Three Years Old Sarah Palin Jokes? You Betcha!

1- Sarah Palin thinks the HBO miniseries "Band of Brothers" was about the Jonas Brothers.

2- The Civil War, according to Sarah Palin, was fought over manners.

3- Sarah Palin told a group of third graders that the Cold War was fought between Tylenol and Advil.

4- Sarah Palin doesn't believe that waterboarding constitutues "torture" because she thinks it's the technical name for surfing.

5- Sarah Palin thinks the Bush Doctrine was a guide for lesbians.

6- Sarah Palin told Glenn Beck that Alexander Hamilton was a "great place to invest your money."

7- Sarah Palin was disappointed when she showed up at the Ritz Hotel and it wasn't made of crackers.

8- Before the VP debates, Steve Schmidt wanted to have Sarah Palin change her shirt because it was "too loud" for TV. She said she couldn't hear it at all.

9- When Sarah Palin hears someone yell, "Duck!!", she pulls out a gun.

10- Sarah Palin thinks Amnesty International is a phone card company.

11- Sarah Palin wouldn't allow her daughter Bristol to open an account with Bank of America because, "it was one of the banks that Obama nationalized."

12- Sarah Palin thinks the Red Cross is a pagan religious symbol.

13- During the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin agreed with an audience member that then candidate Obama was a "terrorist" because, "after all, even he says he's an agent of C.H.A.N.G.E."

14- Sarah Palin doesn't believe that "Real Americans" live on the coasts because, "they harbor our enemies."

15- Sarah Palin is so passionately in favor of the free market because she thinks there's a 100% discount.

16- Sarah Palin on climate change: "How can we address it if we don't know where it lives?"

17- Sarah Palin showed up to an interview with Chris Matthews on his MSNBC show "Hardball" in a Yankees jersey, with a bat and glove.

18- Sarah Palin opposes the "public option" because, "the option only works in college."

19- Sarah Palin feels that the Minority Whip in Congress should have went away with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

20- Sarah Palin thought the Lincoln Memorial was a BCS bowl game.

21- Sarah Palin favors the Democrats using reconciliation for Health Care Reform because she thinks they need to apologize to God for pushing the public option.

MLB Hall of Fame Ramblings: 2014 Edition

Ever since the 2014 MLB Hall of Fame ballot was released, the world of SABR nerds, both professional and non, has been in constant chatter. I'd like to add to that.

Over the summer, I did a podcast with my friend Justin Senno on last year's HOF class and how difficult the voting process would be in subsequent years because of a few things:

1- Old, automatic HOF markers no longer apply.

2- Known or suspected PED use has tarnished a generation of hitters, leading to a gluttony of should be HOFers receiving middling levels of votes.

3- Voters only have 10 selections and in order to reach the HOF threshold, one needs 75% of the ballot. With a figure that high, only one or two players per year are selected, further compounding the gluttony problem in future years when more should be HOFers become eligible.

We know from last year that 3,000 hits is no longer an automatic HOF qualifying stat. Craig Biggio was the first guy with 3,000 hits not to make it on the first ballot in over 50 years. The knock on Biggio was that he was a compiler and that other members of the 3K hit club got in because they had other automatic qualifying stats, like a .300 career BA, or 500 HRs. Of course, this ignores Paul Molitor and Dave Winfield, both of whom are in the HOF solely because they reached 3,000 hits. Furthermore, would someone like Fred McGriff, who doesn't measure as a HOFer on any number of metrics, be a first ballot recipient if he hit a few more home runs?

There was also the issue of PED use in the players eligible last year, some of which is documented, most of which is entirely circumstantial. I've written before about Curt Schilling's miraculous transformation from a borderline All Star into a statistical HOFer in his mid-to-late 30s. But there's no evidence other than his ridiculous, history defying stat line and the documented use among many of his teammates. The Mitchell Report reported on a handful of ex-teammates of Schilling abusing PEDs. He played with Daulton & Dykstra in Philadelphia. Luis Gonzalez and Steve Finley, two Diamondbacks teammates that also had questionably productive seasons in their mid-to-late 30s, played in Houston and San Diego with Ken Caminiti. That's a lot of circumstantial evidence. Mike Piazza has suffered from a similar, if not somewhat more unfounded judgment. Piazza admitted to methamphetamine use prior to its league wide ban and a Mets trainer's testimony served as the basis for a sizable portion of the Mitchell Report. He also hit balls 425 feet to right center field with a flick of his wrists. Schilling, Piazza and other assumed users will have this mark on their on-field accomplishments the way known users have it on theirs.

