GOP to make rich tax cuts permanent, while doing away with tax cuts for middle class and poor

From the NYT. Classic.

Senate Republicans will press this week to extend tax cuts for affluent families scheduled to expire Jan. 1, but the same Republican tax plan would allow a series of tax cuts for the working poor and the middle class to end next year.

Republicans say the tax breaks for lower-income families - passed with little notice in the extensive 2009 economic stimulus law - were always supposed to be temporary. But President Obama had made them a priority in 2009 and demanded their extension in 2010 as a price for extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, and both the White House and Senate Democrats are determined to extend them again.

That sets up a potentially tricky issue for Republicans. They have said they do not want taxes to go up on anyone while the economy struggles to gain altitude, but under their plan, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, about 13 million families would see their tax refunds reduced, and some would see their taxes increase.

Read the rest of this post...

Sally Ride, 1st female astronaut in space, dies - partner says she was gay

Gonna be hard not to teach gay history how.

Sally Ride, who died today after a 17-month battle with pancreatic cancer, was the first female U.S. astronaut in space and became friends with Tam O'Shaugnessy at the age of 12. It was not until today, however — nearly 50 years after meeting — that their 27-year romantic relationship was made public.

The pioneering scientist was, a statement from Sally Ride Science announced, survived by "Tam O'Shaughnessy, her partner of 27 years."

With that simple statement — listed alongside her mother, Joyce; her sister, Bear; her niece, Caitlin and nephew, Whitney — Ride came out.

Also this via Wikipedia sheds some light on why she eventually decided not to come out:

Ride was one of 8,000 people to answer an advertisement in a newspaper seeking applicants for the space program. As a result, she joined NASA in 1978. Prior to her first space flight, she was subject to media attention even being asked during a press conference "Do you weep when things go wrong on the job?"

The questions were asked, or at least reported, by People magazine in 1983. Even then, Ride was willing to stand up for women:

No other astronaut was ever asked questions like these: Will the flight affect your reproductive organs? The answer, delivered with some asperity: "There's no evidence of that." Do you weep when things go wrong on the job? Retort: "How come nobody ever asks Rick those questions?" Will you become a mother? First an attempt at evasion, then a firm smile: "You notice I'm not answering." In an hour of interrogation that is by turns intelligent, inane and almost insulting, Ride remains calm, unrattled and as laconic as the lean, tough fighter jockeys who surround her. "It may be too bad that our society isn't further along and that this is such a big deal," she reflects.

Granted, this was thirty years ago, but I'm still amazed that someone would ask a woman these questions.

I remember in 1989, when I was working in the US Senate, and we went on a congressional delegation to West Berlin in early December, in the midst of the fall of the Wall. We'd been picked up at the airport by the number two man in either the US embassy in Bonn or, more likely, the US consulate in West Berlin. Along with the Senators, we staff were hustled onto a bus - Senators in front, staff in back - when I witnessed the following conversation take place with the #2 guy and Senator Dole's Arms Control/Defense staffer, who was a woman (and was, I believe, the only female congressional staffer on the trip).

I paraphrase, because I didn't record the conversation, but I remember it like it was yesterday:

EMBASSY GUY (to female Dole staffer): Excuse me, but you're on the wrong bus.

DOLE STAFF: Really?

EMBASSY: Yes, the spouses' bus is the next one over. This one is for Senators and staff.

DOLE STAFF: I'm not a spouse, I'm Senator Dole's Defense and Arms Control staffer.

EMBASSY: Yes, but we're heading straight to the consulate for meetings and the women are going shopping after freshening up at the hotel, I just thought you might prefer to be with the women.

DOLE STAFF: Uh, no thank you, I think I'll stay here.

EMBASSY: Are you sure?

DOLE STAFF: Yes.

I was blown away.  I'd never witnessed this blatant of a display of sexism (I was only 25).  I was speechless.  I remember we asked the staffer if she was okay, we were all kind of in shock.  She wanted us to ignore it, so we did (which I would not have done today).

So things were, are, different for women.  I can understand in an intensely male environment like the Space Program, and even after, a woman not being totally comfortable acknowledging publicly that she has a lesbian partner. Read the rest of this post...

The art of the French kiss

Kiss by Shutterstock.

There's a great blog post up today about something I was just talking with some French friends about on Sunday.  How do you know when (and how) to kiss a French person hello?

It's a problem many a foreign visitor has had in France.  You arrive at a brunch, as I did on Sunday, and suddenly the women are allow jumping up and approaching you, and you have no idea if you're supposed to kiss them or what.  Even worse, what do you do with the guys?

