John Boehner: Hell No You Can’t!

Remember this?

Well now: Rep. John Boehner is featured in “Hell No You Can’t”!

Ok, this is disingenuous as it is taking Rep. Boehner’s rant a bit out of context. But it is still funny as all get-out!

Of course, Rep. Boehner arrogantly claims to speak for the people. He doesn’t:

More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was “a good thing” rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as “enthusiastic” or “pleased” — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as “disappointed” or “angry.”

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation “a good first step” that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation’s health care system.

Bonus Rep. Alan Grayson is always entertaining.

FAILS and WINS and other topics

Workout notes Weights (10 x 170, 4 x 175 on the bench press, plus other stuff), swimming (2200 yards: 1000 of back/free, side/free, then 500 of drill/swim, 5 x 100 IM on 2:20, 200 paddle cool down).

Note about the weights: I “rushed” the weight workout (less rest between sets; did curls, military, pull-down, leg lifts, etc.) and when I do that, I have to lower the weight that I use).

Politics
Ok, why am I so ga-ga over President Obama? It isn’t just that he is a liberal from Illinois. Check out the headline from this Maureen Dowd article:.

Hail the Conquering Professor

The rest of the article is pretty good; on facebook my liberal friends have been popping off quite a bit over the past couple of days. We are indeed in a “state of shock” that our party FINALLY didn’t cave in.

Republicans
Yes, conservatives have a valuable purpose. E. J. Dionne explains it very well:

First, conservatives are suspicious of innovation and therefore subject all grand plans to merciless interrogation. Their core question goes something like this: Maybe you think this new health (or education or environmental) plan is a great idea, Mr. Liberal, but will it really work?

What are its unintended consequences? Can our governmental institutions carry it off? Not all progressive ideas pass the test. In the health care debate, conservatives were at their best when they shelved the demagoguery and asked practical, focused questions.

Second, conservatives respect old things and old habits. They are not always right in this. Racial segregation and discrimination are good examples of “old ways” that were morally wrong. But an admiration for what the conservative writer Russell Kirk called “custom” and “convention” speaks to something deep in the human heart.

Our habits are the product of time, based on the slowly accumulated wisdom of our ancestors. That’s why tradition should not be discarded lightly. You don’t have to be a conservative to agree with Kirk that custom and convention “are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.” [...]

Related to this is the third great contribution of conservatism: a suspicion of human nature and a belief that humans cannot be remolded like plastic. Conservatives see a fallen side of human nature usually described in terms of original sin. And when utopians propose to create a New Man or a New Woman, the conservative typically cries: Stop!

From generation to generation, human nature doesn’t really change.

AMEN. My guess is that why so many successful CEO’s and military officers are conservative: they know how to organize and to get people on the same page, and they don’t fall for every new untested fad (and we sure do see those in education!)

We need principled, intelligent conservatives.

But this doesn’t mean that we aren’t witnessing a hearty helping of conservative FAIL at the moment. One of the fails is the so called threat of lawsuits:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don’t have to abide by it — just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn’t inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he’s pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed — for one of the first times in public — legislative language he authored which “allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate.”

It’s called the “Empowering States to be Innovative” amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system — with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option — provided that, as Wyden puts it, “they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill.”

Note that this provision came straight from the 2007 Healthy Americans Act, which had 10 Republican co-sponsors.

Education
Yes, I can handle lazy students who accept the consequences of their actions. I can handle the less-than-brilliant students who try. But there are those I don’t like. Note: in general, students don’t always accept what they actually did or actually said.

Science
This is a delightful article on the geometry of space.

This is a funny article about parrots: this particular type has “forgotten” how to fly and, at times, “forgot that it forgot” how to fly. And yes, there is a hilarious video (yes, a very sex-starved male parrot)

Human evolution Was there yet another line of homos (along with the homo sapiens and neanderthals)? DNA evidence seems to indicate “yes”.

Nuclear Power: Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu talks about a new design for nuclear reactors: “small modular reactors”:

America is on the cusp of reviving its nuclear power industry. Last month President Obama pledged more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades. And with the new authority granted by the president’s 2011 budget request, the Department of Energy will be able to support between six and nine new reactors.

What does all of this mean for the country? This investment will provide enough clean energy to power more than six million American homes. It will also create tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead.

