Rethinking the Concept of a Corporate Income Tax

Raising corporate income taxes is one of those things that makes us feel good (we're nailing the rich folks, right? - or at least trying to). But is it good? At least from what I can tell, a lot of tax experts have concluded that the taxes that are placed on businesses are ultimately paid for by ordinary folks - not by the businesses targeted..................................................................................................I'll cite specifically the Minnesota Tax Incidence Study. According to these folks, more than half of the state of Minnesota's corporate income taxes are ultimately paid by consumers, workers, and shareholders. They also say that consumers end up paying a significant portion of the taxes that are exported outside of the state. Contrast this, I ask you, to the actual owners of the corporate capital. Those folks end up only paying for 5% - 5 per-frigging-cent!!..................................................................................................And, no, it isn't just conservatives who think that high corporate income taxes are bad. Liberal economist, Robert Reich - he actually wants to get rid of corporate income taxes all-together. He thinks that, not only would it enhance American competitiveness but it would also get rid of this notion that large corporations have constitutional rights (one of the rationales for the hotly contested Supreme Court decision, "Citizens United v Federal Election Commission"). And he isn't alone. Liberal bloggers from the Star Tribune, Firedoglake, and Salon have also been bouncing around this idea of greatly eliminating or reducing corporate income taxes. Firedoglake and Fox Business agreeing - who'd have ever thunk a that, huh?..............................................................................................P.S. Just a final piece of information here. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, there's a very strong correlation between higher corporate income tax rates and lower wages (not necessarily a causal connection, mind you, but an interesting factoid nonetheless). That I also find to be compelling.

A Sobering Cure

I often wonder (as a lot of my colleagues probably also do) what a Hillary Presidency would have looked like. I especially wondered about it back when President Obama was floundering. Would she, folks, have been a better choice than Mr. Obama? And, yes, I'll flat-out admit it to you here that maybe, MAYBE, she would have been better?...............................................................................................I'll admit to it, that is, until I flash on back and take a look at this little quote form Jerry Zeifman (a lifelong Democrat who ended up firing Mrs. Clinton from the Watergate Committee staff back in 1974); "She was a liar......She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality." I'll read it (this, about as damning an indictment from a serious person as I've ever seen) and then, yeah, I start to feel a little bit better about Mr. Obama. The grass, me-buckos, isn't always greener.

Revisionism Hannity-Style

Look, folks, I'm not saying here that Sean Hannity isn't a dude who's capable of charm/affability. But, PLEASE/come on here, some of the stuff that this fellow has been saying of late is just absurd. Take, for instance, that recent Fox special on George W. Bush and Tony Blair, their unique and special relationship, yada yada ( yes, with Mr. Hannity narrating it). My God, by the time that frigging Hannity was done with the damn thing, you'd have probably though that you had just got done watching something on Roosevelt and Churchill, for Christ!........................................................................................................I's like, dude (this is me talking to Hannity now), all that these two frigging clowns basically did was to attack a country that LITERALLY had nothing to do with 9/11. But, even worse than that, they (sorry for the cliche here) took their eyes off of the big prize; letting Saddam Hussein and his despicable minions escape, strengthening the hand of Iran by extending a strong Shia crescent etc.. And, yes, the saddest thing of all is a realization that this whole "victory in Iraq" thing (replete, of course, with its 4,400 dead American soldiers) is ultimately going to unravel, America finding itself back at square one. Frigging square one!!! Yeah, put 'em both on Rushmore, dude.

Note to Mr. Olbermann 3

Dude, you do know, don't you, that if President Obama had done what you and your brethren over at MSNBC had wanted him to do (i.e., grit his teeth/snarl/pound his chest for 5 weeks to get a better deal on the tax package - a deal that probably wouldn't have even been possible), we probably wouldn't have gotten rid of DADT, ratified the START treaty, or even passed the aid to 9/11 first responders bill? I mean, you do frigging know that, right?

