes increase by 256% since 1979. By comparison, the poorest 20% of Americans saw their income increase by only 11% after taxes over the same time period. Putting this another way - in 1979 the wealthiest 1% earned, on average, 22.6 times the poorest 20% ($337,100 -v- $14,900). By 2006, the wealthiest 1% had extended their lead to a staggering multiple of 72.75 times the poorest 20% ($1,200,300 -v- $16,500).

Continue ReadingWho needs a tea-bag? – The truth about income, taxes, and the past 30 years