Taking a Long Sip

After reading about rape and torture, I figured it was time for a post to the ol' blog.

 

 

Where's your outrage, America? What? Too busy sucking down the Kool Aid?

Idiocracy, the Documentary?

 

You decide.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

CommonDreams.org carried an article by Kristin Schall where she "explains" the results of a recent Rasmussen poll which asked, "which is a better system-capitalism or socialism?" Here's the article:

Rasmussen Poll Indicates American Shift Toward Socialism
by Kristin Schall

In an April 2009 poll conducted by Rasmussen, respondents were asked "which is a better system-capitalism or socialism?" Just 53% of adult Americans prefer capitalism, 20% of respondents favor socialism and 27% responded not sure. These figures suggest that Americans' attitudes toward alternatives to capitalism may be shifting and that we are living in a time that holds the potential to mark a radical change in the landscape of American politics.

The Rasmussen poll was conducted during one of the greatest economic crisises in the history of capitalism. The resulting pressure is forcing Americans to begin to think critically about ideas that they had previously accepted as given. With more and more people facing the prospect of losing their jobs, houses, healthcare, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the inequalities and injustices of capitalism. What this has translated to is people becoming more open to ideas about alternative visions for structuring society. In short, socialism is back.

In addition to the economic crisis, the right wing's accusation of Obama being a socialist appears to be backfiring. Conservatives were attempting to cash in on a well established strategy of 20th century American political life. These attacks have unintentionally served to get socialism into heavy rotation in the mainstream media, thereby increasing the public's interest and curiosity. Fear mongering and the paranoid style seem to be offering declining political returns.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this poll is the response from people under thirty. The statistics indicate that 66% of this demographic are actively questioning capitalism as a system. This makes clear that the Cold War fear of socialism, created to shape the American mindset, is withering away. It is being replaced by a political openness to new ideas about how to organize society. This means there is a space for socialists where a serious dialogue can begin, which can connect Americans to grassroots organizing.

The limitation of the poll is that it does not define socialism. Socialists themselves need to carry out this task. The Socialist Party-USA is interested in finding out how people conceive of socialism and in meeting them where they are. Our conception of socialism is a democratic society where people have access to what they need in order to live a full life. Human needs are always put before private profits. This includes healthcare, education, access to jobs, and a clean environment. Socialists hope that the moment for polling will soon be past, and we will find ourselves in a moment of action for radical social and political change.

Kristin Schall is the chairperson of the Socialist Party USA, NYC Local.

Ms. Schall FAILS! I went and found the Rasmussen poll she used for her piece [of shit] and discovered she conveniently omitted several key points. I'm sure they weren't relevant to the point she was so obviously trying to make. Here's the rest of what Rasmussen said:

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.

Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.

Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

As it has always been, the young, have-nothings tend to favor a system that redistributes wealth. The older one gets, the more they acquire through hard work, the less likely they are to favor a system that takes from their pile to put in others. No surprise there, really. And when they've worked their entire lives to build nest eggs, guess what? The vast majority tend to guard them very closely.

The only thing that has changed here is the question they asked. The sentiment of the people is still the same. If anything, this poll should be greatly discounted because, "the question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism." I strongly suspect that very few could accurately define what either were.

I suspect that when asked whether people preferred capitalism to socialism, people conjured thoughts of big, faceless corporations trampling little businesses and workers. Some may have even pictured those same evil corporations in collusion with government, as Rassmussen's findings suggest, hurting the marketplace. But that's not really capitalism. It more closely resembles corporatism or perhaps the beginnings of fascism or communism.

I think this goes back to understanding what capitalism, socialism, fascism, corporatism, or any other kind of -ism means. Hell, even Newsweek magazine got it wrong when they declared "We are all Socialists Now." What they described in their article was fascism.

As always, the devil is in the details.

Geithner Wallpapers America

Irony

North Carolina Nursing Home Shooting

I just had a quick thought about the recent shooting at the North Carolina nursing home. While reading this article, I ran across this quote:

The injured included a police officer hailed as a hero for shooting the gunman before more people could be killed.