Perhaps most importantly, investing in nuclear energy will position America to lead in a growing industry. World-wide electricity generation is projected to rise 77% by 2030. If we are serious about cutting carbon pollution then nuclear power must be part of the solution. Countries such as China, South Korea and India have recognized this and are making investments in nuclear power that are driving demand for nuclear technologies. Our choice is clear: Develop these technologies today or import them tomorrow.

That is why-even as we build a new generation of clean and safe nuclear plants-we are constantly looking ahead to the future of nuclear power. As this paper recently reported, one of the most promising areas is small modular reactors (SMRs). If we can develop this technology in the U.S. and build these reactors with American workers, we will have a key competitive edge.

Small modular reactors would be less than one-third the size of current plants. They have compact designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. SMRs would be ready to “plug and play” upon arrival.

If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications. Their small size makes them suitable to small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale plants. The modular construction process would make them more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times.

Their size would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes, or use them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel plants. Some of the designs for SMRs use little or no water for cooling, which would reduce their environmental impact. Finally, some advanced concepts could potentially burn used fuel or nuclear waste, eliminating the plutonium that critics say could be used for nuclear weapons.

Richard Dawkins: this is an interesting essay on him:

Part of me wishes Dawkins wouldn’t rail so much against religion, though. Not because I necessarily think he’s wrong, but because it has become the only thing many people know about him. He gets a lot of stick for being a “militant atheist”, which is a little ridiculous. Until you behead someone, or blow them up on a bus, or at the very least tell them they’re going to hell for sleeping with the wrong people or eating the wrong food, you’re hardly being militant, at least as far as theological positions go.

But nonetheless every time someone describes him as an “atheist” instead of a “scientist”, or better yet a “zoologist” or “neo-Darwinist”, it distracts attention from what I would call his real work – advancing science, and explaining it in lucid prose.

Next year is the 25th anniversary of his third book, The Blind Watchmaker. I think it remains his best. 1976’s The Selfish Gene and 1982’s The Extended Phenotype were more important scientifically, but narrower in scope, while his middle-period works (River out of Eden, Unweaving the Rainbow, Climbing Mount Improbable) felt a bit like retreads of each other.

I agree with what I highlighted. The idea that he is a “militant atheist” is laughable; for some reason religious types get judged by a much softer standard. It isn’t as if I am going to blow up a church (though someone from a competing religion might!). Also, many scientifically minded believers would actually enjoy his science works such as The Greatest Show on Earth.

Religion FAIL
Many religious myths have violence at their core.

Also, some religions still have some backward social views:

Women Not Allowed to Speak During Lutheran Church Vote
icon1 Posted by Hemant Mehta in Education, General on March 24th, 2010 | 57 Comments

Before you read the headline and the article, realize a few things:

This took place yesterday.

In Wisconsin.

In a Lutheran church.

So much for a “harmless” Christian sect.

The headline:

Baraboo church doesn’t let women speak or vote as school principal is fired

Then again they ARE being Biblical:

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Of course modern Christians look for ways to ignore or rationalize away what they don’t like.

Come on Senators: GROW UP!!!! (yes, both sides)

The Republicans are throwing a tantrum over being on the losing end:

Every day, that is, until now. Republicans angry about the passage of health-care reform are invoking the dreaded half-day maneuver. Terkel explains:

Today, during a Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing on transparency, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) announced that he had to stop the proceedings because of Republican blocks. … The AP also reported today that Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) had a hearing on the bark beetle canceled today “after Republicans angry over the passage of health insurance reform legislation blocked it by using an obscure Senate rule requiring a unanimous consent to hold hearings scheduled after 2 p.m.”

I could imagine a lot of smart ways to begin obstructing the chamber and making life miserable for Democrats. But declaring that you won’t work after 2 p.m? Do Republicans really think the average American is going to rally to that battle cry?

But, sadly, the Democrats have also done this at times (Clinton was President but the Republicans controlled the Senate):

The Mann and Ornstein testimony was cut short under an obscure Senate rule that says that, while the Senate is in session, committees need the unanimous consent of all senators to meet for more than two hours at that time. Protesting GOP handling of several issues, Minority Leader Daschle invoked the “two-hour rule” but attempted to exempt the Governmental Affairs and Foreign Relations committees. But Lott said the Democrats could not pick and choose which committees could meet for more than two hours, forcing all Senate panels to adjourn for the day.

Ladies and Gentlemen: let’s grow up, ok?