The New Sheriff of Charlottesville

As some of you folks already know, I was never a huge fan of former UVA football coach, Al Groh (currently the defensive coordinator at Georgia Tech). I never found him to be a particularly effective recruiter and, even on those occasions when he was able to get the top talent, he often wasn't able to develop it. Of course, the most damning evidence of all against Mr. Groh is his record on the field. While, yes, he did get off to a reasonably good start (leading the Cavs to a spate of decent bowl games), the overall wins and losses just didn't add up (three losing seasons in his final four)...........................................................................................So, yes/damn square, I was exceedingly ecstatic when Virginia decided to can Groh's sorry ass and replace him with a rising star, Mike London (at that time just one year removed from leading Richmond to the FCS championship). It had to be a major-league improvement, no?..........................................................................................Well, folks, here we are. It's been, what now, pretty nearly a year since Virginia made this change? How well is the new coach, Mr. London, doing? Well, apart from the fact that it's obviously way too early to tell, I would probably have to say that he's doing pretty good. Sure, he only won one more game than his predecessor did (4, as opposed to 3). But it was also clear that the toughness and competitiveness of the team were far better. And, yes, in terms of his recruiting ability, a major thumbs up. London, folks, has already landed 13 of the top 30 prospects in the state of Virginia for 2011. Included in this haul are such bell-ringers as speedy running back Clifton Richardson, behemoth offensive lineman Jay Whitmire, coveted quarterback David Watford, sleeper defensive end Thompson Brown (watch this guy, folks - he's 6'4" 225 and runs a sub 4.6 forty), and phenom corner Demetrious Nicholson. And it isn't just in Virginia where he's finding success. He's also landed a slew of Maryland's top 20 prospects; Brandon Phelps (ATH), Kelby Johnson (OT), Vincent Croce (DT), Marco Jones (DE), and Jordan Lomax (ATH)............................................................................................Now, obviously, one recruiting class doesn't a program make. But if Mr. London can continue to recruit like this AND develop the talent, UVA just might become the football power that a lot of us thought they were capable of being. No, not an Alabama or an Ohio State maybe but a consistent top 20/8-9 wins a year type of program -a good enough program for me, in other words.

Play it Again, Marilyn

I was watching "The Misfits" today and I'm telling you here, that scene between Marilyn Monroe and Montgomery Clift, outside the bar at night, his head all bandaged up from a fall at the rodeo earlier that day, her trying to comfort him, THAT, folks, is one hell of an incredible scene. I especially liked it when he asked her, "Who do you depend on? WHO?" and she responded with, "I don't know. Maybe all there really is is just the next thing, the next thing that happens. Maybe you're not supposed to remember anybody's promises."......I'm telling you here, folks, it was almost visceral, the entirety of it. Kudos, all around, to Clift, Monroe, Arthur Miller (the screenwriter), and John Huston (the director). Like they often say in Hollywood....and elsewhere, they just don't make 'em like that anymore.

"Where's My Baseball Bat?"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear those wretched words, 'Jersey Shore'?"

Miscellaneous 50

1) I have no doubt in my mind that if in fact this START treaty had instead been proposed by a Republican President (replete, of course, with copious amounts of bipartisan support from every single former/living President and Secretary of State), fellows like Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl would not only be supporting it but supporting it vociferously. I mean, come on here, let's just call it for what it is; flat-out and despicable partisanship.....and be done with it.............2) West Virginia's newly elected Senator, Joe Manchin - let's just say that he isn't exactly off to a courageous start. This, folks, in that instead of casting the difficult votes for (or against) the Dream Act and for (or against) the repeal of don't-ask/don't-tell, Mr. Manchin headed home for a Christmas party (please, keep in mind, Mr. Manchin has only been on the job for a couple of weeks here). He apparently didn't want to risk alienating either a) the base of his party for voting AGAINST these things or b) the socially conservative residents of his state for voting FOR them. I mean, yeah, I understand the delicacy of his situation and all......but, damn, isn't he also getting compensated here?............3) Looking for another BCS buster in the not too distant future? Try SMU. Yeah, you heard me eight. June Jones, folks, has taken this perennial doormat, a team that had never really rebounded from those 1987 "death penalty" sanctions, and has since delivered them to two consecutive bowl games. And the future is only going to get brighter. This, in that Jones has recruited as well as any nonBCS conference school (yes, I'm including TCU here) out there. After flirting with a great recruiting class for 2009 and 2010, Jones has really stepped it up for 2011. Of his 24 verbal commits thus far, 17 of them are three stars or better. Included in this haul are three of the top 100 from Texas (OT Carter Wall, DE Stephon Sanders, and RB K.C. Nlemchi), two of the top 100 from California (DE Davon Moreland and OG Dontae Levingston), and even a couple of studs from Louisiana; speedsters James Richardson (DB) and Jermaine Sams (WR). Add to that a real sleeper quarterback (Connor Preston from California) and, yeah, I'm telling you, don't be surprised to see a 13-0 SMU squad by 2012 or 2013 - yet another fly in the ointment, so to speak.

UCan't?

