Your Weekly Rush

If you go to rush's website he has an area which is constant. Entitled "Only the Rich Pay Taxes," it gives the "fact" that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.9% of the taxes. According to Rush, "This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes." Of course no liberal outside of a mental institution would argue that the rich don't pay taxes--what they argue is that the rich find numerous ways to pay less taxes.

This is part of an ongoing effort on the part of the Bush administration and other Conservatives to realign our tax code so that the wealthy pay less and the poor pay more. Of course these numbers are not a complete picture of what the government takes from it's citizens. For example there is no mention of Sales Tax or Payroll Taxes (i.e. Social Security), which hit the poor and middle class to a much greater extent than they do the wealthy.

Rush and others are also quick to point out that the rich paid more taxes after the Clinton years than before. Of course the only possible answer is that Clinton raised enormous new taxes on the rich--the fact that the rich generally got richer doesn't play into it.

Another side note to future attempts to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor is that it will probably go hand in foot with efforts to cut government services.

Another side note, Rush states, "The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999." So in effect 50% of the wage earners in the United States are earning under $26,000. That's a happy thought. It's a good thing that conservatives have banned all talk of class or I might stress you out with comments about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

For those who belong to the Salon.com website, there is a much more indepth report on this argument, which has also appeared in the Wall Street Journal. It's on the pay side though.

Breaking News

Well--it used to be breaking--now it's pretty much broken. Trent Lott has stepped down from the majority leader position, but will stay in the senate--worst of all possible outcomes for the Democrats. By getting rid of Lott, Republicans can go back to pretending that racism is a non-issue. Democrats can keep pressure on for a little bit, but aren't likely too. And by keeping their one seat majority, Republicans are likely to push forward with the entire Bush agenda (tax cuts for the wealthy, weakening of environmental protections, and so on).

Still maybe the Democrats will grow spines and fight back. One never knows.

The Saudi's are Coming! The Saudi's Are Coming!

Good news everybody. Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, has determined that the Saudi's are pure evil. Yes, unlike most people or races or nations, which contain a mixture of good and evil, the Saudi's specially evil nature makes them 100% evil. Young Ben's het up about the fact that some people in Saudi Arabia are sponsoring programs on American Universities, mostly to increase understanding between the east and the west. You might naively think that, given the nature of the world right now, and the conflicts between our two cultures, a better understanding of how Islamic people's look at the world might be positive. Ah but your forgetting, the Saudi's are pure evil. Hence their is nothing to understand. Anybody who tries to understand Middle Eastern people (outside of Israel) risks being contaminated by their pure evil. These Saudi Funded programs must be shut down immediately. To avoid the risk of contamination, we had probably better destroy all universities as well.

Lucky Ducky

Tom the Dancing Bug is always great, but todays comic is pretty brilliant even by his standards. And it teaches a valuable lesson.

Empire without Tears

Michael Hardt, a professer of Literature at Duke University, has a theory. He proposes that the United States has embarked on an imperialist crusade. In it he appears to be using the old definition of imperialism--i.e. anything that a capitalist country does in foreign policy is, by definition, imperialistic. Fair enough. His article compares this period of time to the fall of the roman empire, when the power elites made consistantly foolish choices that doomed themselves.

But luckily he has a solution, which he and his collaborater, Toni Negri, call Empire. In it the United States conquers the whole world and makes it all part of America. Actually, given the title that makes sense, but that's not what Mr. Hardt has in mind. Instead it is Multilateralism squared, as he puts it. As I understand it, the power elites in all the countries of the world, including business elites, intelligence agency heads, trade organizations and so on, work together to solve problems, preserve free trade and capitalism, and increase security. Then he ends his essay with a truely bizarre paragraph.

"We can be confident that in the long run their real interests will lead global elites to support empire and refuse any project of US imperialism. In the coming months, and perhaps years, we may face a tragedy that we read about in the darkest periods of human history, when elites are incapable of acting in their own interest."

So either we are doomed or we aren't. But you already knew that.

Comments on Lott

Senator Lott will do his party and his country a service if he steps down. If he does not, the Party must remove him.
David Horowitz

Notwithstanding the circus atmosphere, Lott has not committed sins as grievous as multiple Senate Democrats. But that doesn’t make Lott fit to lead. At this point, he can fight in vain for the next three weeks, or he can step aside to spare his party—and the country—a political blood bath. It’s up to him.
Joel Mowbray

This is why Lott must not continue as Leader. He will be used as a tool to advance the liberal Democrat agenda, not the agenda of President Bush and his fellow Senate Republicans. He will always have to prove himself to others who oppose Republican policies, and this is what makes him damaged goods.
Cal Thomas

Lott was on the wrong side of the civil rights divide in the 1960s, and he now appears willing to switch to the wrong side of the current debate over racial preferences to keep his job as majority leader. His Republican colleagues can display more principle than Lott has by choosing someone else to lead them.
Linda Chavez

Republicans, like nearly all Americans, are completely anti-racist. In 2002, it shouldn't even be necessary to say this. The Republican Party can salvage the situation only by moving swiftly to remove Lott from the leadership. This crisis is a teachable moment.
Mona Charen

But, make no mistake, the Republicans have already paid a price -- and it is only the down payment. That Senator Lott did not step aside himself is a greater disqualification for leadership than anything that he said.
Thomas Sowell

Well, I guess a crisis lets you know who your friends are.