Lastly, ten total selections is not enough to make up for the high threshold of support needed to make the HOF, especially considering how many currently eligible players should be in today.

The 2014 Ballot

Here are the players returning from last year with their 2013 voting percentage received in parenthesis and the five new nominees with the highest JAWS score (if you've read this far, I'm assuming you know JAWS, JPOS, and WAR. If not, stop reading, go to baseball-reference.com and learn to love them):

Craig Biggio (68%)
Jack Morris (67%)
Jeff Bagwell (59%)
Mike Piazza (57%)
Tim Raines (52%)
Lee Smith (47%)
Curt Schilling (38%)
Roger Clemens (37%)
Barry Bonds (36%)
Edgar Martinez (35%)
Alan Trammel (33%)
Larry Walker (21%)
Fred McGriff (20%)
Mark McGwire (16%)
Don Mattingly (13%)*
Sammy Sosa (12.5%)
Rafael Palmerio (8.8%)
Greg Maddux
Frank Thomas
Mike Mussina
Tim Glavine
Jeff Kent

As you can see, it's a crowded field, especially considering those names on the bottom. Even if Jack Morris, Lee Smith and Tim Raines are removed, seeing as if they've been on the list the longest, it's still congested.

In terms of JAWS, there are only 14 players that outperform their HOF positional counterparts (a higher JAWS than JPOS, meaning they scored higher than the average JAWS score for a HOFer at their position):

Bonds
Clemens
Maddux
Schilling
Bagwell
Mussina
Glavine
Thomas
Walker
Trammel
E-Mart
Raines
Raffy
Piazza

In order of whose JAWS score is highest relative to JPOS:

Bonds +63
Clemens +42
Maddux + 20
Bagwell + 9
Piazza + 8
Thomas +5
Trammel +3
Raines +3
Schilling +2
Mussina +2
(everyone else +1 and under)

What's the takeaway here, besides the fact that Bonds and Clemens were really fucking good? It's an example of how skewed the perception of exellence is. Biggio, Morris, and Smith finished in the top 6 of voting in 2013. Not one of them scores higher than their respective JPOS, nor do either of them finish in the top 14 in JAWS (although Biggio is hurt more at 2B because of his three full seasons catching and three full seasons in the outfield). Morris is a highly sentimental pick, his 1991 Game 7 10-inning CG masterpiece looms large in 40 year-old plus voters. In terms of WAR, David Wells had a stronger case and he didn't even receive enough votes last year to stay on the ballot. The less said about Lee Smith finishing with more votes than someone like Alan Trammel, who played an invaluable position (SS) to Smith's valueless position (RP), the better.

If I Were Voting

Personally, I don't care about PED use. In many different eras of baseball history, asterisks abound. I played college baseball and I know people involved with the game today. Everyone is enhanced, be it through medications, or Tommy John surgery. But nobody hit 73 home runs in a single season except for one guy, which legitimizes that record within the context of the era when it was set. If I were voting, my ten would look like this:

Biggio
Bonds
Piazza
Maddux
Bagwell
Thomas
Clemens
Trammel
Raffy
Walker

What do you think? Aminuts? Amiright? Weigh in below.

Other notes:

-Larry Walker has the highest BA of any eligible player at .313 in just under 2,000 games. His career OPS is higher than Jeff Bagwell.

-Edgar Martinez is considered a 3B for baseball-reference.com's JAWS rating system and he barely eclipses that mark, arguably making him a HOFer. I have some issues with that. He only played 564 games at 3B (78 errors & pulled early for defense 48 times) and rarely after 1992. Baseball-reference.com doesn't seem to be calculating dWAR into Martinez's DH years, when he should be penalized at -1 per year. So taking away 9 WAR from his career total should put him off the radar. There's also another issue- suspected PED use. From '90-'92, Edgar averaged .313/.402/.477 with 6 WAR, 36 doubles, and 14-58 HR-RBI. In '93 & '94, he was injured. From '95-'01, which places him in his mid-to-late 30s, he averaged .329/.446/.574, with 42 doubles, 5.8 WAR, and 28-110 HR-RBI. A doubling of production for an aging player in the mid-to-late 90s is quite suspicious.

