Now, predictably, he is being called a liar.  Not that I disagree, although the terminology one uses when a politician is caught contradicting themselves is entirely dependent on the whether you support said politician or not.  But, let us be honest in a way that politicians can’t be, dealing with the deficit will almost certainly require some more tax income.  I know that Republicans like to make it appear that the Laffer Curve kicks in at anything over single digits (rather than the 35% to 60% that have been tossed out), so if the rich paid 1% and the po’ paid 2%, the feds would have ample funds, but that is probably not the case, and spending cuts at the level necessary to deal with the issue are not politically workable for either party.

So we need some way of increasing tax revenue, and that probably means everybody is going to be paying a little more.  Personally, I’m convinced that Bruce Bartlett has the right idea, but the fact remains, this is the sort of thing that isn’t just a wedge issue.  This is a rock that campaigns crash on.  Which says something about American politics, that the necessary actions to deal with national problems are politically untenable.

I’m trying to remember, what kind of policies did conservative, traditional, exclusive country clubs have?  Oh yeah, horribly racist ones!

Maybe they should reconsider that ad.  Just saying.

Let me break it down like a fraction for you.  The Right is not terribly imaginative, they ride the “other” meme every day and twice on Sundays.  They do it to pretty much every Democrat/Liberal/Progressive, and they are sufficiently good at it so as to make “Liberal” a dirty word.  That they do it to Barack Obama does not suddenly make it racist, just a continuation of decades of precedent.  To make it racist, you’ve got to add a little something something.

Stressing “professor” doesn’t do it.  ”Liberal academia” is a classic boogeyman, and calling a politician “professor” is just more of the same.  The Right has done it before, they’ll do it again.

By contrast, birthism is right up to the line of race-based-other, and maybe a little over it.  It is also emphasizing the other, but the other in this case is all the people not born in the United States and non-white.  Why do I add that non-white bit?  Because the Birthers didn’t raise the same fuss over John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.  Whether or not such a person meets the constitutional need for being native-born is an open question, has been since Barry Goldwater. The fact that Birthers seemed perfectly okay with having a genuine controversy running with a “R” next to his name, but are all kinds of incensed when the “D” is at the center of some cockamamie conspiracy theory, seems to strongly indicate that the skin color plays a role.  But even then, correlation isn’t causation, so maybe the “R” and “D” bit is the important part, and it is just political.

If that is the case, though, the constant use of “Barack Hussein Obama” is almost certainly a race based attack.  Again, it’s emphasizing the other, but now the other is people without American names.  Those type of people just can’t be American.

Now, the constant hue and cry of “racist” devalues the term.  But don’t worry, I’m sure the Right will happily oblige by tossing out some kind of backhanded other-attack that is race based.  Take it away Glenn Beck . . .

Really?  What about this room? They’d make me feel decidedly unwelcome.

It’s interesting to think that these are the same people who argue against increases in government pay. If you want successful businesspeople to work in government you need to pay them a sufficient amount to make it worth their while. Especially if you are the type of person who argues that the free market is the best motivator as well as the way to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Just saying.

Before pushing for further legalization, California should focus on overhauling their current laws.

I respectfully disagree.  What California needs to do is quit the kabuki theater and fronting.

The supporters of medical marijuana often have kind of a wink-and-a-nod quality to them, because they are really angling for legalization.  With that mindset, the fact that the dispensaries are essentially a beard for a functional market, where the price of admission is a prescription and non-standard market lingo, isn’t a big deal.

Now, if the supporters don’t feel this way, they need to come down hard, and enact increased regulation.  If not, don’t.

The opponents, on the other hand, like to say that they just want to make the system more medical.  What they really want, however, is to maintain criminalization as much as humanly possible.  This is why Republicans, tradiditionally big proponents of the free market, are suddenly so down on “profit.”  They should be honest about what they want.

And the people of California should powerfully indicate what they want.  And the best way to do that is to move forward with legalization.  If that is what the people of California want, then steps toward legalization can divorce the “medical” from the “marijuana.”  If they don’t want legalization now, and they vote against it, then regulation is appropriate.

So just stop fronting.  As the kids say.

Simple, because your luminaries keep bringing him up.  If you want Pat Buchanan out of the movement, tell people like Sarah Palin not to “cite” him. Ever.

Easy as that.

ETA: Not only should Palin not cite Buchanan, she really shouldn’t cite him for the opposite of his argument. The only thing worse then relying upon a crypto-racist is relying on your misunderstanding of a crypto-racist.

First, some interesting and gladdening news.  Apparently Justice Thomas strives to select clerks who aren’t from the Ivy Leagues, and specifically attempts to find fits from his circuit, the 11th (via).  It’s nice to see someone high up in the legal field who isn’t completely wed to elitism.  Bonus points, he specifically calls out bloggers who refer to “lesser” schools as TTT (third tier trash or toilets).  Good on him.

On the other hand, he is also apparently taken aback from liberal criticism of Citizens United.  I hate to be the person saying “but they did it first,” but, well, they did.  Republicans and conservatives just love to go the “judicial activism,” portraying the judiciary as a swarm of black-robed ghouls, looking for any opportunity to remake the nation while sticking it to good Americans.  Suggest that civilian courts can try terrorists?  That cops need warrants?  That the accused have some rights?  Then you are sure to be attacked, and almost certainly via from the right hand side.

Now, I completely agree with Justice Thomas that some criticism “run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties.”  But let’s remember who does most of the undermining.  And that, as a general rule, the undermining is done in the name of law and order or security.

Presumably, Douglas Bruce is smiling.

One quick anecdote, from a former resident.  In college, the CSPD would routinely scramble the helicopter when one of my fellow students would fire off fireworks.  Bottle rockets, firecrackers, roman candles, whatever.

Feel free to wonder how cost effective it was to task a helicopter to look for people making loud noises and pretty colors.  After that, consider whether the criminality of the act, much less the cost, justified it.