Author Archives: Jay Hansen

A Hat Trick of Scandals

Posted on by
Reply

By Jay Hansen

Okay guys, for those of you that don’t know this week has been crazy full. Things are changing at work, it was my wonderful partner Heidi’s birthday on Wednesday, we’re finally celebrating out mother’s day plans on Friday (had to re-schedule from last Saturday because of work) PLUS I’ve got a staff meeting for work, and it’s our friend’s daughter’s graduation and dinner on Saturday, then back to work on Sunday! Add a little emotional trauma to all of that and slow cook it over the course of a week and you’ve got the stress-casserole the universe is currently serving me.

Thankfully, this week really only had three big news stories, and all were scandals that involve Obama to some degree. Given that, I’m going to lighting round this bitch and get this one article cranked out so I can get back to my other dozen things I’m supposed to be doing.

I’ve ordered the three big scandals in least offensive to worst, so you can probably guess we’re starting with.

 

1. Benghazi, a non-scandal

Now, why do I say a “non-scandal?” It’s simple. Ask yourself this; what, exactly, is the Benghazi scandal? It’s that the Obama administration tried to cover something up. Okay, what? Was it the death of a US diplomat? No, Obama openly admitted that as soon as it happened. Was it that one of our embassies was attacked? No, Obama was honest about that too. Was it that Obama is refusing to increase funding for embassy security even after the attack? No, that would be Republicans. What was covered up then? The fact that this was a coordinated attack versus a random act of violence. In the beginning, Obama acknowledged it was an act of terror, but then changed talking points to that it was a random attack launched by protesters. Why? That’s a good question, but I can venture a guess.

BECAUSE HE’S A POLITICIAN AND IT WAS DURING A CAMPAIGN

So really, the only scandal here is that a politician running for President lied about something to look a little better in a campaign. Having a “terrorist attack” on his record may have hurt his re-election chances. He didn’t lie about the damage done, nor would his response to what happened be any different had he gone with the initial talking point of it being a terrorist attack instead of a protest. And really, we’re going to throw a shit fit and shout “SCANDAL” at the top of our lungs because a politician played politics during a campaign? Get over yourselves. Yes, it was a cover up, but tell me exactly how that cover up did even the slightest bit of damage (outside of the damage politicians do every day with their typical little white lies).

More than that though, there hasn’t been any real developments recently in the Benghazi story, so why is it suddenly in the news again? Because Republicans want it in the news. They thought of some new words to attack Obama with on this issue so they brought it back up. Keep in mind, this happened last September. That just goes to show you how much in the back pocket of the establishment the media is; the Republican establishment more so than the Democratic.

As for the actual rhetoric coming from the Republicans on this issue, I’ll let my good friend Jon Stewart explain why it’s hyperbolic bullcrap.

 

2. The IRS targeting right-wing groups, a low-moderate scandal

I ranked this scandal this way because, well, at least it’s a little better than Benghazi.

The Internal Revenue Service field office in Cincinnati was caught applying extra scrutiny on right-wing organizations attempting to file for tax-exempt status (known as 501(c)4 groups). They’ve since apologized, and the acting commissioner of the IRS, Steve Miller, has been forced to resign by the Obama administration. Frankly, I’d have rather seen more localized punishment taken, if any at all, because this scandal seems completely contained to this single office. The President was not involved at all, and right now I can’t find any sources that say whether or not the Commissioner was involved either; he was just the sacrificial lamb over this “scandal,” which is a term I’m using loosely to describe this. Let me explain why.

The IRS started scrutinizing right-wing organizations with the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their title back in 2010, when Douglas Shulman was the IRS Commissioner. Shulman was appointed by George W. Bush in 2008, so if the Commissioner was involved in this scandal at all, it was a right-wing Commissioner that was applying this extra scrutiny, and not some liberal political bosses trying to squash their opposition. Steven Miller, the acting Commissioner, wasn’t even in the position six months when this “scandal” surfaced, and he was forced to resign.

And what did this “scrutinizing” involve, exactly? Were any groups denied their tax exempt status because of this? No, not a single conservative group has lost or been denied tax-exempt status since this “scandal” started. As a matter of fact, more liberal political groups have lost their 501(c)4 status than conservatives under the Obama administration’s watch. The scandal here is that some political organizations were delayed their tax exempt status (I want to say it was no longer than 27 days, but I’m having trouble finding a source to confirm that) so that the IRS could investigate them more thoroughly to ensure they’re qualified for the status.