-Jeff Kent will be eligible in 2014 and he's an interesting case because of the position he played and the numbers he put up. Let's compare him to Craig Biggio:

KENT

'97-'08:

.295/.365/.516
25-100, 37 doubles
3.7 WAR, 44.9 total

BIGGIO

'92-'02:

.293/.387/.450
16-65, 28 SB
36 doubles, 4 triples
4.6 WAR, 50.7 total

Taking Kent's 11 best years versus Biggio's best 10 yields a clear victory for Biggio. And that's not including his time in the OF, or behind the plate. In fact, he was a valuable backstop:

C ('89-'91):

.277/.346/.372
7-49, 22 SBs
23 doubles
3.3 WAR, 9.9 total

Jeff Kent was a good baseball player who set offensive standards at 2B, and in some circles, would be considered more HOF worthy than Biggio. His 2000 MVP award and record setting RBI numbers are good points. But if you look at the numbers, Biggio was a better at the position.

-Two other eligible guys, Mike Timlin and Armando Benitez, have no chance of receiving enough votes to stay on the ballot for next year. However, their JAWS scores were similar, so I got to wondering whose career I'd rather have.

BENITEZ

-Pitched 7 years in AL
-Best run from '97-'03: 2 WAR per, 191 SVs, 2.81 ERA, 11.8 K/9
-Memorable blown SV vs Yankees in 2000 WS

TIMLIN

-Pitched 15 years in AL
-4 WS rings ('92 & '93 Jays, '04 & '07 Red Sox)
-Best run from '03-'07: 1.5 WAR per, 26 SVs, 347 GP, 93 GF, 3.50 ERA, 26 IP in ALCS w/ 3.42 ERA

I'm going with Timlin. He almost has a full hand of WS rings.

That's all for now, look for more HOF ramblings in the future.

*What the fuck is this about? Mattingly is laughably overrated and I'll be posting a blog tomorrow showing why that's true.

RIP Racism: 3000 B.C. - 11/04/2008

In 2010, the Biloxi Public School District in Mississippi voted to shut down Nichols Elementary School, due to "budget concerns." The board, which is overwhelmingly white, cited a 400,000$ loss each year for the district as the reason, despite that fact that it later turned out to have a 10$ million surplus. Even when the Kellogg Foundation stepped in with a 1.5$ million grant, the board said their decision was final. The school was closed.

Nichols was the top performing elementary school in Biloxi that year; it ranked 16th out of 432 public elementary schools in the state; it was the only school in Biloxi to earn the state's GreatSchools designation, and produced the state's 2009 Teacher of the Year. The school has been around since 1886, and the student population was 90% black (surprise!). (Note: you can find this story, and others like it in Chuck Thompson's Better Off Without 'Em)

Racism doesn't ride a horse, with a sheet drapped over its head, and a noose swinging from its hands in the 21st Century. It comes in the form of local school boards citing fictitious budget concerns so they can close the black school that was outperforming the white schools. Abstract things, like Mr. Lee Atwater once counseled the Republican party to focus on. Here's that quote, and make sure to remember it:

" You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

So remember this- when you hear a politician say, "cut, cut, cut", you know what he really means.



First, They Spied: A Surveillance State Supporter's Process of Change

First, they spied on the radicals, but I wasn't a Muslim, an environmentalist, or an anti-war advocate. I'm a Christian damn it, and I'm not about to have these Quran (Coo-ran) reading heathens destroy this great Judeo-Christian nation. And as for the environmentalists and anti-war supporters, I didn't support either movement. To be honest, I thought everyone involved was gay, and hated our troops.

Then they spied on our email, but I didn't use it. Today, my years unopened email account still ends in aol.com. If the NSA wanted to dig through chain emails and advertisements for extinct companies, they were more than welcome. I had nothing to hide.

Then they spied on our text messages and phone calls, which was admittedly troubling, but I'm wasn't a terrorist, so what was there to hide? Nothing. There's nothing I did in private that I would be uncomfortable with the NSA picking up in their global fight against the scourge of terrorism. Ben Franklin said those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. Yeah, well, he's dead, and I didn't want to join him. This was the price of safety, and I eagerly purchased it.

Then they spied on our porn browsing history, and that's where I drew the line, but there was nobody left to support me. If only I had spoken up before, but I never imagined that the single most delicate piece of private information, porn browsing history, would be collected by the NSA. If I can't search Google at 3am for any number of questionable things, what's this whole American experiment been for? Just blow the damn thing up then.

So, after careful consideration, I want to change my mind on the surveillance state, and support privacy in all areas of life as more important than intruding into the lives of citizens to find terrorists.

My Biggest Fear

My biggest fear isn't dying- it's dying in a manner that my family and friends will secretly laugh about and that makes for awkward funeral speeches. Think about the show on Spike TV 1,000 Ways To Die. There are so many humiliating ways to die, especially if you're into weird shit. One guy, some mother's son, perished after he electrocuted himself by attaching car battery cables to his nipples. There's no doubt in my mind that after an initial mourning period, someone who loved him found themselves grinning at the thought of his demise. Could this be what the Barenaked Ladies were talking about in their hit song "One Week"? (#5 on the internal feedback loop for over 15 years)

"I'm the kind of guy who laughs at a funeral, can't understand what I mean? You soon will."