Health Care Reform is like the Massive Repressions of History

Sometimes “teh stupid” just burns:

By Jeffrey Lord on 3.23.10 @ 6:09AM

“When I took up my little sling and aimed it at Communism, I also hit at something else. What I hit was the force of that great Socialist revolution which in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice-cap over the nation for two decades. I had no adequate idea of its extent, the depth of its penetration, or the fierce vindictiveness of its revolutionary temper.”
– Whittaker Chambers in Witness

“Our concern was not to put the bus company out of business, but to put justice in business.”
– Martin Luther King on the Montgomery Bus Boycott

“The road is cleared. We are going back to the world.”
– John Galt in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Enough is enough.

It’s time to put government tyranny out of business, and put health care justice in business.

So the tactics will now change.

“Put tyranny out of business”.

These idiots have forfeited any right to be taken seriously on an intellectual level.

24 March 2010 (early am)

Southern Conservatives anyway; this doesn’t apply to other ones. Think that I am exaggerating?

23 March 2010 (PM)

Humor This struck me as funny:

So did this one, but for a different reason:

Politics

If you love politics and don’t want to spend lots of time at a website, stay way from the Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center. You can compare this President to former Presidents (job approval at the same stage of their presidencies), break down presidential support by demographic, etc. Here is where I fit:

male: 47, age: 46, midwest region: 48, Hispanic 64 (it is higher for Mexicans), graduate degree: 58, income: 42 (my wife makes a lot of money compared to me), liberal democrat: 85, no church: 53

Also, one can see most of the major polls together here (Real Clear Politics).

Scientists: on our side.

Health Care Reform
And yes, we all just “know” that the public hates this health care reform bill. See, Rep. Eric Cantor says so; he “hears the American people loud and clear”:

Really:

WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was “a good thing” rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as “enthusiastic” or “pleased,” while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as “disappointed” or “angry.”

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill “a good first step” that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation’s health care system.

Ooops!

Yes, we’ve tried to tell people that much of the opposition to the Senate Bill was from the left in that it didn’t go far enough.

And yes, this was just one poll:

Democrats are understandably thrilled about a USA Today/Gallup poll that came out a few hours ago and which shows a fairly sizable 49 percent plurality in favor of their health care bills, against 40 percent opposed. The +9 net score in the poll, conducted in its entirety yesterday after the House passed its health care bill, is the best observed in any individual health care poll since October.

If I were a Republican, then I’m sure I’d have a little pang of fear right now. Any scenario in which health care reform actually turns out to be somewhat popular is an utter nightmare for them: they’ll have conceded a huge policy victory to the Democrats without improving their situation at the ballot box. Even the best case scenarios for Democrats, mind you, are not exactly great: perhaps a loss of 15-20 seats in the House and 2-4 in the Senate — about what a party usually loses at its first midterm. (I don’t think Democrats can do much better than that unless there’s also an unexpectedly robust recovery in the employment picture.) But it sure wouldn’t feel very good for Republicans, especially if the emergent narratives were that (i) the Republicans can get only so far with a strategy of obstructionism and (ii) Democrats benefit when they band together to pass major agenda items.

But — hold your horses. This is just one poll, and even if the bounce is real, it may very well evaporate. Let’s first put the Gallup results into a little bit more context, and then consider how likely the bounce is to stick. [...]

Surf to Nate Silver’s blog to read more he guesses that the numbers will even out to “margin of error” territory. I see that as about right.

Republicans: the company that you keep and the way that you lead

Yes, the rank and file of the Republican party is delusional, to say the least. No, don’t just take our word for it. Go ahead and deny the Daily Kos commissioned poll on Republican beliefs. Here is another independent poll and guess what?

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was “not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president” 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is “doing many of the things that Hitler did” Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama “may be the Antichrist.” These numbers all come from a brand-new Louis Harris poll, inspired in part by my new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for ratings is bad for the country.

The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It’s a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: “Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.”

There is more than a lack of education going on here: you have open vilification and idiotic statements coming from Republican leadership:

“Totalitarian tactics”?

So think about that Republicans: think about the company that you are keeping.

“Wait”, you might say: didn’t the rank and file Democrats say ugly things about President Bush? I sure did…AFTER HE STARTED A WAR. But there is another essential difference: we had our leaders talk to us about our tone:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

Guess who said this? That’s right: it was then Senator Barack Obama back in 2005.

Which Republican leader will tell their base something similar?

23 March 2010

Workout notes Yoga with Ms. V., then 4000 yards in the pool. 1000 in 17:44 (empty pool), 20 x 50 on the 0:50 (this one hurt); 48′s for the first 10, 47′s for the second 10. Then 500 of (100 back, 100 side, 100 back, 100 side, alt back/free), 5 x 100 IM on the 2:10, 500 of drill/swim (fins), 6 x 50 fist on the 1, 4 x 50 paddle on the 1.