Nobody (including those of us who live in Connecticut) thinks that UConn has a prayer against Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The disparity in the level of talent and raw speed is just too much of an obstacle. And, really, what is it that UConn has truly accomplished this year? Yes, they won the Big East. But the Big East was very much down this season. And of their four losses (they were 8-4 overall), two of them were to Temple and Louisville (26-0 in that game). They don't have a 14 carat gold resume, in other words.......................................................................................................But, yes, it is in fact a game and they DO have to play it. And I can even see a scenario here in which the Huskies can keep it close. Here, though, is what has to happen. a) They can't turn the ball over. b) They need to force at least two Oklahoma turnovers. c) They mustn't drop passes (something that has plagued them a lot this year). d) They need to keep penalties to a minimum (five or less, I figure). e) They need to prevent the big play (including on special teams). Make Oklahoma go on 80 yard drives and try to hold them to field-goals. e) Jordan Todman, Jordan Todman, Jordan Todman - keep him hydrated and let him tote it as many times as he needs to (obviously you need to throw in some play-action, too). And f) if none of that works, yeah, you might want to try a prayer after all.....I mean, it can't hurt!

Miscellaneous 49

1) Jimmy Carter has, on several occasions, provided significant praise to Howard Baker and Bob Michael (the Senate and House minority leaders during his Presidency). He actually feels that they were every bit as helpful to him as his fellow Democrats were. I ask you, folks, compare THAT to the current situation in Washington (increasingly loathsome clowns such as Kyl and McConnell opposing the President for nothing more than what seems to be naked political gain). I mean, I know that there's always been gambling going on down there, but this - this is absolutely fucked!............2) It's been an interesting week, hasn't it? DADT gets repealed 65-31. The START treaty passes 71-26. And just yesterday the aid to 9/11 first responders bill gets passed unanimously......Hm. Can you say Mitch McConnell isn't as powerful as he thinks he is?............3) I was watching MSNBC the other night (I don't even remember which show it was) and they had on this liberal economist (yeah, I know, no big fat frigging surprise there - no, I don't remember that fellow's name, either). I almost turned the channel but, damn, this guy was good. He had this one idea, in particular, which I thought was especially brilliant. He said that, instead of bailing the states out again, we do for them what we did for Wall Street - i.e., provide them a bunch of low interest loans (a la TARP). This way, the states can get some needed relief AND the federal government can get the bulk of the money back, some of it quite possibly with interest. Sounds like a total win-win situation to me. You?

Dana Plato (With Apologies to Alyssa Milano)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite jail-bait specimen?"

Miscellaneous 48

1) O'Reilly, folks, is to Fox what Matthews is to MSNBC. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, he basically sticks with the "program".....until he doesn't - this Sarah Palin interview simply being the latest example of that.............2) Speaking of the former Alaska Governor, I have to admit it, she is NOT...AT ALL wearing well with me. I mean, she's taking shots at the poor first lady now; joking on her reality show that Mrs. Obama is trying to "outlaw dessert". First of all, it's frigging bullshit. Nobody is trying to outlaw anything. But, even more important than that, just the whole concept of some rogue (admittedly rogue) politician taking shots at the first lady of the United States (who's probably a damn sight more popular than even her husband right now) - that, to me, is pretty nearly as low as it gets.............3) Poor Wake Forest - it's apparently happened YET AGAIN. Remember last week how I told you about Mike Rose decommitting? Well, apparently lockdown corner, Devin Gaulden (out of Florida), has decided to follow suit. Just frigging peachy, huh, if in fact you're a Deacons fan.

Miscellaneous 47

1) Here's an interesting statistic, folks. I've heard that recent studies on don't-ask/don't-tell have indicated that some 80% of the gays currently serving in the military have also said that they actually plan on staying in the closet (for the lack of a better way to put it). So, yeah, all of this "disruption" stuff that people like John McCain are talking about is nothing but rubbish....Not that he's ever going to stop bitching - obviously.............2) Did any of you see Mr. O'Reilly's interview with Sarah Palin last week? It was kind of interesting, I thought. I especially liked the way that O'Reilly started busting her about this reality TV gig of hers. Of course, it didn't get real awkward until he asked her if she'd ever consider putting fellow reality diva, Kate Gosselin, in her cabinet....Let's just put it this way. She didn't look all that happy.............3) I've known for a while that the junior Senator from the state of New York was a gal by the name of Kirsten Gillibrand. Other than her name, though, I really didn't know that much about her (something about the NRA liking her - that's about it). Well, I finally got to see her (on Hardball) and, guess what, the lady's frigging hot (apologies if you already knew this)! So hot, that, yes, it prompted me to do some research. It appears, folks, that the lady has lost some 40 pounds since being appointed a year and a half ago. Not that she was all that bad before, mind you, but, now, with this new-found/size 4 svelteness, all that I can really say at this moment is booyah!!!!....Gillibrand in 2016!!!