So, like Benghazi, that’s it. Some Tea Party groups had to wait about an extra month before they were classified as tax-exempt because the federal government wanted to make sure there was no wrongdoing on their part. Keep in mind, 501(c)4 organizations are not allowed to engage in any sort of political activity as their primary purpose. When groups that identify as Tea Parties request the status, then, the government must take extra special care to investigate them and make sure they are adhering to the law and, you know, their political activities are going through all the right legal loopholes before they can be confirmed as tax-exempt.

Now yes, there are 501(c)4 groups on the left that abuse these same legal loopholes, and they were not given the same scrutiny as those on the right, but there is some logic in that decision. Which side of the political spectrum is opposed, often vehemently so, to the income tax? The right. Which side of the political spectrum is much more likely to evade paying taxes? The right. Which organizations seeking tax-exempt status, a status that is often abused by political organizations, were given extra scrutiny? Right-wing political organizations. To me, that makes all the sense in the world.

AND remember, Obama is not involved in this scandal at all. Immediately upon finding out about it he took action and eliminated the nearest scapegoat he could find, given that the people under which this “scandal” happened aren’t in office any more to begin with. Even if Obama does somehow turn out to be involved in this scandal, it’s probably the tamest use of the IRS by the President in years. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, used the IRS to investigate direct political opponents. In 2004, for example, the NAACP’s chairman criticized President Bush for being the first President since Herbert Hoover to not address the organization. Right afterward, the group was audited by the IRS. Similar stories exist for organizations like Greenpeace and others that were genuinely non-political organizations qualified for tax-exempt status. Far worse than this scandal, though, Bush also went as far as to sic the IRS on seemingly liberal churches and religious institutions and not just political organizations.

So if you’re calling for Obama’s head over the IRS completely independently of the President investigating right-wing organizations seeking to abuse tax exempt status, but think what George Bush did with the IRS is totally fine and acceptable, then you really just need to stop talking, and never vote again. Seriously.

 

3. The Obama Administration obtained two months of phone records from the Associated Press – a huge scandal

Seriously, if you’re not angry about this you’re not paying attention. I’m running out of time so I’ll just let Ben Mankiewicz explain.

The AP was in complete compliance with the government over this story, yet they still had their phones bugged. The Obama Administration has officially become the toughest administration on leaks and whistleblowers in modern history, as if that wasn’t evident enough with what they’ve done to WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning. On top of all that, Obama is refusing to apologize for this.

All of these scandals, despite how minor the first two were, translate to bad, bad news for President Obama. The problem is, though, that Republicans really wouldn’t have been any better. Democrats and Republicans are infamous for their agreement on civil rights violations right now, so there’s no question that the AP scandal still would have happened under a Republican President. We know for a fact that the Bush administration abused the IRS to investigate their political opponents much more harshly than has happened under this administration, and this administration didn’t even order the IRS to do so. As for Benghazi, it’s impossible to say it would have happened the exact same way under a Republican president, but keep in mind the only “cover up” involved in that scandal is the retroactive changing of talking points so that the President wouldn’t have to suffer the political backlash of another terrorist attack happening on his watch near the end of a presidential re-election campaign. If you honestly think a Republican wouldn’t change such a minor detail of a story to save face when running for President, you’re delusional.

Yet despite this, over which scandal are Republicans are now threatening impeachment? You guessed it; Benghazi, the least concerning of them all. It’s a non-issue over which to impeach a President, and a massive waste of time for Congress, but it’s still really bad for Obama. Remember, the reason Nixon was forced to resign was because he was about to be impeached and he had alienated his political base by establishing the EPA, traveling to China and repairing diplomatic ties with a communist country, and supported a whole host of liberal plans and legislation. This infuriated his conservative base, but liberals were still just as opposed to him as ever. Now, we have a Democrat that is threatening to cut Social Security, made the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, and wants to lower the corporate tax. Whether legitimate reasons for impeachment or not, Obama could be in a world of trouble as he finally suffers the consequences of alienating his liberal base.

Of course, at the same time, it could be wonderful news for Obama. When Republicans tried to impeach Clinton over absolutely nothing at all, the American people saw through their bullshit, realized they were wasting massive amounts of time, and booted them out of the House (Democrats gained seats in the 1998 Congressional elections). If Obama plays this right, it could actually be to the Democrat’s advantage.

