New Site at WordPress

The site is now here.

We've Come A Long Way

-Slave Quarters - Aiken-Rhett House (Charleston, SC) It is 2006, right? Yahoo:

Greenville County geared up Friday for what local black leaders called MLK Dream Weekend, as it became the last of South Carolina's 46 counties to officially mark the birth of civil rights pioneer Martin Luther King Jr.

Save The Womenfolk!

(Folkbum pointed this story out, so I'll take a crack at it...) What does a tennis match, the Super Bowl and old people killing themselves have in common? Apparently, the continued victimization of women. Dale Reich shows his softer side as he laments the "Feminist Press." Sadly, none of his examples actually explain just what his beef is with the "Feminist Press," nor do they actually explain what constitutes this evil bane on our culture that is the "Feminist Press." With his eyes welling up as he thinks of the millions of young girls damned to victimization, Dale writes:

Promoting equality for women and girls is a noble cause, but not when it's done with lies and exaggerations. Even noble causes can take a wrong turn, and that's what's happened here, led by a segment of writers who seem bent on promoting female causes while keeping men on the defensive. But the truth is only one casualty of this wrong headed approach; holding females back is another. I remember standing in an elementary school doorway one afternoon as a young female teacher said good-bye to her students. "Good-bye, honey. Good-bye, sweetheart," she would say in a soft voice to each of the girls. Meanwhile, the boys received a very businesslike "good-bye." Little did she know that her own wrongheaded thinking about female victimization had turned her into a vehicle for holding those girls back. Instead of empowering them, she was helping to kill their belief that they could grow up to compete on an equal basis with other adults. She was helping to set them up for a lifetime of self-doubt and failure.

The examples before this quote, the Billie Jean-King/Bobby Riggs tennis match, a false claim about domestic abuse during the Super Bowl in 1993 and an article Dale read that did not mention that old men kill themselves more than old women until the last sentence, do not paint the type of picture Dale believes they do. Considering the staleness of each of these stories, what insight can they actually provide on modern day feminism or Dale's perceived victimization of women? Not much, in my opinion. And what to make of a teacher bidding farewell to her students in a more personal way? Can that innocent farewell actually lead to the dire consequences Dale believes they do? Do you remember what your teachers said to you as you left class when you were that age? Is anyone traumatized from a simple goodbye in such a way? Common sense would suggest not. Much like Pat Mac's columns, the strawmen are easily built and collapse with ease. Yet, the simple fact remains that three strawmen, no matter their size, do not make for a convincing argument. UPDATE: It appears that Dale Reich is/was a member of Fathers for Equal Justice. I'll refer you to this cached post from Pandagon for a description of the Father's Rights movement.

Friday Random Ten: Bobble Head Audit

It's Friday. It's random. And now it's audited. It's been a long week, so let's not dawdle. Here's the ten: 1. Sulk - Radiohead - - The Bends 2. Irish Wake - Lullaby For the Working Class - - I Never Even Asked For Light 3. Beautiful - Damien "Jr. Gong" Marley - - Welcome To Jamrock 4. August 8th - NOFX - - Heavy Petting Zoo 5. Line Up - Elastica - - Elastica 6. Synthesizer - Outkast - Aquemini 7. #1 Da Woman - Tricky - - Blowback 8. Who Do You Love (Medley) - The Doors - - Absolutely Live 9. Limo Wreck - Soundgarden - - Superunknown 10. The Crying of Lot G - Yo La Tengo - And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside-Out Bobble Head Audit: Dwyane Wade, in bobble head form, was locked in a room while these songs played. After several hours of torture, all in the name of national security, the results were sealed and two puffs of white smoke let out of the chimney to signal a successful audit of my musical taste. And the results... ...

Goin' On A Holiday

Busy day, so nothing substantive tonight. Instead, please enjoy dogs trick-or-treating courtesy of Cute Overload

Wall Street Bonuses Reach $21.5 Billion

-Things are blowin' up! Yahoo! (figuratively and literally):

Comptroller Alan Hevesi said Wednesday that 2005's bonus tally was $2 billion more than the old record, which was set in 2000. In 2004, Wall Street bonuses came to an estimated $18.6 billion. Last year's average bonus was pegged at $125,500, also a record, Hevesi said. Revenue at Wall Street firms rose 44.5 percent through the first three quarters of 2005, climbing to the highest level since 2000, the year when the stock market peaked, Hevesi's office said. The mergers-and-acquisitions business accounted for most of the surge. "The securities industry had a very good year during 2005," Hevesi said.

I guess things are going alright, huh? Oh, wait:

Last year, more Americans lived in poverty, more children were poor, and more people lacked health insurance than in 2002. That message, reported by the US Census Bureau yesterday, was expected, but the increases confirm a troubling trend for the economy and a challenge for the incumbent president in an election year. The numbers confirm a third straight year in which poverty rose and a gap in health coverage widened. Political analysts and partisans of both political parties rushed to put their stamp on the news. "This will reinforce the feeling that we've had a very serious recession, and it's still with us," says Floyd Ciruli, a pollster based in Denver. Together with recent headlines about reduced job projections for next year, "I think it plays against the basic message that the president is trying to get across, which is that we've gone through the worst of it."