Did you get that? The gunman was stopped. How? By being shot... with a gun. The news always focuses on the shooter and how terrible his actions were--and that's alright--but they never mention with any kind of praise that it was the exact same tool that ended his rampage. It's like they're saying, "Look, this monstrous thing called a gun created all this death and destruction. It is a terrible instrument." But when it comes to mentioning how his reign of terror ended, it's almost a footnote.

At the end of the linked-to article was this parting statement:

Sunday's rampage happened just weeks after a man killed 10 people, including his mother and several other relatives, in the worst mass shooting in Alabama's history on March 10. On March 11, a teen killed 12 people at his former high school in Germany.

In the Alabama shooting spree, the shooter was brought down by himself, apparently after realizing that he was finished when the police began shooting back at him.

McLendon ... shot himself after engaging in a shootout with law enforcement officers.

The rampage in Germany also ended the same way:

A 17-year-old gunman dressed in black opened fire inside his former high school in southwestern Germany today killing 15 people, 11 of them women and girls, before turning the gun on himself, authorities said.

What do I take from these three articles? What lessons do they contain? Crazy people exist and will do insane things with guns. They will continue on their rampage until they are stopped by a gun. In all the cases above, NONE were stopped by their intended victims. NO ONE in any of the situations was armed and prepared to defend themselves and others around them. The shooting only stopped after the police showed up with their guns and either shot the bad guy or the bad guy decided to shoot himself with his own gun. To me, that's just a sad commentary on how dependent we've all become on the state for our protection.

So, I ask you. Do you want to be the guy or gall hiding in the corner when the shooting starts, hoping the next bullet doesn't find you? Or do you want to be the guy or gall that takes cover behind a desk, waiting to place a well-aimed round into the center of some crazy bastard's chest? All the while knowing you'll be going home to your family and friends because you defended yourself?

This Year's Tax Terrorism Season

Taxes. It's a topic that most people don't even like to discuss, but not me. I find the subject matter fascinating. It's "legalized" extortion. Protection money, if you will. When the Mob does it, they get thrown in jail. When our government does it, we call it the price for living in civil society. Whatever.

Leaving that aside for the moment, I thought some might find this recent development a bit of food-for-thought, especial seeing as how April 15th looms just around the corner:

Judge Rules: Not Filing Since 1999 Is No Crime! After a February 24 trial on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles "Chuck" Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act in refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999, Judge Tyrie W. Boyer, a county judge in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Jacksonville, ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act. (Ed. Note: Keep in mind that Behm hasn't been convicted of any crime. This is just the Florida Bar bringing this case against him because they decided—not a court—that he's broken some law. Innocent until proven guilty? The Florida Bar can't be troubled with that fanciful notion.) The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS, or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close, the DOJ's fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ's latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like "tax protesters," "tax defiers," and now "Constitutionalists!" [Oh, the horror! Not that!] Behm's defense attorney, Truth Attack's Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response. (Ed Note: Including "Constitutionalists" in its list of anti-government groups fits nicely with what we're seeing in other arenas where these groups are being demonized for their positions against what they perceive as government run amok.) In his cross examination of the Bar's "expert" witness, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax (Emphasis added), and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments. The witness also admitted on cross examination that he did not really have a clear definition of "income." (Ed Note: Frivolous arguments are what the IRS has established as arguments that have been brought repeatedly before the courts and have been ruled time and time again to be frivolous. IRS has a list of them on their website here. In addition, note that the "expert" could not: cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments, and he did not really have a clear definition of "income." These are all important points in law and should make everyone reading this article question why it is they send a rather large portion of their paychecks to Uncle Sam every pay day.) Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code (USC Title 26) and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns, that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax (Lots of emphasis added). Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject. (Ed Note: A quick recap of Behm's testimony: he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution, he had no income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, and he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights, and to stand up to the government when it abuses either. (Emphasis added) Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling, and in that process the court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes. (Source)

Did you catch that? The judge holds that Behm had committed no criminal act, but then rules that his failure to file an income tax return was unlawful even though he could give no specific basis for his findings.

Now, I ask you, does this not sound like terrorism? Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Their "expert" could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, could not prove his position was frivolous (as defined by the IRS), and couldn't even give a clear definition of "income." Even after all their failings, the judge still had the gall to tell Behm that he's still afoul of the law for failing to file even though no one could tell him where his duty to file was mandated. Coercion, indeed. Pay up or else! The Mob would be proud.