(I remember one of my two Greek grandmothers, who immigrated from the old country, every time we'd see her, she point to her cheek, meaning, "where's my kiss?"  Then we kids would kiss her, pull back, then she'd point to the other cheek.)

In the states, we just wave at the entire crew and say "hey."  The French find that abominable.  They even asked me at the brunch, "is it true you just wave at everyone and say 'hello'?"  Uh, yeah.

Well, the blog post walks you through the rules, or lack thereof, in French however, and there's a cute video, also in French - so here's a quick synopsis of the rules they lay out.  Okay, first here's the video, but it is in French:



In order to figure out the kissing thing, you need to consider four questions:


1. Quand (when)
When, in what situations, do you kiss someone else on the cheek? Answer: You would kiss your friends, for example, on seeing them after a long vacation, you also might sometimes kiss hello when arriving at at work, and you always kiss hello when you arrive at friends' houses.

2. Qui (who)
Who do you kiss? A lot depends on the familial, friend, or work relationship you have with the kisee, but also their status, meaning, WHO are they.  For example, you don't kiss your boss hello. But, your boss can approach you for a kiss, then it's okay for you to kiss back.  On the other hand, colleagues at work kiss hello a lot.  For men kissing men hello, however, it depends.  Sometimes men kiss each other when they're friends or members of the same family - but not always.  Young people kiss each other hello a lot, and guys are doing it a lot more now with other guys.

3. Comment (how)
How do you kiss them?  Meaning, air kiss, cheek to cheek but no lip to cheek, or lip kisses cheek?  The story doesn't answer any of this, but I can tell you after years of kissing people's cheeks that the French, at least in Paris, do cheek to cheek air kisses (I only learned recently) - who knew?

 As for intensity and duration depends of the kiss, it depends on the situation.  It really just depends on how it feels at the time.  If you don't know the person well, show a little reticence.


4. Combien (how many)
How many kisses do you give?  In Paris it's 2, i.e., one on each cheek.  In the city of Montpelier, it's 3.  Orleans, 4.  Lyon, 3. Bordeaux, 4. And so on.  So you're pretty much out of luck on that one.

I'd also add "which cheek do you land the first kiss on"?  I'm actually not sure as it's different in different countries - I think the Greeks start with one cheek and the French with the other, because it always screws me up.  Maybe Americans are the ones who use the other cheek, I'm really not sure.

Oh, and to make things worse, I've had numerous French women admit that when they meet Americans, sometimes they hold back from a kiss because they know that Americans don't like to kiss hello.  I informed them that it's not that we don't like it (though a French guy kissing a straight American guy on the cheek would be funny as hell to watch), it's just that we don't understand when to do it and when not to, as in the states it could be a tad presumptuous.  And it's even worse when the French hold back, thinking we're uncomfortable, because then we get mixed signals about whether we're supposed to kiss.

Putain, c'est difficile! Read the rest of this post...

Romney says US Olympic athletes didn't earn their medals

Mitt Romney owes all US Olympics athletes an apology.

AP quotes Romney talking to the 2002 Olympic athletes:

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power," Romney said after congratulating the athletes. "For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them."

Oh, so it takes a village, Mitt?

Mitt Romney probably thinks our Olympic athletes bought their way into the Olympics the way he did.

Actually AP's overall story is about how Romney is now outright lying about things the President never said, and AP, to their credit, call Romney out for his lies - here's AP:

"Romney continues to hammer Obama over comments taken wildly out of context."

But that doesn't stop the Romney campaign, or the Republican party, from making the lie their number one talking point.  And, of course, what Romney is lying about is almost the exact same quote that President Obama said.  But when Obama said it, it's a sign that he's a communist or something.  But when Romney said it, then what was it a sign of?

It's really scary. We have an entire political party that believes that lying to the American people in order to win a campaign, or any political issue, is not only fair game, but it's the preferable game.

And while AP is to be credited for calling Romney out on this, the media should be asking the Romney campaign, incessantly, on camera, at every campaign stop: "Governor Romney, why are you knowingly repeating a lie about the President?"  That's how the media is supposed to do it's job.  You don't write one piece and say "okay we covered it" when the other guy is making a lie the entire basis of his campaign.  You get in his face and keep asking him why he's lying, as it is a sign of his character.

And in Romney's case, it's also a strategy sanctioned by the Mormons themselves, called Lying for the Lord. From MormonWiki:

Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith's denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by "anti-Mormons" and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley's dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism's history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified.