Do we all have a guy like this in our lives, who needs only the faintest of pushes to start howling in laughter at a funeral? I believe we do and that's why I hope that if I die (yes- "if", considering medical advances), it happens after a long, bitter fight with a debilitating disease. Nobody will start a Giggle Loop over that (if you don't know what that is, get off G+ immediately and watch Coupling on Netflix). But you know what will? Choking to death on bug body parts after participating in bug eating contests in order to win a python, which is exactly how an asshole in Florida died last year.

Back to my original point- I'm scared to die comically because I don't want my family and friends to one day regard my death as any shade of humor, AND I want my funeral speeches to be heartfelt and full of love. How could that happen for a guy who choked on cockroaches? If I were his dad, my life's obsession would be to ensure that everyone in the world knows I actively discouraged that kind of behavior in a 32 year-old man...Here's how I think that would go at the funeral:

"I loved my son. He was a good man, curious about the world around him, and sometimes moved to the beat of his own......ah fuck it. He was an idiot. Do you know how many times his mother begged him to stop eating bugs? How many times I tried to dissuade him? His death isn't a reflection on how little we cared about his well being. Short of imprisonment, what more could we do? I even called in a bomb threat to the Catepillars, Centipedes and Craisins contest last year so he couldn't attend."

In conclusion, I want to die honorably. Falling on one's sword is no laughing manner. Unless you tripped. Then it's hilarious. 

Ray Kelly, Ghetto Superstar

Ray Kelly would have you believe that black men trade knuckle handshakes (terrorist fist jabs, for you Fox News fans) with him in the streets of Harlem. After the NYPD stopped a higher number of black men than are black men in NYC, it's understandable why they love Ray Kelly. It's just like that scene in Ali, when he's jogging through the village and comes across the mural of him on the wall. The feeling of admiration must be as overwhelming for Ray Kelly in Harlem as it was for Ali in Africa. I can hear the community members now:

"Thank you so much for violating my civil liberties!"

"Mr. Kelly, when the NYPD officer stopped and frisked me because I was walking with a practiced swagger, I learned a valuable lesson in personal freedoms- they're theoretical. Thanks so much."

"YOOOO. What's good Ray-Ray? Can I get a picture with the guy who overseas a police force that systemically targets people of color, using laws written with race neutral language that hide the true agenda of caging and branding poor minorities?"

Mr. Commish, I hope the impact of the door hitting your ass on the way out is loud enough that Harlem can hear it.

MLB Hall of Fame Ramblings: Beltran, Beltre and Pedroia.

One of my favorite subjects to discuss regarding baseball- the MLB Hall of Fame. The author here notes a few players that increased their standing this year as HOF candidates. He mentions Ortiz, Beltran, Beltre, Pedroia, and Kershaw. I want to focus on Beltran, Beltre and Pedroia.

Carlos Beltran

-A slew of writers have talked about Beltran's HOF positioning over the last few years, and I will share their links in the comment section. The thing to remember with Beltran is that he played CF for the majority of his career, and CFs have a slightly lower HOF standard than corner OFs because of how rare it is to dominate the position long enough to accumulate the necessary stats that make a player HOF worthy.

-After Beltran won ROY in '99 (.293/.337/.454, 22 HRs, 108 RBIs, 27 SB), he got hurt the following season. Moving on from that, here are his average numbers from '01 -'08, before he got hurt again in '09 & '10:

.282/.363/.513
29 HRs, 104 RBIs, 29 SBs, 34 2Bs & 6 3Bs
46.6 WAR (5.8 per year)

-For you disgruntled Mets fans, Beltran averaged 5.8 WAR from '05 - '08, when the Mets were in contention. He also averaged a .275/.362/.505 split, with 29 HRs, 104 RBIs, 21 SB & 36 2Bs during his time in Flushing. And after two injury plagued seasons, Beltran recovered to the point where the Mets flipped him for stud pitcher Zach Wheeler. So, overall, it was a positive tenure for Beltran. That's just an objective fact.

-From '11 - '13, Senor Octubre kept hitting, with a..288/.356/.503 split, 26 HRs, 88 RBIs & 32 2Bs, all while averaging 3.6 WAR.