McIlheran Watch: Crazy Run Amok

-Did this lead to anti-gay protests? (See Jay's commentary on this column here) This is one of the weirdest P-Mac columns I've read and that's saying a lot. With a general theme of bad manners in society, Pat uses the example of Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church to make what appears to be a larger point about civility. Shockingly, Pat's column comes across as extremely scattered and dependent on enormous gaps in logic to make it's point. Now that you've been warned, let's begin. Patrick displays an unexpected amount of compassion in yesterday's column. As usual for Patrick, it's displayed towards the extremely crazy Rev. Fred Phelps, a grade-A wingnut and recent target of an inordinate amount of press for protesting the funerals of area soldiers killed in Iraq. With signs like "Thank God for IED's" and an extreme hatred towards homosexuals, the following segment of Pat's column is rather ambiguous:

Insincerity is underrated. It may be that the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan., sincerely believes God is so uniquely offended by homosexuality that he's already written off those inclined to it. Phelps may sincerely feel their still-beating hearts can't change. Phelps may sincerely think God wants the United States to make homosexuality a capital crime and sent the 9-11 attackers as a reminder. His church says it right on its Web site. He may sincerely think that Spc. Benjamin A. Smith, once of Hudson, really is in hell, as outlined on the Web site. If he sincerely believes these things, insincerity would have been better. It is difficult to imagine who he thinks he can win to righteousness by holding up a sign that says, "Thank God for IEDs" at the funeral of a man killed by such an improvised explosive device.

That's giving this hate-monger quite the benefit of the doubt, don't you think? Considering Pat's rhetoric when it comes to liberals, I'm kind of curious why he'd defer passing actual judgment on someone who would intentionally ruin a soldier's funeral. Perhaps there's a segment of Pat's audience that wouldn't like to be publicly admonished or maybe Pat agrees with the reverend's theories about "teh gays." I don't know, but it'd be irresponsible not to speculate. As the title of Pat's screed suggests ("The Cutting Edge of Noxious"), Pat has a bone to pick with the appalling lack of respect in society today:

It is often said that we suffer from incivility fostered by the rise of talk radio and blogs. Yet an equal case could be made that our public life has grown rude as people took to heart the older impulse to speak out. The more direct antecedents of Phelps' "God hates fags" signs are the protest signs saying unheard-of things about Nixon. And all of it is enabled by a feeling that the world is improved when crude feelings are expressed crudely.

Whoa. Did Pat really just equate Fred Phelps with protesters of Nixon and Vietnam? I'd be interested in hearing from Pat just how he can make such an imbecilic connection between two radically different things. Does Pat really believe the naughty words uttered by those protesting the corruption of Nixon led to statements like this:

Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 2649 days. Diane Whipple has been in hell for 1812 days. Deal with it! All else is trivial and unimportant. All the fag caterwauling, candlelight vigils, court orders, etc., can't buy these perverts one drop of water to cool their tongues. Fags shamelessly use the deaths of fags to promote their sodomite agenda, but ignore cases when a fag is the murderer.

The farthest McIlheran can strain himself to go in denouncing Phelps is by calling him "social bacteria" because of his bad manners when it comes to disrupting funerals. Apparently it's the crudeness of his actions that Pat disapproves, not the underlying message that homosexuals are inferior and apparently not liked by God. Furthermore, the only context within which homosexuals are addressed in this article is as "reformed" homosexuals. Pat quotes Randy Thomas of Exodus International, an organization that assists people with "unwanted homosexuality." Unsurprisingly, Exodus International's president claims Satan is using gay people to further his nefarious agenda. I can't make this stuff up, people. I think we may be getting to Patrick. With the sly reference to blogs and the overall haphazard approach to whatever in God's name he's trying to get across, this is one of the worst columns he's written, both in terms of style and shameless bigotry. Nice job, Pat!

I.R.S. Targets The Poor, Freezes Refund Checks

"Poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and virtue; it is hard for an empty bag to stand upright." - Benjamin Franklin From the N.Y. Times:

Tax refunds sought by hundreds of thousands of poor Americans have been frozen and their returns labeled fraudulent, blocking refunds for years to come, the Internal Revenue Service's taxpayer advocate told Congress today. The taxpayers, whose average income was $13,000, were not told that they were suspected of fraud, the advocate said in her annual report to Congress. The advocate, Nina Olson, said her staff sampled suspected returns and found that, at most, one in five was questionable. A computer program selected the returns as part of the questionable refund program run by the criminal investigation division of the Internal Revenue Service. In some cases, the criminal division ordered that taxpayers be given no hint that they were suspected of fraud, the report said. Most of the poor people whose returns the computer flagged as fraudulent were seeking the earned income tax credit, a benefit for the working poor. The credit can return all of the income taxes and Social Security taxes withheld from the paychecks of poor people. Without the credit, many poor people coming off welfare and going to work would receive less money because of taxes taken out of their paychecks and the loss of health benefits, I.R.S. data and other government documents show. The average refund sought was $3,500, which under the rules for obtaining the credit means that the vast majority of those suspected of fraud were single parents or married couples with children. The maximum benefit for singles is less than $400.