Read the rest of this post...

Can a private business stop you from taking photos on a downtown street?

A fascinating story about a DC suburb leased an entire city street to a private developer who now is trying to control the sidewalks as if they're private property.

From Marc Fisher at the Washington Post:

Chip Py, a longtime resident of Silver Spring, recently returned to an old interest in photography. While wandering through downtown after eating lunch there last week, he took out his camera and started to take shots of the contrast between the tops of the office buildings and the sparkling blue sky.

Within seconds, a private security guard was at Py's side, informing him that picture-taking is not permitted, no explanation given.

"I am on a city street, in a public place," Py replied. "Taking pictures is a right that I have, protected by the First Amendment."

The guard sent Py to the management office of the Peterson Cos., the developer that built the new downtown. There, marketing official Stacy Horan told Py that although Ellsworth Drive -- where many of the downtown's shops and eateries are located -- may look like a public street, it is actually treated as private property, controlled by Peterson.

The contractor added:

Peterson's motives go beyond security. "Like any business, Downtown Silver Spring's management maintains the right to approve any videotaping, filming or photography taking place on the property," Smith's statement reads. "It is in our best interest to understand how footage and photos are going to be used."

Read the rest of this post...

NRA back in bed with ALEC

From Media Matters (my emphasis and paragraphing):

In April, as corporate sponsors fled their organization in the face of pressure from liberal activists angry with the group's support of "Kill at Will" self-defense laws and voter ID bills, ALEC announced that they were disbanding their Elections and Public Safety Task Force, which worked on those issues. At the time, that task force's chair told Media Matters that such issues were no longer a priority for ALEC.

The NRA was reportedly extremely unhappy with ALEC's reaction to public pressure regarding the "Kill at Will" laws, which spread to dozens of states after ALEC adopted a model bill based on the Florida statute that was cited as an influence in the case of slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

An NRA representative reportedly criticized the group for dismantling the task force during a meeting of conservative leaders, warning other participants that ALEC could flee from their issues as well.

But the continuation of the NRA's annual shoot at ALEC's annual meeting suggests that the two conservative groups have patched up their differences and are again working together to promote right-wing legislation.

What annual shoot?

According to [Center for Media and Democracy] "For the past several years, on the Saturday of ALEC's annual meeting, the NRA has regularly hosted an outing for ALEC legislators and lobbyists to go shooting together -- with complimentary guns and ammo plus plenty of food and drink (this time it is a barbeque)."

If the "annual shoot is on" I would guess the divorce is off. Friends forever.

UPDATE: I hope the progressive world realizes what an opportunity this is. The ALEC attack by Color of Change et al worked to create corporate defunding and exit because of the racism. Racism is apparently a bridge too far for corporate America these days. Good to know.

How about a similar move against NRA? They have funders, some very high-dollar.

We could: (1) Publicize that list, the money (if available), and ask the question "Is the NRA a racist organization?" (2) Pick one corporation (one with mainstream family-friendly cred and a neutral "brand" to protect) and target them, like with the ALEC targeting. (3) Publicize any exits we get and continue the drive.

It wouldn't kill the NRA, but it would put them on defense (for a damn change). Time to alter the momentum against those guys, say I.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Cowards

Brilliant piece by Roger Simon in Politico about politicians' crocodile tears over the Colorado shootings.

Barack Obama looked haggard, spent, drained. He had just met with survivors and the families who lost loved ones in the Aurora, Colo., shootings.

Now, in front of the cameras and a small crowd Sunday, he stood in a blue suit, with no tie, his shirt collar open. It was about 8:45 p.m. East Coast time, and there was the beginning of stubble on his chin.

It was not his words that got to me, though they were simple and powerful: “Scripture says that ‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more.’”

No, it was a few minutes later, when Obama described a teenager who had been shot in the neck by a bullet, and Obama put his hand to his throat to mark the spot and, as he kept talking, let his fingers linger there.

It was wrenching, touching, dramatic, sincere.

And baloney.

Not baloney because he was not moved by the terrible violence, not baloney because he did not feel for all the dead, their loved ones and the survivors. No, all those things were real to him.

What was baloney is that he intends to do nothing about preventing it in the future.

Simon goes on to note that Romney is a phony on this issue too. Read the rest of this post...

$21 trillion hidden from taxes by global super-rich

A peek at the world of the global super-rich via The Guardian, reporting on an important new study by the Tax Justice Network.