-In the postseason, Beltran has no rivals statistically. While he also has no World Series rings, he does have this resume to fall back on:

215 PAs
.333/.445/.583
16 HRs, 40 RBIs
11 SB - 0 CS
13 2Bs
35 BBs - 24ks
15 RBIs in '13 postseason (Cardinals scored 17 total runs)

-I personally think Carlos Beltran is a HOF player.and he will add to his counting stats over the next two-three years, which will help his cause in the counting stats obsessed community.

Adrian Beltre

-Can you believe Beltre has 2,426 career hits? Or that he's made 132 million dollars so far? Or that he played in 149 games or more ten times?

-Beltre is another under the radar HOF candidate. If you take away his rookie year, here are his career averages from '99 - '13:

.284/.335/.481
25 HRs, 86 RBIs & 32 2Bs
159 hits
70.4 WAR (4.7 per year, +dWAR)

-However, in the last four seasons, Beltre has made statistical leaps towards the HOF. Here are his averages from '10 - '13:

.314/.358/.545
32 HRs, 100 RBIs & 37 2Bs
182 hits
26 WAR (6.5 per year, +dWAR)

-Assuming Beltre's performance declines by 3-5% a year, he should be able to get to 3,000 hits, which up until this year, was an automatic HOF qualifier. Right now, he's 574 hits away. He's averaged 182 hits over the last four years, he plays in a hitters paradise,  and his team is competitive. I believe he'll get it, but only if voters once again choose to recognize 3,000 hits as an automatic HOF qualifier.

Dustin Pedroia

-Before you start with your bullshit, hear out his case:

1 ROY
1 MVP
2 WS rings

'07 - '09
.313/.375/.462
188 hits
47 2Bs
16 SB
13 HRs, 68 RBIs
57 BB - 46 Ks
16.4 WAR (5.5 per year)

'11 - '13
.300/.370/.446
184 hits
39 2Bs
15 HRs, 80 RBIs
21 SB
69 BB - 71 Ks
19.4 WAR (6.5 average, +dWAR)

-I skipped 2010 because he got hurt. In six full seasons, Pedroia has established himself as a leader at his position and inside his clubhouse. I can definitely see Pedroia's career playing out into a HOF ceremony someday. He's on a team with resources, talent, and drive to become a perennial fixture in the World Series. The possibility of Pedroia getting one more WS ring and hitting over .300 for his career is strong and that would make him a good candidate.

What does everyone else think? What's your feeling on the HOF? Sound off in the comment section.



Major General Smedley Butler On War

Major General Smedley Butler enlisted in the marines at age 16 when the war against Spain began in 1898. He received two Medals of Honor for his service in Philippines and China prior to commanding the 13th Regiment in France during WWI. For that service, he received the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, and the French Order of the Black Star. In his book, War Is A Racket, he had this to say about his career:

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Anyone care to disagree?

A Frat Bro On Gender Discrimination

It's been 80+ years since women could vote, get over it already. Gender discrimination doesn't exist anymore, it's 2013- women can be CEOs, and run for President. Do you really think we need the federal government to pass laws that protect women from men? Statistics, and studies that show high rates of violence towards, and poverty among women are the result of gender neutral policies, so there's no discrimination. Nobody was screaming "the hell with these cunts" in the legislature chamber when deciding what day to close the last Planned Parenthood in the state. Gender discrimination is history. Where's the international day for white men?

-Frat Bro 

Can You Beat Jim Crow?

Political game show idea- Can You Beat Jim Crow? Jeff Foxworthy hosts a show that asks contestants questions from literacy tests given to blacks during the Jim Crow era. Below are the four questions in Part C of one such literacy test in 1960s Alabama. See how many you could have answered, and be honest (I got 1 of 4).

1-If a person charged with treason denies his guilt, how many persons must testify against him before he can be convicted?

2-At what time of day on January 20th each four years does the term of the President of the United States end?

3-If the President does not wish to sign a bill, how many days is he allowed in which to return it to Congress for reconsideration?

4-If a bill is passed by Congress and the President refuses to sign it and does not send it back to Congress in session within the specified period of time, is the bill defeated, or does it become law?

Brother, Can You Spare An Education?

In 2010, the United States spent a collective 591B$ on public elementary and secondary education. That's broken down into three categories- state, local, and federal- 43.5%, 44%, and 12.5% respectively. 

Given what's happened in Philadelphia, where they forced guidance counselors to be teachers and fired non-essential staff like certified teachers, assistant principals, aides, therapists, etc., I think it's time that we kill the idea that local property taxes should fund local schools. If everyone in America lived in Harrison, NY, which has enough money to fund TWO TEAMS from EACH SPORT at the MODIFIED LEVEL, that would be fine. I was an assistant coach at Harrison for the 7/8th grade baseball team for two months- I received $3500. Ridiculous money. However, some kids live in areas where homes and businesses are deserted and the economically abled have already left. Let's stop fucking them over in childhood, so we don't have to marginalize them as adults.