A Chink in the Clunkage

As it turns out, "Cash for Clunkers" probably wasn't the best way for the U.S. government to spend $4,000,000,000. a) It pushed the cost of used cars higher. b) It markedly reduced the number of cars donated to charity. c) It negatively effected the auto recycling industry (certain parts were destroyed in the process of disabling the engine, thereby creating a shortage of them). d) It provided only a short term surge of car sales. e) The environmental benefit was minimal, at best (yes, the newer cars were more fuel efficient, but, yes, so, too, were they probably driven more). And f) it was all done on borrowed money....To say that this is a good example of "The Law of Unintended Consequences" is probably accurate (the purity of the motivation for it, aside) here.

Closet THIS, John McCain

There isn't a lot that comes out of Washington (D.C.) these days that inspires me. But I have to confess it here, the fact that the Senate voted 65-31 this morning to end that insidious policy of don't-ask/don't-tell, I did get a little bit of a lump in my throat overall. I mean, sure, I'm still a little pissed off that it took the better part of two decades to make this change (not to mention the fact that 31 recalcitrant Republicans continued to try and derail it) but, still....Overall, folks, a very good day for freedom in America.....................................................................................................Alright, now let's pass the START Treaty. We're on a roll here.

The Greasy Kernel Gets the Cash

In order to secure the votes of Iowa Senators Grassley and Harkin, the Senate apparently had to insert copious amounts of ethanol subsidies into that tax compromise. Excuse me here....just for a minute....WHILE I VOMIT!.....................................................................................................But, seriously, though, I ask you; if this little fact doesn't convince you that this country has an absolutely wretched and corrupt political system, then, BOOM, what in the bluest of blazes would I have to show you? I mean, we're talking ethanol here - ETHANOL, perhaps the biggest boondoggle in many, MANY, decades of boondoggles (this, in that it's bleeding the treasury, increasing food prices, and destroying the environment - yes, folks, it's even worse than gasoline!!) - and two United States Senators (one from each political party) still trying to protect it. Unbe-frigging-lievable.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 7

Say what you want about John McCain (and, yes, I often have - that the man's a flip-flopper, Bush on steroids, frequently unstable, etc.), folks. At least this individual had the good sense to see what was an obvious powder-keg brewing. Yes, I'm referring to Mr. McCain's decision to sign on as a co-sponsor The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. And while, no, it was clearly not a perfect piece of legislation (some say that it ceded too much in terms of authority to the FED), it was at least an attempt to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This was what the Senator himself had to say about a) the impending crisis and b) the proposed legislation: " For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - known as government sponsored entities or GESs - and the sheer magnitude companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GESs need to be reformed without delay.............I join as a co-sponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."......................................................................................................Wow, huh? And all the while we thought that this character was clueless, nothing but a frigging broken clock, etc..

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 6

According to the New York Times (yet another publication that's not exactly hostile to Democrats), in 2003, "Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." The paper also went on to say that "A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors and critics have said that Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."................................................................................................What was the Democratic response to Bush's proposal? Barney Frank's was simply to state that "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are NOT (my emphasis) facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Congressman Watt from North Carolina added that, " I don't see much other than a shell-game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."..................................................................................................And on and on it dribbled - partisans like Maxine Waters and Gregory Meek saying that everything was AOK at Fannie and Freddie. Hell, folks, you even had Lacy Clay say that the proceedings were themselves a "Political lynching of Franklin Raines"......................................................................................................Look, folks, if Mr. Frank finally came to his senses and eventually proposed a meaningful compromise, and if in fact the Republicans rebuffed him, then, yes, shame on those very same Republicans. I NEVER said that the Republicans weren't culpable. But to constantly spin for a bunch of folks who attempted to turn large parts of the banking industry into more or less frigging social work, THAT I CANNOT COMPREHEND.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 5

This, folks, from former President Clinton (Good Morning America, 2008); "I think that the responsibility that Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."............And these more recent quotes from Barney Frank; a) (2005) "This is not a dot com situation. We will not see a collapse that people see when we talk about a bubble." b) (2006) "Fundamentally, I don't think that there's a crisis." c) (2006) "We had a degree of meltdown in the housing field that very few people foresaw." d) (2008!) "I don't think that Fannie and Freddie are financially insolvent. I don't think that they need a large bailout."............Again, President Clinton seemingly much more willing to accept reality here (this, though, yes, Mr. Frank ultimately did fess up during the 2010 campaign).