This study attempts to size the global "offshore" economy, the amount of cash stashed and hidden from global taxation in offshore tax-haven countries.

Their number at least — $21 trillion. Yes, with a "t".

I can only say, the "global super-rich" must be super rich indeed — $21 trillion is almost double the size of the whole U.S. economy.

Here's the Guardian story, thanks to two contributors for the link (MiroCollas via Twitter and commenter AC_in_Mich via email); emphasis and some reparagraphing mine:

A global super-rich elite has exploited gaps in cross-border tax rules to hide an extraordinary £13 trillion ($21tn) of wealth offshore – as much as the American and Japanese GDPs put together – according to research commissioned by the campaign group Tax Justice Network.

James Henry, former chief economist at consultancy McKinsey and an expert on tax havens, has compiled the most detailed estimates yet of the size of the "offshored" economy in a new report, The Price of Offshore Revisited, released exclusively to the Observer.

He shows that at least £13tn – perhaps up to £20tn [$30tn] – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks, which vie to attract the assets of so-called high net-worth individuals.

Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, "protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy".

According to Henry's research, the top 10 private banks, which include UBS and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, as well as the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, managed more than £4tn in 2010, a sharp rise from £1.5tn five years earlier.

The full Tax Justice Network report, The Price of Offshore Revisited, is here (pdf).

A resources page including related documents is here.

As I said when talking with Jay Ackroyd on a recent Virtually Speaking, this is what George Bush meant by "freedom" — a "borderless frictionless" global economy, in which capital can move freely, seeking whatever return it can get wherever it can get it.

For the George Bushes of the world, and the men and women they serve, the only good in the world is money and the power to keep it. And the only freedom worth having is the freedom to use it.

"The problem here is that the assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments," the report says.

I think they're building a world, these men and women, one trillion dollars at a time. Tough sledding that, but I think they're almost there.

The result?

"[I]nequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people," said John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network. "People on the street have no illusions about how unfair the situation has become."

We're looking at it.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Worst parents in the world?

It's tempting to call Martha and Norman Bridegroom of Knox, Indiana, the parents of Tom Bridegroom who died last year, the "worst parents in the world."  But their story, sadly, isn't unique.

It's happened before, and still happens.

I have a gay relative whose parents no longer consider him their son because he's gay and has a (wonderful) partner of nearly twenty years now.  Bad parents can be vicious parents (and you are a bad parent if you treat your son, and his family, like this).

There's a viral YouTube video going around about a young gay man and how his parents reportedly mistreated him and his partner after they found out he was gay.  Things only got worse when he died at the age of 29.  The surviving partner made the video, and it's heartbreaking. (Video is below.)

Here's a blog post from a friend of Tom and his partner Shane:

Shane (l) and Tom (r)

Last year Shane lost Tom in an accident. Tom’s mother, Martha Bridegroom, came to California from Knox, Indiana to retrieve Tom’s body. While Shane was at home resting, she left with Tom for Indiana without allowing Shane to say goodbye. Tom’s father, Norman Bridegroom, then threatened violence against Shane if he were to attend the funeral Indiana. Shane was shut out.

Shane says that Tom's mom promised to stay in touch, let him know about the funeral, etc.  She never reached out to him again.

Shane says that Tom's parents did, however, get word to him that if he showed up at the funeral he would be "attacked" by Tom's father and uncle.  This, after Tom reportedly claimed that his father threatened him with a gun, and physically attacked him, when he came home at Christmas after having told his parents he was gay.

Of course, the reaction of the hospital wasn't any better.  They refused to tell Shane anything about what happened to Tom without the mother's permission because - drum roll please - gay relationships aren't real relationships in the eyes of the law.  (I'm curious as to how the hospital got away with doing this since the President supposedly mandated that hospitals treat gay partners as family - that treatment should include medical records.  Does it?)

This video came out two months ago.  I'd never heard of it.  Apparently they've raised a lot of money to do a documentary about the story.  Watch this video.  It's ten minutes long, very well done, and totally worth it.

After Tom cut Shane's hair.

I will say one thing: I hope the Bridegroom's of Indiana are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame.  They're now a YouTube sensation, approaching 3 million views.

They say there's a special place in hell. Well, that place is on the Internet, where bad deeds live forever, especially if your last name is as unique as "Bridegroom." (Google it - on the first results page you'll find links to the story of how they treated their son.)

You wonder if the parents have any concept that they just "Santorumed" their family name forever.

Here's Shane's video:



And here's some local coverage of the story:

Read the rest of this post...