I want to know from conservatives (and others) if they would accept a permanent reduction and cap in property taxes in return for the federal government absorbing some of the burden local communities currently have in funding schools? 

The TOTAL local burden for funding schools is 44% of 591B$, which is 260B$. 29% of that comes from local property taxes, meaning that approximately 75B$ per year homes and businesses are taxed to fund their local schools.

75B$ could be found overnight in the federal government. For example, matching capital gains tax to the highest income tax level would raise 80B$ next year. Point one percent of people took home 50% of capital gains in '10- you're not going to win gambling from the bottom, so let it go. Don't like tax increases? Fine. We could open up no-bid DOD contracts (140B$ per year) to a competitive, market based process. That could easily save 75B$. We could go further in reducing defense, such as closing half of all overseas military bases (around 1,000 if new bases go up in Afghanistan & Iraq), which would save 50-60B$ per year. Don't want to touch the military's budget because you believe in the boogeyman? Fine. We could end subsidies for ONLY the top ten largest corporations and save 90B$ per year. You find ending subsidies to immensely profitable corporations to be appalling? Fine. We could ask the federal reserve to print 75B$ (euphemism for the complex manner in which the money supply is managed) each year specifically to cover the cost. They somehow cobbled together SEVEN TRILLION to stabilize the banking system. You hate the federal reserve and believe it has contracted with a foreign government to have Ron Paul assassinated? Fine. Then let's just kill all the poor kids and move on.

There's more than enough money in this country to cut property taxes for everyone, continue existing funding levels in economically stable communities, and raise funding levels in communities that have been deprived of equal funding for decades. What's going in Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, and other major and minor American cities is a crime, and someday soon, we will all answer for it. This future jury, comprised of graduates from our failing school system, will render its verdict- Gilltee az chardge.

You Can't Negotiate With Idiots

The GOP can't be negotiated with in budget talks. Think I'm wrong? Consider this sample platter of the GOP agenda offered during the last round of talks in 2013:

1. Repeal ACA.

-The CBO projects a reduction of $109 billion from the federal deficit as a result of ACA over the next decade. In addition, Jonathan Gruber has estimated an additional savings of $190 billion from lower than expected premiums over the same time period. That's a grand total of $299 billion saved, or $299 billion added to the deficit, if the bill was repealed.

2. Loosen regulations for oil/gas exploration and sign off on Keystone Pipeline.

-The World Bank released a report detailing how the costs from extreme weather events have swollen to $200 billion per year worldwide. The IPCC is as certain humans are causing climate change as doctors are that tobacco causes cancer. Opening up public land for energy development that contributes to this environmental death spiral would be irresponsible, morally and fiscally. It wouldn't even create enough jobs to justify the damage. A State Department report says approving the Keystone Pipeline would create 42,000 jobs, while another private estimate puts that figure at 67,000. Bottom line: we would add to the deficit in order to reward a small number of people within an already highly profitable industry that receives yearly subsidies totaling more than four billion. Not a good idea. Next.

3. Defund/hack/decimate the EPA

-An OMB report from last year stated that the benefits from EPA regulations in '12 totaled more than $40 billion, or double its budget for that fiscal year. These savings mostly came from lower mortality rates, improvements in health, etc. The GOP believes that this sort of intrusion into the everyday lives of Americans is a threat to the very definition of freedom. So, if you're following along at home, the equation is: billions saved + more babies alive than dead = socialism looking to wreck the American standard of living.

4. Shutdown the CFPB

-In '12, the budget for the CFPB was $343 million. As of January '13, it had a $44 million surplus. I know the GOP hates budget surpluses, but this is ridiculous. This small government agency protects consumers against gangsters with degrees. Already, American Express, Capital One, and Discovery had to pay out $400 million in fines for malicious, fraudulent sales tactics. Given that it's yearly budget is under $350 million, I'd argue the CFPB is one of the most valuable agencies in our government. Of course, this means the GOP wants to defund it.

That's only the sample platter. The entrees of "tax reform", "tort reform", and repealing/delaying/defunding Dodd-Frank are even worse. The GOP can't possibly be negotiated with because their demands are too destructive. The country would welcome a positive, aggressive, progressive agenda, if one were ever offered to it.

President Obama and Democratic Party members need to spend the next few weeks screening Speaker Boehner's calls while presenting a clear contrast in ideas to the American public.