The article later explains that the total suspected Earned Income Credit fraud amounts to roughly $9 billion, whereas small businesses are able to cheat the government out of $100 billion a year. So in their zeal to clamp down on poor people trying to break even on jobs that barely cover their expenses, thousands of people have been shut out of a program that helps offset the loss of government benefits when one finds a job. Talk about screwing the poor; for many of these people it'll be years until they can track down their benefits. Yet it doesn't end there. (Click Bonus! for more) The justification for freezing these refunds, per the I.R.S, is that $2.1 billion was "protected" through the program. I.R.S. taxpayer advocated Nina Olsen explains in the Times article:

Ms. Olson said it was unfair, and a waste of resources, to withhold refunds from poor people when at most one in five of them appeared not to be due refunds. She also said that the I.R.S. told her that its program had protected $2.1 billion of revenue. But she said this number was misleading. Just two refunds, from a scheme run by prisoners, accounted to $1.8 billion of the total, she said, citing testimony to Congress by Nancy Jardini, chief of the I.R.S. criminal division. Ms. Olson told Congress that these two refunds almost certainly would have been detected without the questionable refund computer sweeps. The staff of Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation must review all refunds of $2 million or more before they can be issued. Thus, the two refund requests totaling $1.8 billion would have been referred to the Congressional tax staff.

Excluding the $1.8 billion "protected" from this particular fraudulent claim, this program has netted a grand total of $300 million from the approximate pool of $9 billion. A paltry 3.3% of the possible fraud. Beyond the inept and over-zealous enforcement of this program and the countless number of American citizens who are effected by this in very dire ways, what makes this so reprehensible is the broader message it says about our country's priorities. We'd rather squeeze every cent out of a demographic that has struggled mightily than actually apply our tax rules equally for all. How many stricter audits on larger corporations, if they're even performed, do you think would make up that $300 million. How about the entire $2.1 billion? As incredulous as all this sounds, it only gets worse. The government has actually reduced the number of audits for people making over $100,000 while raising the rate for people who make under $25,000. From the Anchorage Press:

Statistics released last year by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that when all audits were broken down, 1.15 percent of individuals making over $100,000 were audited while 1.36 percent of individuals reporting $25,000 or less were audited. In 1990, 0.91 percent of those making less than $25,000 a year were audited, while 5.5 percent of those making over $100,000 were audited.

Think it stops there? This sort of extreme prejudice for the elite goes even further; preferential treatment doesn't just stop once you reach $100,000. Among corporations, the financial sector has been able to avoid audits while companies in other sectors of our economy have been scrutinized heavily. From MSNBC:

Using information provided by the IRS, the researchers measured disparities in audit rates of corporations with $250 million or more in assets. The report being released Monday found that about 15 percent of financial services companies were audited between 2002 and 2004. In contrast, virtually every corporation in agriculture, mining, construction, heavy machinery and transportation was audited. “The very low attention being given to the financial sector by the IRS is particularly surprising in light of the leading role this industry plays in the country’s economy, including the level of income subject to federal corporate income taxes,” the researchers said.

Where is the supposed "fiscal responsibility" Republicans are so fond of? Has 9/11 actually reduced them to a whithering mass of confusion and retreat at all levels of our government or do they actually believe that by squeezing the poor out of every possible cent they'll be able to bring them up from their bootstraps and become productive members of society? Who can be so deluded as to think that the way to social advancement lies in a policy of blatant disregard for those most in need? It goes without saying that this country is in need of a serious reappraisal of our values. Yet this reflection shouldn't center on protecting marriage and arming our citizens. Rather, we desperately need to examine how we treat the bottom half of our society. As long as we keep them down, whether through backwards tax enforcement or simple neglect of the basic foundations of life (education, health and safety), we invite further problems economically and socially. All in the name of feeling better about what we have ourselves (for if they'd only try harder we wouldn't have to take care of them). I think it's clear this isn't working.

Show Me How The Robots Dance

- Is he burning doing the neutron dance? (I'm struck with a mix of personal admiration and embarrassment for remembering that song) Provide your own caption in the comments.

Recession On The Horizon?

From The Austin American-Statesman (via First Draft):

Consumers and corporate chieftains alike should check an economic flare the bond market has sent up on the direction of the economy. Late last month, for the first time in five years, yields were higher on U.S. Treasury bonds maturing in two years vs. similar investments due 10 years from now. That's a noteworthy reversal of the market norm called an "inverted yield curve" by Wall Street types. This market rarity could signal that a recession is around the bend.

Read the rest for a slightly wonkish analysis of what this means to you.

Being Annoying Is Now A Crime

Let me be the first to say that Jim Sensenbrenner is the epitome of health... and jowls are totally in (just ask Denny Hastert). From ZDnet:

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess. This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

Hotline Cribs From STITP!

It looks like someone's ahead of the curve... I didn't realize the influence this "long-winded exercise in self-congratulatory rhetoric" has on haiku-related political discourse.