Either way, my hat is off to Republicans. Benghazi may be a bullshit scandal, but at least they’ve found a better reason to impeach this president than the last time they tried.

Why You Have to Stop Voting for Republicans

Posted on by
Reply

By Jay Hansen

At least at the federal level. A new study came out last week that has lead me over the course of the past few days to a series of realizations and reminders of older stories. With the puzzle pieces assembled here, they make a powerful case for why anyone who isn’t an absolute nut job really needs to stop voting for federal Republicans, including those of conservative ideology. While I may personally have a laundry list of reasons why not to vote for them on ideological grounds, there are far more important reasons why no one, not even conservatives, should.

Last week Raw Story had a piece with some disturbing poll numbers in it. According to the story, belief in a “second coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of someone supporting action to combat climate change by 20%. Simultaneously, 76% of Republicans believe there will be a second coming of Jesus. Translation: a little under half of this country is Republican, and an overwhelming majority of them (three-fourths) believe Jesus is coming back to save all of them… therefore, why should they have to care about the environment? We now see a disturbingly large segment of the population that will not budge, ever, on climate change or the environment because of religious convictions. It sounds like some rhetorical abstraction of conservative ideology, but the statistics are starting to prove this exact pattern of thinking.

But that’s not the primary point in the story that really made me decide to write this article. In the Raw Story piece, it had a 2010 quote from Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL). Shimkus stated his opposition to any legislation trying to prevent climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over,” and washed his hands of the issue. That, my friends, is the definition of a blind follower.

Some of you are probably wondering why this one quote stood out so much to me given that I’ve cited Senator Inhofe’s infamous quote “the arrogance of the people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what [God] is doing in the climate is to me outrageous” at least five million times. The reason why Shimkus’ quote is far more damning is because Congressman Shimkus is currently the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. The man in the House of Representatives that is in charge of overseeing the House’s work in regards to the environment literally believes there’s no point or even need to take care of the environment whatsoever because the world is going to come to an end soon and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Do you feel safe yet?

It’s not just Shimkus either though; Senator Inhofe himself served on the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee for many years, even though he similarly believes the environment is entirely in God’s hands and there’s nothing humans could possibly do to harm, or save, the planet and we should just resign ourselves to death and the end of mankind. Now ask yourselves; how did these men end up on these committees? This is not a question of too much government or too little in regards to environmental regulation; these men clearly have no interest in protecting the environment whatsoever. Who either appointed them or requested their positions on these committees? And why?

These people are blind followers both of their religion and of their party’s establishment. They will disregard everything to fulfill the demands of these two institutions at the determent of everything else; their responsibilities as a member of this committee, the will of the American people, and most of all, just human intelligence.

Speaking of intelligence, let’s not forget our friends at the humorously named House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, or just House Intelligence Committee (consider that your oxymoron of the day). I say oxymoron because let’s not forget this Committee’s most tragically outspoken member is Congresswoman Michelle Bachman. There’s no way I could list all the examples of her incompetence in a single article, but Mother Jones has a decent list, and I’ve complied my favorite eight here. All you really need to know about her is that she spouts so much utterly, inarguably false information that the Associated Press literally had to limit the amount of resources they would devote to fact-checking her. She actually overloaded the media’s bullshit machine (the mainstream media at that; they aren’t exactly known for being the most vigilant fact-checkers these days). When the media does actually press her on one of her lies, she literally runs away. And this woman serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

Let’s not forget her colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, though, specifically the chairman. Just as Shimkus was to the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) is just as ironically the chairman to the House Intelligence Committee. First and foremost, Rogers was possibly the biggest supporter of CISPA in the House. If you don’t know what that is, which is probably a tragically high number of Americans, I highly suggest you click the previous hyperlink before continuing. Better than being the bill’s proponent, he seemed genuinely clueless as to why there was supposed opposition to it. His actual quote on the bill was “[CISPA] does something very simple: it allows the government to share zeroes and ones with the private sector.”

Oh, is that all? It allows any company to share any information it wants about its clients and customers with the government whenever either party finds it beneficial to them? Obviously, Rogers is either being sickeningly disingenuous, condescending, and extremely presumptuous about the intelligence of American voters,  or he himself is as hopelessly incompetent as such a presumption would require. Usually I’m inclined to believe the former, but then we get to his second quote when confronted about CISPA. Rogers doesn’t understand why there’s opposition to the bill or where such opposition is coming from because, and I quote, “we have yet to find a single United States company that opposes this bill.”