Political Correctness

Well not much that I read today excited me--but I am reading John K. Wilson's The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education. Fascinating book, well researched. I am struck by how many "legends" of political correctness seem to be mostly that--legends. Of course I would have to go back and verify his research on some of these instances.

It does strike me, as I'm sure it has struck many others that American Conservatism's decision to declare themselves the losers in the culture wars was a shrewd one. It lets Rightest political commentators use any dirty trick they can think of, on the grounds that they are coming from so far behind that it is justified. By portraying a monolithically liberal media establishment, Rush Limbaugh and other well funded conservative thinkers can portray themselves as Davids to Liberal Goliaths.

The very term "Politically correct" is the perfect weapon for liberals. You use it on a person and they are tied into this Liberal Academic conspiracy that wields enormous and suspicious power. Or it marks him as a spineless simpleton who only comes to liberalism because he is too foolish to question the world around him. Ask yourself this--how many of you, even if you are liberal or have liberal ideas, would describe yourself as politically correct?

Probably write more on this tomorrow.

Your Weekly Rush

Well Trent Lott is still with us. And although Rush's support of Trent Lott has been rather lukewarm he has certainly enjoyed pointing out Democratic hypocricy on this issue. He commented, "We have the Adam Clymers and E J. Dionnes of the world failing to report that Strom was a Democrat when he stood for segregation. (See: Clymer Rips Lott, GOP New Clymer).

"Examples of Democrat racism are endless. The Kennedy's wiretapped Dr. King. Algore's dad stood against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - 80% of House Republicans and only 61% of Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, 82% of the GOP and only 69% of Democrats did. I think Bill Clinton's being silent on this because he recently paid tribute to J. William Fulbright."

In other words, Rush feels comfortable comparing the Democrats of 1964 or 1948 with the Democrats today. So long as it makes the Democrats look bad, he's all for it. Of course what Rush convienently moves out is how both the Democrats and Republicans have changed since 1948. President Roosevelt had already begun the change, by reaching out to black voters in the North (those parts of the nation they were permitted to vote). Truman, continued this trend. The Kennedy's record on Civil Rights is admittadly rather weak, but Johnson's was very strong. The Democratic party of 1948 and the party of 2002 are not the same on Civil Rights and only a foolish foolish man would say that they were. (I need hardly mention the Republican party's decision to seek out the segregationist White as a voting block).

But lets take Rush's theory at face value. The party is the party is the party. The republican party of 1948 of 1936 of 1890 is the same. It's the same party, same principles. Why not? It doesn't make any sense, but who cares? I can score a few points at Rush's expense.

Rush practically froths at the mouth when it comes to what he calles Appeasers and "the appeasement crowd." By this he means all those who question the impending war with Iraq. Of course the term Appeasement is totally bizarre in this context. The term arose in Inter-war Europe where England (particularly) and other Europeon powers acquiesed to Hitler's desires to increase his terroritory. In other words the appeasers gave Hitler concessions in hopes that he would not attack them. The policy stands as a pitiable failure that strengthened a vicious tyrant and weakened the west.

So what concessions do Modern Appeasers offer Saddam. Well we aren't ready to kill him. That's about it. Are we offering him land? No. Are we giving him anything? No. The situation is akin to two muggers holding up a guy (admitadly the guy in this case is a vicious monster). The "Appeasers" say "Do as we say or we'll blow your head off." Rush would rather hear, "We are going to blow your head off no matter what."

So lets look at the Republican foreign policy from before World War 1 to the outbreak of World War II. Perhaps a quote from President Roosevelt will help enlighten us.

"I would not undo, if I could, the efforts I made to prevent war from the moment it was threatened and to restrict the area of carnage, down to the last minute. I do not now soften the condemnation expressed by Secretary Hull and myself from time to time for acts of aggression that have wiped out ancient liberty-loving, peace-pursuing countries which had scrupulously maintained neutrality. I do not recant the sentiments of sympathy with all free peoples resisting such aggression, or begrudge the material aid that we have given to them. I do not regret my consistent endeavor to awaken this country to the menace for us and for all we hold dear.

"I have pursued these efforts in the face of appeaser fifth columnists who charged me with hysteria and war-mongering. But I felt it my duty, my simple, plain, inescapable duty, to arouse my countrymen to the danger of the new forces let loose in the world.

"So long as I am President, I will do all I can to insure that that foreign policy remain our foreign policy."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940

So what party do you suppose those Isolationist fifth columnists were? Well, I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the Democrats. While some Republicans of the time saw the danger Hitler posed, many more opposed all involvement in the war. They opposed supporting the Allies, believing that such support would drag us into war. And such views are still in the Republican party. Although the most prominent spokesman for isolationism, Patrick Buchannan, has left the Republican party, there are others of his beliefs still within it.

As fun as this is, though, it's not that important. I think it's probably better to judge the Republican Party as it is today--try to figure out what it stands for, and go from there. And the same with the Democratic Party.

Hey Kids Rock and Roll

With all the holiday hubbub I forgot to update my site. But I also forgot to come up with lot's of inciteful things to say. So I guess I'll have to punt. I am working on Your Weekly Rush. That should be up later today--actually doing some research for it.

Have a nice day.