The swim felt ok; it went better than expected.

Posts
Education
At least this has never happened in my class:

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee student Robyn Foster may have crossed the line last Monday, March 15, during a discussion with Anthropology professor Kathleen Foley Winkler.

In a video posted to YouTube, a student identified as Foster yells back-and-forth with Foley Winkler, who remains off camera, reportedly arguing over the wording of a question on a recent exam.

Things got heated and when a fellow student told Foster to sit down. Foster allegedly threw a water bottle at the student, compelling the professor to call campus police. That’s when an unnamed fellow student and intern at a Milwaukee TV station began recording the incident.

Campus police arrived and took Foster to the ground when she refused to leave the classroom. Foster now faces a charge of disorderly conduct. A witness told WTMJ radio that before calling police, Foley Winkler gave Foster “four or five chances” to leave the classroom on her own.

Politics
Nate Silver addresses an issue that has been bugging me:

This is response to the numerous critics who have suggested that the Democrats were somehow unethical, anti-democratic or even tyrannical to enact their health care policy at a time when it polls poorly in most opinion surveys. I find this argument to be exceptionally weak. You can certainly argue that the health care bills are bad policy and that enacting them in spite of what seems to be substantial opposition is foolhardy — and it absolutely is unusual for Congress to enact bills of this magnitude with such tenuous public support.

But unethical? Was the “will of the electorate” breached? I think any such framing has to contend with the following 14 arguments:

1. That Obama and Democratic Congress were democratically elected by very robust majorities on a platform which expliclitly included health-care reform and has since time immemorial.
[...]

4. That polls show that the specific details of the Democratic plan are (mostly) popular, and that when a neutral and accurate description of the contents of the bills are read to the respondent, support usually increases to plurality or majority levels.

5. That substantial elements of the public lack basic knowledge about verifiable facts of the bill, sometimes because of deliberate misrepresentations on the part of the bill’s opponents. [..]

7. That a tangible percentage of those who register as opposed to the bill oppose it from the left — probably enough to form a majority with those who support it — and may nevertheless prefer it to the status quo (the more explicitly a poll compares the current proposals with the status quo — see Question 25 here — the more favorable the results tend to be).

The other points are worth reading. Again, there is nothing wrong with making an argument against the bill or pointing out that there is substantial opposition to it. But the American people do NOT speak with one voice.

Republicans continue to lie and rationalize

Hmmm, some rationalization going on there (whereas Rep. Boehner called the slurs “reprehensible”). But just as importantly, let’s be reminded of what Rep. Pelosi actually said:

The House’s top two Democrats on Monday called some of the behavior of health care overhaul opponents “simply un-American.” The White House disagreed.

Protesters have disrupted town-hall meetings held by lawmakers, in some cases shouting down speakers at the events. Police have had to intervene and videos of the events have circulated widely on YouTube and cable news.

“These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views – but of the facts themselves,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.”

22 March 2010 (pm)

Fall out on health care reform
Republicans can’t seem to understand that “getting more votes” is NOT tyranny:

Typical wingnut reaction to last night:

One cannot help but admire Nancy Pelosi’s skill as a legislator. But it’s also pretty worrying. Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority? Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don’t find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances. Farewell, Social Security! Au revoir, Medicare! The reason entitlements are hard to repeal is that the Republicans care about getting re-elected. If they didn’t–if they were willing to undertake this sort of suicide mission–then the legislative lock-in you’re counting on wouldn’t exist.

[...]
14 months later, after hundreds of millions of dollars spent against the reform effort and the never-ending stream of bullshit scare attacks (death panels!), the overall public still didn’t buy conservative anti-reform arguments. Indeed, a significant portion of opposition to HCR came from disaffected liberals who wanted more out of our big majorities. For example, look at CNN’s latest:

Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?

39 % Favor (from previous question)
43% Oppose, too liberal
13% Oppose, not liberal enough

Sorry, but 43 percent isn’t persuading the country that “they didn’t want this bill.”

In other words, the Republicans who talk about the “will of the American people” must not be including at least 52 percent of the population. Interesting, no?

Of course, the Republican leaders are taking it like adults, right?

Here’s John McCain’s (R-AZ) reaction to last night’s passage of health care reform legislation:

“There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. “They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”

Does that mean that they are going to start filibustering everything? Oh wait…

Very mature, Senator McCain.