Go left, or go the fuck home, and let Elizabeth Warren run things.

The Politics of Santa Claus

Every year, progressives make the mistake of claiming Santa Claus as one of their own. This is a mistake, in my opinion. It's difficult to identify what characteristic of his would translate into a vote for a progressive. I believe he's a conservative, possibly of the Birther/Bircher wing of the Republican Party. Consider the following points:

1. Santa Claus is the Bernie Madoff of joy- he's perpetually jolly regardless of global circumstances. Year after year, he shows growth in happiness in contrast to the rest of humanity, where happiness ebbs and flows depending on actual events. In addition, studies show that liberals tend to be less happy than conservatives because of their nuanced view of the world and empathy towards others.

2. He's fat and children leave him cookies as tribute. Odds are that Santa would disapprove of legislation designed to eliminate unhealthy food choices, such as delicious cookies. Think of Chris Christie in a red and white suit.

3. Mr. Claus keeps Mrs. Claus in her place. We barely know a thing about her and she spends the majority of her time in the house- traditional marriage at its best. And what's with making her mirror him in dress at all times? That's disturbing.

4. He keeps Hoover-esque lists. He has a fetish for prying into your personal life without government oversight and relishes in using it against you. In order to determine who has been naughty or nice, Santa crosses the line from time to time. If you want a mental reference point, he's operating a level above the NSA, but just below God.

5. K. Kringle clearly runs a non-union shop and employs child-like labor. How else do you think all of the world's Christmas presents are made? It stands to reason that the North Pole is one of those "economic freedom zones" that operate outside the jurisdiction of meaningful labor laws. The cost of buying material from distant places and picking it up would eat into excess profits of cookies and milk, even considering the boost his bottomless bag provides when transporting goods.

Everything we know about this man screams conservative. He's not a lovable progressive looking to spread his good will throughout the world. Santa Claus is a jolly ol' jerk that profits from child-like labor. 

Political Philosophy

I always found philosophy to be a useless intellectual artifact. To me, philosophy, especially political philosophy, is two people arguing about how to feed the starving man begging at their feet. Just give him some fucking fish already.

However, last year, writer Michael Lewis gave a commencement speech at Princeton, and he said something beautiful that resonated with me. It's become the closest thing to a political philosophy I have because it's rooted in reality and facts on the ground. This is what he said:

"Life's outcomes, while not entirely random, have a huge amount of luck baked into them. Above all, recognize that if you have had success, you have also had luck — and with luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your Gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky."

You're damn right we do.

Dick Is Ragged

The following are brief excerpts of a startling find in Timothy Noah's The Great Divergence (another must read). Start on LOC 580 on the Kindle in Chapter 2 (who does page numbers anymore?). I'm going to type the most important fact in all caps because it blew my fucking mind:

"Most of what we know about long-term income-mobility trends in the US during the previous half century comes from the University of Michigan's Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID), a longitudinal study of more than nine thousand families from across the continental United States begun in 1968. PSID is the world's longest running "panel survey" of nationally representative households."

"PSID's snapshot was absolutely clear in one respect: it enabled scholars to discover that they had previously underestimated, to a significant degree, the extent to which, in the words of Gary Solon, "income status is transmitted from one generation to the next."

"In 1992, Solon wrote a paper on income heritability (IH), using PSID data, to show previous estimates of 20% IH to be low. He found that it was 40% or higher."

"In 2001, Bhashkar Mazmuder, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, recalculated income heritability matching census data to Social Security data, which allowed him to compare parent-child income over a greater number of years. He found that income heritability was more like 50-60%."

"HE FOUND THE NOTIONAL HERITABILITY OF INCOME TO APPROXIMATE THE LITERAL HERITABILITY OF HEIGHT. Most strikingly, Mazmuder found that income among brothers actually correlated more closely than height and weight."

"I am less the master of my fate than I am of my body mass index."

Horatio Alger can kiss my ass.

Two Americas: Richistan vs Broadland

In their book, "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made The Rich Richer -- And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class", authors Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson provide analysis into the groundbreaking research on wealth inequality conducted by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. I recommend the book, but in case you don't read it, I feel that the information is too relevant and useful for progressives for me to sit on.

By now, you're aware that we have a distributional problem in our economic structure. As an example, during the last economic expansion ('02-'07), 53% of all economic gains went to the top 1%. And in the current economic "recovery" over 90% of all economic gains have gone to the top 1%. That covers two administrations, one Republican and one Democratic. Bush and Obama have been in office while inequality skyrocketed. However, the trend precedes them both.