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 4

Perhaps my colleague is referring to a piece of legislation that I'm unfamiliar with. If, however, he's strictly referring to Congressman Frank/the Congressman's relationship to Fannie and Freddie, then, yes, he is markedly rewriting history here. The truth, folks, is that Congressman Frank has never (well, except for maybe a few days in 2002) taken a responsible posture toward these institutions..............................................................................................For instance, it has been reported by the Boston Globe reported that Frank, as early as 1991, had pushed these agencies to loosen regulations on mortgages for two and three family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice to five times the rate of single family dwellings. They also reported that in 1994, President Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose stiffer regulations on Fannie....and that they were thwarted by Mr. Frank. Yes, in 2002, Mr. Frank was seemingly coming to his senses on these types of loans but, alas, it didn't last. Get this quote, folks: "I do think I DO NOT (emphasis courtesy of me) want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OOC and OTS. I want to roll the dice a little more in this situation toward subsidized housing."....................................................................................................I think that we really need to face it here, folks. Barney Frank's name probably SHOULD have been on that Time magazine list, perhaps even more so than Mr. Clinton's.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 3

The Boston Globe (not exactly a publication that's been hard on Democrats over the years) summarized their most recent interview with Barney Frank thusly: "He missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said that he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders' mission of providing affordable housing."...............................................................................................And like I've said in the previous posting, Congressman Frank's own words are themselves a mea culpa; "I was late in seeing it, no question."

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 2

Look, folks, I'm not in any way attempting to say that there's equal culpability here. The financial meltdown DID occur under a Republican administration. It also occurred under a Republican FED chairman (Alan Greenspan) and a Republican heading the SEC (Christopher Cox). The Republicans absolutely DO deserve more of the blame................................................................................................I'm just saying here that they don't deserve ALL of the blame. a) The policy of this more relaxed lending started under the Clinton administration. b) Barney Frank, once the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee and, yes, ultimately the chairman of it has himself admitted that "Yes, I was late in seeing it, no question." And c) Fannie and Freddie were themselves heavily populated with Democrats; Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick (all of whom President Obama has either sought advice from or courted for his administration)...........................................................................................................Oh, and to all of those who happen to think that Mr. Frank has gotten a raw deal in this analysis, this. In 2000, Mr. Frank said that concerns about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability whatsoever". In 2002, he said that "I do not regard Fannie and Freddie as problems" and that he regarded them as "great assets". In 2003, he said that there was "no federal guarantee to Fannie and Freddie's obligations". In 2004, he said that Fannie and Freddie were "no real threat to the treasury". Add to this the fact that Mr. Frank received $40,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie and even had a romantic relationship with one of its executives and, yeah, it really does sounds to me like Mr. Frank may have at least some explaining to do.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 1

"Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue - it doesn't really work. Both parties bear plenty of responsibility." Jonathan Koppell, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University/The New America Foundation......Hm, OK, let's see hear, who do I believe? Do I believe a respected and nonpartisan professor from a respected university/respected and nonpartisan think-tank, OR do I believe a spate of highly partisan web-sites and publications whose very continuation is dependent upon their not "being convinced"? Gee, that's ballbustingly difficult one - NOT!!!!

Miscellaneous 46

1) Sean Hannity has just (this past week) surpassed his own world-record for chutzpah. It happened, folks, during one of those patented reminisce/kumbaya sessions of his and, yeah, as I recall, it sounded a little something like this, "Remember how back during the 2008 campaign Mr. Obama was attacking me?"...Of course, the fact that he continues to say this crap with such a smirk on his face, THAT, I'm saying................2) Speaking of Hannity, it seems to me as if the fellow may have essentially boxed himself into a corner here. I mean, he's basically demonized Obama as much as he can, right? My question is - what in the hell is he going to do if Mr. Obama ends up getting primaried from the left in 2012? What, pray tell, is he going to say about THAT person? That the fellow/woman's worse than................3) I have no reason to think that Hillcrest High's (Simpsonville, South Carolina) star defensive-end, Mike Rose, isn't a good kid. Hell, for everything that I know, he might even be a typical high school student (for better or worse, I'm saying). But, I have to tell you, he did something this past week that is unfortunately becoming all too common these days. Seven days ago, Rose made a solid verbal commitment to go to school/play his college ball at Wake Forest University. Needless to say, it was a monstrous "get" for a Demon Deacons squad that just suffered though one of its worst seasons in recent memory (3-9). All was well - well, until, that is, Sunday, when Mr. Rose decided that he wanted to go to North Carolina State instead. I mean, yeah, the fact that he "flipped" relatively soon was significantly better than had in fact led the Deacs on for weeks/months but, still....I don't know, folks, I just wish that these kids (and, yes, that in fact is what they are - kids!) wouldn't commit at all until they were absolutely sure. I mean, it does involve more than just them, you know.

