Thank you sir, may I have another?

Mainstream country music kills me. Searching for a radio station in Northern California, I came across Cost of Livin' by Ronnie Dunn of Brooks & Dunn fame (and no, this time that's not David Brooks). After the obligatory glorification of serving in Iraq/Afghanistan, the song celebrates the plight of the unemployed man applying for a job:

I work weekends

if I have to

nights and holidays

give you forty

and then some

whatever it takes

This mindset is beyond my understanding. It seems there is a large portion of Americans that have the puritanical view that suffering is good for them. They don't want a living wage, a reasonable work week, regulations to protect them, or a social safety net. They want to suffer to prove they're better than those who would welcome, ask for, or demand something more. Corporate America must love these people, and the millionaires like Ronnie Dunn who simultaneously promote and profit from that sentiment.

Party Like it's 1999

Last week, David Brooks wrote a column saying poor and unemployed Americans should suck it up and suffer in silence like dignified Americans did during the depression. I restrained myself from responding. I thought it might be better for my mental health to let it pass. However, that approach doesn't seem to be working for me, so here's the latest stupid thing from David Brooks.

Yesterday, he was on NPR, commenting on the Occupy Wall Street movement, Brooks said that the Tea Party represents 10-15% of Americans, whereas the OWS movement only represents 2-3% of Americans. How did David Brooks arrive at 2-3%? Was this estimate based on the latest scientific poll results? Of course not. This is David Brooks. He said the OWS movement represents 2-3% of Americans because Ralph Nader got 2-3% of the national vote. While that is hilarious, I am not joking, and neither was David Brooks.

First, it's assinine to suggest that 2-3% of votes was an accurate measure of support for Nader's anti-corporate views. Plenty of voters sympathetic to Nader's anti-corporate message voted for Gore rather than wasting their vote on Nader.

Second, that was 11 freaking years ago! Any OWS protester younger than 29 wasn't even eligible to vote in 2000.

Third, a few things have happened since then that might shift public opinion a bit. The Supreme Court intervened to rule in favor of George W. Bush, the candidate Brooks supported. We went to war in Afghanistan, which Brooks supported. We went to war in Iraq, which Brooks supported. We got deficit-financed tax cuts for the rich, which Brooks supported. We got a financial melt-down caused by lax banking rules, which Brooks supported. The banks were bailed out with taxpayer money, which Brooks supported. Meanwhile the banks/bankers have recovered nicely, unemployment is at it's highest level since the depression, real wages for the middle class have declined, and income inequality is in banana republic territory.

Other than that, it's all good. Americans just need to pipe down. According to Brooks, suffering is good for you, but only if you're poor.

More Brooks BS

Krugman reads David Brooks, but directs his ire toward the Tax Foundation

I read David Brooks citing the Tax Foundation this morning, and I thought he must have misread them. They couldn’t possibly have compared one year’s take from higher taxes on the rich with the total stock of debt, could they? They can’t possibly be that stupid, or think that their readers are that stupid, can they?

...

This deliberate fraud — because that’s what it has to be — is an example of the reasons knowledgeable people don’t trust the Tax Foundation.

This deliberate fraud — because that’s what it has to be — is also an example of why I don’t trust David Brooks. Maybe Krugman focuses on the Tax Foundation instead of his fellow New York Times columnist out of professional courtesy -- maybe contractual obligation -- but I won't let Brooks off the hook. I doubt Brooks "misread" the study. Brooks cherry picks data and cites studies from right-wing think tanks, all while pretending to be the reasonable centrist. It's who he is, it's what he does, and it's his job.

Due process is now optional

I need to move back into my vehicle soon so that I can't turn on CNN. This morning, I'm watching Obama celebrate America's unprecedented assassination of an American-born American citizen. I first wrote about this in April 2010.

Just last week, I felt shame as America executed Troy Davis. Davis may or may not have been guilty, but he at least got a trial, though the trial itself was an embarrassment. Anwar Al-Awlaki didn't even get a trial. He wasn't even charged or indicted. We will never get to see evidence against Al-Awlaki because it is classified.

I guess we are supposed to shut up about Constitutional rights and trust that Obama is acting in our best interest to protect us from the evil terrorists, ala Bush. I'm not OK with that.

Piling On David Brooks

Paul Krugman links to Dean Baker, a fellow economist who's views on economics are often ignored in favor of those of non-economists like David Brooks. The title of Baker's post really says it all -- David Brooks Is Upset at Liberals Who INSIST on Applying Arithmetic to Economics -- but here's a snippet.

So how is anything about stimulus disproved because a stimulus that could have been expected to create maybe 3 million jobs was not adequate in a downturn where we needed 10 million jobs? There are no tricks here, this is all arithmetic and it is all right there in black and white.

But, Brooks does not want to be bothered by arithmetic. He wants his readers to support his plans for tax reform, for cutting Social Security and Medicare. In other words he wants his readers' support for doing all the the things that David Brooks always wanted to do, but he now says that we absolutely have to do because of an economic crisis caused by the incompetence of the people who always wanted to do these things.

This echoes what I said about Brooks here and here. I know I've been hammering Brooks frequently, but I will continue to do so. I know smart people that listen to this guy. Maybe I can change that. You know who you are.

CNN's Alison Kosik - Professional Liar

We're house sitting for someone with cable, so I flipped on CNN a couple days ago. The host, TJ Holmes, was contrasting Republican versus Democratic views on Social Security. First, he showed footage of the Republican debates, where social security was labeled a Ponzi scheme that's going broke. Then, Bernie Sanders gave the opposing view, stating that social security in it's current form can fully meet it's obligations for 27 years.

To get to the truth between these opposing views, Holmes called on Alison Kosik. She was reporting with the Wall Street floor as a back drop (so she's obviously credible!). She claimed that Social Security will "run dry" in 25 years. Over and over, she used the phrase, "run dry". Even CNN's crawler at the bottom of the TV screen said, "Social Security to Run Dry by 2036".

I know nothing about TJ Holmes, but I tip my hat to him for his follow up question. I really hope it was deliberate. He asked Alison Kosik if that meant Social Security payments would just stop in 2036. She responded that it wouldn't work like that, as Social Security would still be able to pay out 77% of benefits.

Whoa! That's a funny definition of "running dry". I'm a glass-half-empty kind of guy by nature, but when my glass is 77% full, I'm not quite ready to order another drink.

Alison Kosik, with an assist by TJ Holmes, exposed herself as a professional liar. She was specifically tasked with revealing the truth about Social Security, and she knew the truth. She knew it. The truth was that Bernie Sanders was essentially correct, and the Republicans were absolutely wrong. Instead of saying so, she attempted to perpetuate the myth that Social Security is going to "run dry". This is because Alison Kosik is rich and selfish. She will never need Social Security, so she doesn't want to pay into Social Security. It's really that simple. Unfortunately, mass media is full of people just like her, so plenty of Americans who aren't rich believe that Social Security is broke, bankrupt, or going to run dry. It's not.

Rush Limbaugh Never Lets Me Down

OK, I'm now driving across Montana. As we approach Billings, I switch through the channels and catch the voice of Rush Limbaugh. It had been a few years, so I decided to listen to his show for a while to confirm that he's the same old jackass I remember.

With his first few breaths, he claimed that the stock market was tanking because Obama and Bernanke had run out of ammunition (no chance of QE3). Then, he complained about how Obama's policies, including QE1 & QE2, had wrecked the economy. How does the man's head not explode? He's basically saying that if Obama does X, it will be a disaster, and that if Obama doesn't do X, or can't do X because the Republicans block it, that will also be a disaster. Confirmation in less than 5 minutes. He never lets me down.