From 1979-2006, real household income rose by 50% overall. How was that income distributed? Laughably unequally. If you include government tax breaks/benefits and employer-sponsored benefits, the bottom fifth saw a 10% gain over those 27 years. But households had to work 400 more hours in 2006 than they did in 1979 in order to keep this meager increase. Without those 400 hours, the bottom fifth would have LOST money. By contrast, the top 1% saw a 260% increase from 1979-2006, up from an average of 337k in 1979 to 1.2 million in 2006.

Hacker & Pierson show what our economic class divisions would look like if the economic gains from 1979-2006 were spread equally across all groups. They broke it into two groups: Richistan & Broadland.

Richistan represents what our current situation is after 30 years of skewed distribution:

-The bottom fifth of households brought home 16k in 2006.

-The second fifth of households brought home 35k.

-The middle fifth of households brought home 52k.

-The third fifth of households brought home 73k.

-The 80-90th percentile of households brought home 100k.

-The 90-95th percentile of households brought home 132k.

-The 95th-99th percentile of households brought home 211k

-The top 1% of households brought home 1.2 million.

Meanwhile, in the lovely hypothetical Broadland, the distribution of household income gains from 1979-2006 would have been far more equal:

-The bottom fifth of households would have brought home 22k in 2006, a gain of 6k.

-The second fifth of households would have brought home 45k, a gain of 10k.

-The middle fifth of households would have brought home 64k, a gain of 12k.

-The 80-90th percentile of households would have brought home 106k, a gain of 6k.

-The 90th-95th percentile of households would have brought home 128k, a LOSS of 3k.

-The 95th-99th percentile of households would have brought home 181k, a LOSS of 30k.

-The top 1% of households would have brought home 506k, a LOSS of 694k.

The numbers are clear- Broadland would be better for 90% of households. Is there anyone reading this that feels 506k isn't enough to live on each year at the top?

So the question for progressives to think about for the next election is this: will our candidate try and turn Richistan into Broadland? Or will she be coming from Richistan with tall tales of entrepreneurs and carrot on a stick opportunities?



What Liberals Once Understood

Liberals once understood that negotiating with morons only emboldens and legitimizes the morons. Team Obama didn't understand that lesson in 2008 and they still don't understand it today. Here's the instructive quote from Rick Perlstein's article in The Nation last year:

"Ironically, liberals of previous generations understood this better than we do now, despite decades more experience watching how the right’s game is played. For a Partisan Review symposium in 1962, Harvard sociologist David Riesman advised that the Kennedy administration “can gain the leeway on the domestic front…only by combatting the radical right rather than seeking itself to move onto rightist ground—an illusory operation since the right can always go still further right and will.”

Read that last part again. The administration “can gain the leeway on the domestic front…ONLY BY COMBATTING THE RADICAL RIGHT, rather than seeking itself to move onto rightist ground—an illusory operation since the RIGHT CAN ALWAYS GO STILL FURTHER RIGHT AND WILL."

And that's where we are now- successive centrist Democratic administrations have sought political support from dittoheads, conspiracy theorists, libertarian ideological sycophants, and Jesus freaks. At what point were these people ever going to vote for high capital gains taxes, abortion rights, and environmental regulations?

The #GOP just keeps drifting to the right, leading us down a path to their version of an economic utopia- austerity, which could never pass without support from misguided Democratic Party members, convinced bipartisanship is the electoral elixir that will keep them in office. It might, until the #GOP decides that individual health care mandates are suddenly socialist and now you're no longer an "independent minded, middle of the road small d."

We can take this country back, but we have to be aggressive in our progressivism to do so.

CATO, Welfare & the Minimum Wage

A CATO Institute study (go ahead and swallow your vomit now) from last ywar claimed that government aid pays more than the minimum wage does in 35 states. In 13 states, the authors say it's the equivalent of 15$ per hour.

I'll be damned, but CATO inadvertently makes a strong case for raising the minimum wage to at least 15$ per hour. If we're going to incentivise people to seek employment (three applicants for every one job opening, FYI) we need to make work pay. Let's call it the Make Work Pay Act.

The bill would take the CATO study, and verify its findings to determine the wage floor for employment. If "welfare" pays the equivalent of 15$ per hour in 13 states, then the minimum wage would have to be higher than that to discourage these lazy moochers (three job applicants for every one job opening, FYI) from collecting a government check.

Another takeaway from this study is that the government could cut aid until it's the equivalent of less than the minimum wage, thus offering an incentive for people to work at subhuman wage levels, rather than receive aid at a level comfortably between subhuman and human (the sweet spot!).

But who wants to be a sociopath?