Well then, if it’s unanimous amongst American companies, why not make it law? I mean, it’s not like the actual American people should have a say in it. Rogers is apparently so incompetent, or at the very least brazen in his corruption and disinterest in serving his voters, that he completely forgot that he’s supposed to at least act like he represents people and not corporations.

We’re still not even done with the Intelligence Committee though. Rogers was actually pretty tame compared to most members of the Committee. Another name that jumped out at me serving on it is Congressman Peter King (R-NY). King became infamous back in late 2010 for becoming the new Senator Joseph McCarthy. King’s “Commie hunt,” however, was a Muslim hunt, wherein he held hearings as the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee into the “radicalization among American Muslims.” So in other words, if you are an American Muslim, King already suspects you of guilt and wrongdoing, and you have to prove your innocence in a very un-American guilty-until-proven-innocent fashion. His sentiment towards Muslims is no secret, as he is on the record completely fabricating statistics like 85% of mosques in America are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists and just making flat-out racist statements like, again, I quote, “there are too many mosques in this country.”

What’s worse about King than his flagrant prejudices, though, in sticking with our main theme, is the irony of his positions. King is no longer the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, but still serves on it, as well as the House Intelligence Committee, giving him significant oversight of the CIA and the war on terror. The irony in King’s positions may be the most directly dangerous of them all because Peter King is an outspoken supporter and funder of terrorism. Specifically, King has defended and raised money for the Irish Republican Army, who were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians in their violent attempts to drive the British out of northern Ireland. He called the IRA a “legitimate force” to combat “British Imperialism,” and worst of all in 1985 said “if civilians are killed in an attack on a military instillation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it.” He was so close to the IRA that the Irish government once boycotted the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York because King was chosen to be the Grand Marshall, and King has been thrown out of an Irish courthouse on the grounds that he was “an obvious collaborator with the IRA.”

And remember; this is the man that was chosen to be the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee to help combat terrorism.

After King, like some horrible version of Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon, I noticed another name that serves with him on the House Homeland Security Committee; Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA). I’ve written about Broun before because he gives King a run for his money at the title of “most ironic” position within the Congress, and easily wins the most indirectly dangerously Committee appointment because of the long-term damage it could do. What’s more ironic than a terrorist supporter combating terrorism? Someone who does not believe in science being appointed to the House Committee on Science and Technology. At least Shimkus and Inhofe’s scientific ignorance seems to stop at climatology and evolution; Broun denounces all science; evolution, embryology, even the big bang theory, and “all that,” referring to science in general, as “lies straight from the pit of hell” (actual quote). Broun goes on to explain his beliefs, which would require him further denouncing paleontology, archeology, continental drift, and much more as well.

But Broun’s not alone on that committee, of course. Let’s not forget that former disgraced Congressman Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) also served on it with Broun. Akin was infamous for his disbelief of evolution as well as his complete and utter ignorance of the absolute basics of human biology children learn in fifth grade (he said that it’s physically impossible for women who are “legitimately raped” to get pregnant, which is fundamentally untrue, earning him the nickname Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin for the rest of time). More important than Akin, though, is the current Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) who just recently introduced a bill in Congress that attempts to change how the scientific process works through legislation. I’m not even kidding. The legislation would abolish the National Science Foundation’s peer-review process, which would eliminate the need for an independent expert to duplicate the results of an experiment or study before it can be accepted as a legitimate experiment or proven hypothesis. In other words, Congressman Smith is trying to make it law that as soon as they find one scientist or guy that’s willing to pretend to be a scientist that can kind of endorse whatever they want to prove (name it; global climate change isn’t real, off-shore oil drilling is good for the environment, evolution isn’t true, fracking creates baby unicorns, whatever) it will be legally acceptable as legitimate science without someone having to duplicate or review their work.

This man is the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology. Who put him there? The Republican Party establishment.

When you vote for Republicans at the federal level, specifically in the Congress, you’re not voting for an individual politician. Instead, you are voting for the collective Republican Party establishment, which operates as a single organism. Keep in mind, at the end of the day, political parties are largely just private organizations that can manage themselves; they choose who gets leadership positions and committee appointments internally, not democratically. Earlier in this article I asked how people like those I’ve listed could be put in these positions, and why they are appointed to them. The answer should be obvious by now; these people are nothing but pawns that will do whatever the party establishment wishes, regardless of the damage it could do to this country or how contradictory it is to their position, their conservative values, or their responsibilities in the US Congress.