More Republican delusion

80 votes? 80 votes?
How does that compare to the big bills of the past?

The 2001 tax cuts passed 58-33. All the Republican senators (with the exception of John McCain, R-Ariz.) were joined by 12 Democrats to pass the measure.

But the tax cuts were across-the-board rate reductions for all tax filers, a detail that Grayson omitted when describing them as being “for the rich.”
It’s true that the wealthy tend to pay the most taxes and thus saw the biggest drops to their tax bills. But many other taxpayers saw declines in their tax bills as well. Our previous reporting indicates that the tax cuts for the middle class during the Bush years were more costly than the tax cuts for the highest incomes, because the middle class outnumbers the very wealthy.

The 2003 tax cuts were also passed by reconciliation. These were more controversial, because at this point the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had started, and later the same year Congress passed a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The vote in the Senate was 51-50, with vice president Dick Cheney breaking the tie. (The vice president is technically the president of the Senate and can break ties.) In this vote, only two Democrats joined the Republicans.

The 2003 tax cuts included a number of measures, but the most significant reductions were taxes on dividends and capital gains taxes. Typically, these taxes are on investment income, and those cuts tend to give a bigger break to taxpayers with higher incomes.

Grayson is taking a bit of a liberty by describing the measures as “tax cuts for the rich,” especially the 2001 cuts, when tax rates were rolled back across income categories. Still, the wealthy did receive significant benefits from the tax cuts since they pay the most taxes, and that was particularly true of the 2003 package. Grayson is correct that the tax cuts were both passed by reconciliation.

And yes, these cuts expanded the deficit (though it wasn’t just the tax cuts for the rich):

Another way to look at it: The Tax Policy Center calculated what share of the federal tax changes each income bracket gained from the Bush tax cuts. The top 5 percent of earners (those making about $225,000 or more) received 30.5 percent of the tax benefits in 2008, according to their analysis. But conversely, the bottom 95 percent of tax payers got 70 percent. Zoom out from the top 5 percent to the top 20 percent, and their share is 47.8 percent. Critics of the Bush tax cuts can call that disproportionate, but it’s still less than half and therefore not “the biggest.”

All of this indicates that Pelosi is mistaken. Although the wealthy did get big benefits from the Bush tax cuts, their benefits did not outweigh those of everyone else put together.

80 votes. Yep.

Look, I don’t resent the Republicans having a different opinion. I don’t resent them working to kill the bill and I don’t resent them running on this issue this November. I don’t resent them denouncing the passing of this bill.

I do resent them acting as if most of the country is with them. It isn’t. I resent them talking about the “will of the American people.” The American people do NOT speak with one voice (saying that a large segment of the population is against this is fine).

Republicans ARE a valuable part of our country, but they are only a part. They do not have the right to define what it is to be an American and they do NOT have a right to assume that anything that they opposed was “rammed through”. Getting more votes is not “ramming through”.

Essay on boxing

Boxers in Pakistan: By Maniza Naqvi a moving essay:

Ringed in by swirls of rope, I train for that golden fight. Without power, now, yes, yet, the night is lit up by a winking star within my reach. I stretch, I practice and I meditate. This, till Fajr’s first light. The sea breeze washes over Lyari at this time and as it comes into the Ali Mohammad Qambrani Stadium, it caresses my wet skin, the sweat cools and evaporates and my muscles ache as the heat inside me subsides. My lungs clear of the day’s petrol fumes that still burn my throat and eyes. Here in Lyari the name Qambrani means something: pride. The breeze, weightless as a fly, as soft as a feather, whispers and places a burden on me: be unique, be the one, be unparalleled, be unrivaled, be superlative. Be. That’s the cheer in every street in every alley here. Be unique! Be unique! Be without comparison! Be incomparable! Be! And I know what that means. Its meaning belongs to the poor. Be unique belongs to the poor.

A head injury may be the price to be golden to belong, to be, that way.

That’s the price for being caught in the web, the ropes of family ties, carrying on the family name, the family tradition, the family honor and pride. That’s the price of being a hero. That’s the price of limelight and being on the ropes.

Saima is afraid. She says that this will destroy my pretty face—I’ll get bruised and battered and get scars and a busted nose, lose teeth. She says if I get ugly she might not want to marry me. I know that she’s only joking.

Boxing belongs to the poor. Yes it does. Look at the conditions in which we still become champions. What would happen if we had resources? [...]

Read the whole thing.