Really (As in Extremely) Bogus

I'm trying very hard to figure out how a lot of this "reality" shit gets concocted. Like with this whole "Sarah Palin's Alaska" stuff - what, pray tell, was going through the minds of THOSE producers? Was it, folks, essentially along the lines of, "Hm, let's see, what can we do to make this individual look more appealing to the Republican base, all of those clingers/tea-partiers out there, etc.?...Hey, I got it. Let's have her go on this hunting trip....with a bunch of dudes and have her blow away some poor unassuming moose. I mean, it'll be easy. We can have some of our flunkies flush the moose out into the open and BOOM!...Oh and, YES, we can punctuate the whole thing by having her high-five the fellas'. Perfect, no?"? Or was it just to frigging titillate, in general? I just can't frigging decide here.....................................................................................................Yeah, I'm probably better off not knowing, huh?

Nancy Grace and the NHL

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, are the two things in America, the popularity of which, you find most inexplicable?"

"I Think That We Basically Run a Clean Program", Ron Meyer (SMU Football Coach, 1982)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, is the most ludicrous/laughable statement EVER from the world of sports?"

To All of Those Who Think That a Progressive Challenge to President Obama in a 2012 Primary is a Good Thing, This

You're crazy. a) A sitting President has rarely successfully been challenged in a primary before (Buchanan's victory over Pierce in 1856 - that being the most recent example). And b) whenever a sitting President has been challenged like this, he tends to end up losing in the general election (Ford, Carter, and Bush 1 - the three most recent examples). And, folks, I'm also telling you here, if by some incredible miracle event, President Obama does lose in a primary, this nation would never, EVER, elect a Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich President. They just flat-out wouldn't do that (this and, yet, I've also said that about Sarah Palin, huh?).

Note to Mr. Olbermann 2

Dude, if you have to use a gun (and, yes, apparently it's necessary), can you at least have the decency to use a bullet, and not this frigging buckshot of yours? For instance, when you criticized (yes, with some degree of justification) Brit Hume for his implication that Valerie Plame may in fact have lied under oath, did you really have to take down Chris Wallace, too (remember how you lumped them together in your "Worst Persons" segment?)? I mean, think about it. All that Mr. Wallace was doing was moderating the discussion. And, besides, when he did ask Mr. Hume, "So, are you saying that she was lying under oath", it was IN RESPONSE to Mr. Hume's accusation AND he was pressuring him....I mean, I know that you totally hate Fox News and all (I'm obviously not a big fan of it, either) but, please/like I said, use a frigging bullet. Alright?

Miscellaneous 45

1) Man, oh, man, is that Sean Hannity dude ever predictable? I'm telling you here, folks, as soon as President Obama and former President Clinton stepped up to that podium together, I knew it, I KNEW for a fact that Hannity would try and make some hay about it; that the President was being rescued by Mr. Bill Clinton, yada-yada. And, yes, me-buckos, it really leads me to ask out loud: WHY do we even need to watch it any more. I mean, it's not like it's "The Wizard of Oz" or anything/wears well with repeated viewings.............2) If you had to give Bill O'Reilly credit for something, it would probably have to be for the fact that all of the profits for that merchandising of his go to charity (a la Paul Newman). But, still, STILL, I still don't think that I'd ever be willing to go anywhere wearing a "the spin stops here" cap or a "please don't taze me, bro" t-shirt....You know what I'm saying here, right?............3) Could it possibly be, folks - a rift of some sorts over at MSNBC? That's how it certainly seems to this blogger at least. On the one hand, you have Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell seemingly supporting President Obama's tax-cut compromise. On the other, you have Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz (the latter two, vociferously so) opposing it. I mean, clearly, they all have separate shows and all and so, no, we really haven't seen any sparks a flying yet. The green-room/hallways, though - too bad there aren't any cameras there.............4) Speaking of Rachel Maddow, I've been getting a total laugh-attack over this most recent commercial of hers. On it, folks, she goes off spouting about the importance of "looking for all of the disparate facts", putting them all together yada-yada. Yeah, huh? I think what she REALLY meant to say was "looking for all of the facts that support my ideology and ignoring the rest."...Just a hunch, I'm saying.