The Republican Party Establishment, for this reason, will always appoint people like this to their Committees and Chairmanships. People who don’t care about the environment will be put in charge of protecting it, people who support terrorism will be put in charge of fighting it, people who resoundingly reject science will legislate what is science and what is not, and people who just lack adult intelligence are put on the Intelligence Committee with oversight of our nation’s most sensitive material.

I would hope that anyone reading this, including the conservatives, don’t feel that the Michelle Bachmanns and Paul Brouns of the Republican Party represent their views or what they think the Republican Party should be. The problem is it doesn’t matter if you agree with these unquestionably moronic members within your party or not; they will always be the ones that get these sensitive appointments because of their blind willingness to do as they are told. A vote for a Republican representative is a vote for the Republican Establishment and nothing more.

This is in contrast with the federal-level Democratic Party. If you’re still afraid or unsure about voting for Democrats on ideological grounds, keep in mind that one of the greatest strengths of the party is also one of its greatest weaknesses. When it comes to ideology, the Democratic Party is the “big tent” party. There are people at all ends of the political spectrum in the Democratic party, even though this leads to great internal conflict on some issues (health care, gun control, green energy, to name a few). Like Mark Twain said, “I do not belong to any organized political party. That is why I am a registered Democrat.” Here in red states like Oklahoma, there are often primaries on the Democratic ticket between the progressive candidate and the conservative candidate, the latter of whom usually agrees with Republicans nine times out of ten anyway. Finding a Democratic politician you agree with is very much possible even for the farthest right of conservatives (that are still sane, of course).

No matter what you think of their ideology, Democrats will at least appoint people who actually care about the environment to the committees and positions dedicated to protecting it. They will at least appoint people who actually believe in science to those positions concerning science. And even if you don’t like a Democratic appointment, just keep in mind that all FOX News has to do is sneeze at one and Democrats will trip over themselves to see who can fire them first. So please, do this entire country a favor and stop voting for Republicans at the very least at the federal level. The only reason you have to continue doing so is because you literally don’t want to protect the environment at all or that you yourself oppose science, which I certainly hope isn’t any of my conservative friends.

Taxing Fairness

Posted on by
Reply

By Jay Hansen

Everyone and their damn dog seems to be talking about the Marketplace Fairness Act. I’ve been doing some thinking on it and it’s a pretty sticky wicket of a question, particularly from a much more politically philosophical level than most people give it credit. My ultimate decision on the issue, though, may shock the world.

The Marketplace Fairness Act, which has already passed the Senate, allows state governments to apply sales tax to internet transactions even if the company or provider of the goods is not in their state. Right now, states use a sales tax as a means of collecting revenue, often in conjunction with an income tax. Currently states can only demand that merchants with physical stores and chains within state lines pay the sales tax. This legislation would close this loophole and require online retailers to pay the sales tax of each transaction to whichever state government the buyer resides. Under the current law, consumers are supposed to report any online sales they make to their state government and voluntarily pay the sales tax for their online transactions… but everyone laugh along with me.

Across all 50 states, $23 billion in revenue was lost in 2012 because of this loophole, but that’s according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, so take it with a grain of salt (they would have a bias to get more money for their states). Specifically here in Oklahoma, the state loses out on anywhere from $185 million to $225 million in revenue because of this loophole each year, and that’s according to the Oklahoma Tax Commission who, if anything, have a bias to keep those numbers as low as possible given the state’s agenda regarding taxation (translation: the Tax Commission may have political interest in perpetuating the idea that the state doesn’t have a revenue problem but a spending problem so that state Republicans and Governor Fallin can continue to cut spending and taxes at the same time).

So really, in concept, this legislation is in fact about fairness. From a philosophical standpoint, why should transactions entirely within the state be taxed, but not those online? It’s still the consumer that’s paying the tax to their own state, so it’s not like a company in California is having to pay the Oklahoma sales tax; this law just makes it their responsibility to collect that tax from the consumer and return it to the state in which they reside. Plus, sellers that make less than $1 million annually will be exempt from this responsibility to protect small online sellers, and that may even go all the way up to $10 million annually with lobbying. The only legitimate argument one could really make against this bill requires arguing against the sales tax entirely as a means of generating revenue for the state, which is actually where my issue with the legislation begins.

