It has been more than two months since our beloved Emma left us. Mom and I still talk about our sweetheart every day. Her ashes still sit on the couch, where she loved to sleep. We talk to her when we walk by her favorite bush; the bush she would almost always pretend she was hiding under. Our Emma may be gone. She will never be forgotten.
I consider myself a student of history. I like to believe I have a good grip on why American history has unfolded the way it has unfolded.
Yesterday, I learned about the Teller and Platt Amendments for the first time. I’m writing about them because they say so much about the dominance America wishes to hold over other nations, the way American imperialism was a driving force behind Castro taking over Cuba, bungled foreign policy, oppressing people of color in the name of corporate profit, and outright racism and white supremacy on the part of the United States.
As the title says, this post is about Ufi. In more ways than maybe is appropriate, it’s about me too.
Richard North Patterson’s Degree of Guilt was an exciting read. I was so interested in discovering how the story would end that I read it in one night.
While I was glad I read Degree of Guilt, there were a couple of things about the book that bothered me.
Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are two economists at the University of California, Berkeley. Their book The Triumph of Injustice demonstrates how America’s system of taxation benefits the wealthy more than it has since the 1920s; in fact, the 400 richest Americans now pay less than any other group of Americans.
You may have seen this point being disputed on social media. Corporate-sponsored centrists say Saez and Zucman are wrong because their work doesn’t consider the Earned Income Tax credit that benefits low and middle income families. To that foolishness I say the following:
The idea that we are even debating whether billionaires pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do people who have children and are struggling to make enough to feed them is embarrassing to the United States of America. In anything approaching a fair society, people would intrinsically know that billionaires pay more than people struggling to put food on the table. The idea that centrist Democrats are engaging in this debate demonstrates why the Democratic Party is out of touch with what is happening in America.
I have been resisting writing this post for months. I kept telling myself Andrew Yang isn’t worth the trouble. But he keeps fooling too many. He distracts from important debate topics by smugly asserting nonsense. So, I can’t resist any longer.
Most people know the ever-increasing wealth gap between the rich and the poor in America is a huge, embarrassing problem. Demonstrating the stupidity of Yang’s ideas only requires us to agree on two things: anything that gives the wealthy more is stupid; anything that makes the rest of us pay more is stupid. With those agreements established, let’s look at Yang’s ideas.
For those who don’t know, political dog whistles are things said that seemingly mean one thing but which are meant to communicate a hidden meaning to those who understand the language. In the Democratic primary, we are inundated with the political dog whistles of reasonability and sensibility. As you will see, the corporate-run media and their beloved bought and paid for centrist candidates use the dog whistles of reasonability and sensibility to ensure old white people they have their backs.
The October Democratic debate was interesting. It was different than the previous debates in several aspects. I don’t believe it will change the race much though. Warren will still be seen as on the rise. Biden will still be seen as falling. Sanders will be seen as having stabilized his campaign and still firmly in the top three. For the rest, it’s almost midnight.
Tired of the corporate-run media spinning the 2020 election narratives based on their precious polling, I wanted to see how said precious polling is done. As you will see most of us either choose not to participate or aren’t asked to participate. Unsurprisingly, most of those not chosen to participate are young, poor, and people of color. So, political polling isn’t nearly as useful as the corporations want us to believe.
Impeachment and conviction shouldn’t be only about conduct that satisfies a criminal statute. Impeachment and conviction shouldn’t be about strictly a political question. Impeachment and conviction should also involve questions of morality. No, a president shouldn’t be removed from office for committing adultery. Addultrey is wrong, but it’s not immoral enough to rise to the level of removal from office wrong. Questions of morality should impact impeachment when moral failings have taken place around a president’s official duties and responsibilities. to demonstrate this point, let’s discuss Bill Clinton.