Some Surprising Wisdom From MSNBC Prime-Time

Lawrence O'Donnell said something this week that made an extraordinary amount of sense. He said that the Democrats have made a very huge mistake in lumping folks who make $251,000 a year with those individuals that make tens/hundreds of millions a year. They're not, in his (or especially in my) opinion, even remotely comparable. The former group is a group that works and contributes mightily to society. And, yes, depending upon where in fact these individuals reside, they're not necessarily always wealthy, either (a lot of them still paying off student loans, etc.). Compare this, I ask you, to the latter group of people, many of them probably living off investments, estates, bloated corporate salaries, bonuses, etc...........................................................................................................Another excellent point that O'Donnell made is that this $250,000 template was derived back in 1993. When you adjust it for (reverse) inflation, this only adds up to $165,000 in 1993 dollars. O'Donnell feels (and I whole-heartedly agree with him) that had in fact the Democrats adjusted this threshold upward (my suggestion has always been between $300-400,000), they more than likely would have gotten much more in terms of public support....Oh well, it's all probably too late now, huh?..............................................................................................................P.S. This is not meant to imply that individuals who currently make under this threshold won't eventually have to pay additional taxes, too (for deficit reduction, infrastructure, etc.). They totally in fact might. I'm just talking in terms of this immediate discussion. That's all.

"He's Got a Noseful of Dimes"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite description of former O.J. Simpson defense-team lawyer, Barry Scheck?"

On Ashleigh Banfield Subbing Tonight for Joy Behar

Three words: MAKE...THIS...PERMANENT!

Miscellaneous 44

1) Alright, now that I've criticized Mr. Obama, let me a minute or two to defend the guy, for Christ. a) This is probably the best deal that the fellow could have gotten these days. And b) even if in fact the President had played some "hardball" with Republicans, the time/political capitol involved, who knows, he probably would have also blown an opportunity for START and don't ask/don't tell, too. I mean, I know that guys like Schultz and Olbermann (yes, that love affair finally appears to be over) are pissed at him and all but, come on here. He, the President, has a different job from them - a much, MUCH, different job.............2) Gee, what a surprise. Sean Hannity was wrong about President Obama....Remember how he was constantly saying that Mr. Obama is a far different guy than Bill Clinton was when he was President, of how Mr. Obama was far too ideologically rigid to compromise, move to the center, etc.? I mean, I certainly do....There, now if we could only get an admission from the douchebag - NOT!!!............3) I really hope that Sarah Palin ate that moose that she killed. Because, if she didn't, and she only killed it to make some asinine political point on television, then that woman is flat-out despicable....I mean, come on here, people, just the frigging high-fiving alone, the fact that it apparently took a contingent....

Note to President Obama

I have to tell you, Mr. President, it isn't just the "progressive" wing of your party that doesn't like this tax-cut compromise. Blue-dogs and deficit-hawks, like myself, don't particularly care for the "arrangement", either. I mean, yes, I do admire you for your willingness to compromise/work across the aisle but, please, Mr. President, this end-result is the exact mirror opposite of what it clearly should have been. The optimal compromise, IMHO, should have been to a) sunset the tax-cuts for wealthier Americans (the threshold also being the result of negotiation - somewhere between 250,000 and a million) and b) to "pay for" the unemployment compensation (possibly from unspent stimulus money and/or waste at the Pentagon). This way, Mr. President, we would have not blown yet another big hole in the deficit AND helped to maintain the recovery (this, via an extension of the middle-class tax-cuts). I mean, I know that the Republicans basically had you by the balls and probably wouldn't have agreed to such a proposal. But, really, couldn't you have at least proposed this sucker?

The Best Summation of the John and Elizabeth Edwards Saga Ever - Courtesy of Chuck Todd

"She should have been the candidate, not him."

How 'Bout a Hall of Fame For Hyperbole?

In what would have to be one of his most bizarre "Worst Persons" segments EVER, Mr. Olbermann opted this time to take on, OF ALL PEOPLE, the Baseball Hall of Fame Veteran's Committee. It seems, folks, that Mr. Olbermann (a person who's seemingly already on the record as wanting to transform Baseball's most hallowed institution into the Hall of the Very Good) has for a long time wanted former Chicago Cubs third baseman, Ron Santo, to be granted induction into the Hall. And, yes, with Mr. Santo's recent passing, the ascerbic Olbermann did what he always seems to do these days - get indignant ("Mr. Santo didn't live long enough to see himself get honored, yada yada")...................................................................................................Now, don't get me wrong here. Mr. Santo was in fact a very good player, and a reasonable case could be made for him. But a big slam-dunk he is not. Mr. Santo's numbers, for example, are actually worse than those of other borderline players who have made it; Jim Rice, Orlando Cepeda, Tony Perez, etc.. And while, yes, Santo has power numbers much greater than some of the other marginal Hall of Famers such as Nellie Fox and Richie Ashburn, those fellows had a great many more hits and a significantly better batting average. And what about a guy like former Boston Red Sox right fielder, Dwight Evans? He scored far more runs than Santo (1470-1138), had significantly more hits (2446-2254), and exceeded him in the following other categories, too; doubles (483-365), triples (73-67), home-runs (385-342), runs batted in (1384-1331), stolen bases (78-35), walks (1391-1108), on-base percentage (.370-.362), and slugging percentage (.470-.464). If anybody deserves another look from the Veteran's Committee, it's him (not that even he's a slam-dunk, either)...................................................................................................Look, folks, there are a lot of really good players out there that one could argue for. I mean, just look at the frigging pitchers alone. Tommy John won 288 games. Bert Blyleven won 287 (not to mention had 3,774 strikeouts). Jim Kaat won 283. None of those guys are in the Hall of Fame, either. Is Mr. Olbermann going to make a conniption when they die, too. If, I'm saying, he had even one ounce of consistency in his bones (and we all flat-out know that he doesn't), he would.