It’s not secret that I’m a progressive, and therefore, I favor a progressive form of taxation. The income tax is an example of progressive tax because the more money you make, the more you’re expected to pay and contribute to society. The sales tax is an example of a regressive tax as it is a single, flat rate that all people pay, even though that means the poor are required to contribute a significantly larger portion of their income than the middle class or wealthy. Even still though, the sales tax does sometimes make sense. Generally speaking, the smaller the level of government imposing the tax, the more sense a sales tax makes. For example, a local government can level a sales tax on most transactions in the city and use the funding from that tax to pay for services that anyone in the town benefits from, be they permanently or temporarily residing here, or even just passing through, such as emergency response and law enforcement. There are some services, however, that only those living in the town benefit from, such as education, which is why a separate form of taxation (often property tax) is implemented. Many states do a balance of sales and income tax because there are some programs everyone in the state actively benefit from (law enforcement, emergency response, etc) while at the same time maintain many more programs that everyone living in the state may not be actively using, but still exclusively benefit from as a citizen of the state such as social safety nets and welfare programs. Whether they’re actively using them or not, those safety nets exist for us all, which is also why at the federal level the income tax makes all the sense in the world. The federal government’s spending programs, aside from pork-barrel spending, benefit all American citizens, even if not actively (i.e. even if you’re not using food stamps right now they still exist for you should you fall on hard times. We don’t let people starve to death in America; we’re supposed to be more civilized than that). In addition, the income tax looks out for the down-trodden American citizen by not requiring the very poor, retired, disabled, and so on, to pay taxes they just don’t have the money to pay. Under a sales tax system, the very poor still have to pay the tax, as do retirees, the disabled, veterans, students… the list goes on and on.

The problem we have here in Oklahoma right now is that Governor Fallin is abusing the crap out of the state sales tax. Like I said, the sales tax makes sense in some circumstances and to fund some state programs, but not all of them. Using the state sales tax as the primary means of revenue allocation means Oklahomans will be hit with a flat-rate, across the board tax and ultimately require the poor to pay significantly higher taxes than they would under an income tax system, be it through the actual sales tax or inevitable increases in fees and fines, which I’ve written about before. Naturally, if you couldn’t figure it out by now, since the sales tax increases the tax burden on the lower classes, it reduces it on the upper classes, ultimately translating to a tax cut for the wealthy. That is why Mary Fallin and the Republicans want to transition to a more sales-tax dependent system. Governor Fallin is currently aiming to completely abolish the income tax in Oklahoma and switch to a sales-tax driven system entirely. The poor pay more so that the rich can get richer.

The Marketplace Fairness Act will further enable Governor Fallin and state Republicans to better complete their plans to transition to this significantly less fair sales-tax driven system, even though, let’s face it, there’s little to nothing standing in their way as it is. The extra $225 million Oklahoma would get per year from this bill would almost immediately be lost again when Governor Fallin continues to cut the income tax rates, lowering the revenue of the state. At the very least, we know for a fact that money won’t go towards anything good like education or other state agencies that sorely need funding. It’s our particular state’s abuse of the sales tax that leads me to oppose this bill in the end, and not some philosophical principle about paying taxes on internet transactions (not to mention mostly opposing the state sales tax as too regressive). If there were some hypothetical circumstance in an ideal world and the sales tax was being properly applied and balanced with the state income tax then maybe it would be a different conversation and I may even be open to this legislation, but our world is far from ideal, let alone our state government.

I also have to admit, though, I’m very curious to see what happens with this bill. Obviously, Governor Fallin and state Republicans are desperate to get this bill passed through the federal House of Representatives so that they can continue their plans to steal from the poor and give to the rich (basically). At the same time, though, both Oklahoma Senators Inhofe and Coburn voted against the bill on the grounds that it would raise taxes on Oklahomans, which it inarguably would. We’re yet to find out how Oklahoma’s members of the House plan to vote on the bill, but I’m curious to see if a catfight is just around the corner between Oklahoma’s federal Republicans and state Republicans, as they seem diametrically opposed.

Should this bill pass, which does seem the slightly more likely outcome, I’m also curious to know what exactly Governor Fallin does with her extra $185-$225 million in state revenue. As aforementioned, she’ll probably try to sweep it under the rug and hope we all forget about it so that she can lower taxes even more for the wealthy. Don’t let that happen. Fallin is up for re-election next year; if this bill passes we need to see tangible results such as funding for education, law enforcement, health care, or some other significant investment in the people of Oklahoma. If not, keep that in mind when campaigning starts about a year from now, and when it’s time to cast your vote for our next governor.