"I'm Pretty Sure That He's Lying"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what do you think about Charlie Rangel saying that he didn't know that he could have started a legal defense fund?"

Yes, Dudes, We DO Play Football, Too

What is it with UConn running backs and the sporting press? Two years ago, Donald Brown led the entire nation in rushing with 2,083 yards and 18 touchdowns, and he didn't even make the top ten in the final Heisman Trophy voting. Worse than that, he didn't even finish in the top three for the Doak Walker Award (to the best running back in college football)....Oh, and, yeah, he did all of this on a team that basically couldn't throw the ball to save themselves (opposing defenses obviously being able to focus on him)..........................................................................................................Well, guess what - it's happening all over again. UConn junior running back, Jordan Todman is currently second in the nation in rushing (148.1 yards a game). The fellow has a total of 1,481 yards and 14 touchdowns (this, despite having missed one game and being banged up in several others). And, yes, he, like Mr. Brown, plays on a team that struggles mightily in the passing game. All of this and he didn't even make it in the TOP TEN(!!!!!) of the Walker voting. I mean, I know that it's hard to get outraged over a football story (you know, with everything else that's been going on) but, still, what, I ask you, does a UConn running back gotta do to get some love here? Run for President of the United States or something?

More Rain, Same Parade

It was one thing, folks, for David Stockman (Reagan's former head of OMB) to come out and poo-poo on Reaganomics. He, after all, is little more than a disgruntled individual with an axe to grind. But, when former FED chairman, Alan Greenspan, came out and basically said the same thing (i.e., that tax-cuts DO NOT pay for themselves), that, my friends, should at least be a little harder for the "right" to deal with. I mean, the fellow is an economic guru, isn't he (not to mention, a Republican)?...............................................................................................As for what my feelings on this issue are, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Stockman. This, folks, in that, yes, in my opinion, the Republican Party (as its presently constituted, at least) really and truly should be ashamed of themselves. They continuously put front and center people like Marsha Blackburn and LITERALLY have these individuals say NOTHING. "Yes, we're going to cut spending but, no, we're not at this point prepared to tell you specifically WHAT we're going to cut. Trust us, though."................................................................................................I mean, it's basically turned into a type of shell-game. And, seriously, does anybody really think that we're going to be able to shrink this national debt significantly with spending cuts alone, that there's even going to be enough political will and courage to attempt it? I really think that we have to face it here, folks - the Republicans are doing nothing but "kick the can"....................................................................................................P.S. Please, do not in any way take this criticism of the Republicans as an endorsement of the Dems. This, folks, in that, no, not a lot of what they've been doing the last couple of years has made a lot of sense, either (I point to elements of the stimulus package, the health-care bill, cap and trade, etc.). I was just hoping that somebody, ANYBODY, would have the courage to step up to the plate and give it to the American people straight - a Paul Tsongas type, if you will (Man, I knew that we should have cloned that guy).

Don't Be Principled/Don't Be Consistent/Do Tell

Death, taxes, and......Senator McCain moving the goal-posts yet again. I mean, seriously, folks, isn't that basically what it's all come down to here? We got what? First-off the fellow says that, once in fact the leaders of the military recommend an end to "don't ask, don't tell", he, too, would also acquiesce. THEN, when that finally DID happen (this in the form of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen), he switches his criteria to being one of which - what will the Pentagon study ultimately say? NOW, now that the Pentagon study is finally out and it says that a repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" wouldn't at all hurt the military, what does he want? HE WANTS ANOTHER FRIGGING STUDY!!!! I mean, why doesn't he just frigging admit it here - he doesn't want gays in the military EVER?...Wow, huh? And to think that I did at one time admire this individual (1999-2001).

"That's a Doctor Who Works With People's Assholes, Children"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite "Chef" ("South Park") line (this, Mr. Chef's answer to the children's rather awkward query, "What's a proctologist, Chef?")?"