Let’s Talk About Sex

Posted on by
Reply

By Jay Hansen

There are lots of conservative arguments I’m really tired of hearing. To name a few, I’m talking about the ones like guns don’t kill people people kill people, tax cuts create jobs, Social Security is about to run out of money, or 45% of Americans don’t pay taxes. Almost all of these arguments are very easily defeated. For example, the next time you hear a Republican say 45% of American’s don’t pay taxes, just counter by asking “so are you proposing we raise taxes on 45% of Americans?” and watch as their own policies rail against each other. Despite this, these arguments all share the same unearned tone of over confidence and arrogance. Few conservative arguments, however, are as condescending and arrogant as “if you can’t afford birth control or a baby, you shouldn’t have sex.”

This argument is primarily used against President Obama’s initiative to expand access to birth control in this country, and the United Nation’s resolution last year that birth control is a fundamental human right. It’s also used by self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” that fear monger on the idea of abortion becoming a primary form of birth control, which simply isn’t true. But we’re not just arguing against conservatives in this article; we’re arguing against social conservatives, a group whom reality has little impact.

Let’s just think about the philosophy behind this argument. For one, it establishes sex as something only to be enjoyed by those with money. A much more concrete consequence, though, is that it promotes the unequivocal failure that is abstinence-only.

Preaching or teaching abstinence just does not work, be it from the pulpit or the classroom. States that require abstinence-only education in their schools have the highest teen pregnancy rates. That’s a hard fact, but again, we’re negotiating with people who don’t care for them. What’s far more detrimental to society is what abstinence does to adults. First of all, going back to the classroom, where exactly do you believe adults are supposed to get their education about contraception, if not while still in school? People are being sent out into the world as adults who can legally have sex with absolutely no knowledge of how to protect themselves. That is why the very idea of abstinence-only education requires condemning all sex, regardless of age or even marital status, and perpetuates the archaic ideology that sex is purely for procreation. The only other alternative is that those promoting abstinence also promote unprotected sex between adults, which ironically increases the demand for abortions, not to mention creates a public health nightmare.

The failure of abstinence-only education in schools is shockingly obvious and stark when compared to the successes of comprehensive sex education, but even it must stand in awe of the failure of abstinence as preached by religion and other cultural dictators. Words and statistics can almost not describe the magnitude of the failure that is abstinence on this scale.

If you care to think of it this way, abstinence is literally the world’s oldest social experiment, and it is an inarguable, unquestionable, abject failure. People in power, be they monarchs, religions, or governments, have been pushing abstinence since the dawn of humanity. We’re all familiar with the role it plays in Christianity and the other primary western religions, but it goes back much further than that. Cultures like ancient Egypt, from which many of the traditions of Judaism and Christianity come anyway, also promoted abstinence for various members of society. The value of virginity, from the earliest pagan belief systems to the modern religions of today in eastern and western worlds, in and of itself is serves as a testament to the focus on abstinence that permeates history. Despite the best efforts of these various institutions to suppress human sexuality, global populations have only gone up and up and up at more and more rapid rates.

It’s been over 5,000 years. It’s time to admit it; abstinence has failed.

And everything I’ve written so far hasn’t even taken into account the effect sexual suppression has on individuals and inevitably society.

Sex is one of our most fundamental instinctual drives. It literally ranks up there with hunger, thirst, and security. Preaching abstinence, then, is like telling people not to eat when they’re hungry, no matter how hungry they get, and that the only purpose eating actually serves is to keep the body functioning. This brings me back to my first point, which was the intrinsic condescension of this argument.

Imagine if someone said that poor people shouldn’t get to eat. They should only consume the bare minimum amount of nutrients their body needs to survive in the form of cardboard and hay, even though they’re in a constant state of starvation because of such living conditions. Imagine someone who condemns others for indulging this “surplus hunger.”  Imagine if someone said that those who can’t afford food shouldn’t eat as some sort of moral principle. Imagine if this someone was a politician or lawmaker that was actually passing laws and policy based on this ideology, that indulging one’s own hunger was a luxury exclusively for those with money and that those without should just starve.

“If you can’t afford birth control, then don’t have sex.”

“If you can’t afford food, just don’t eat.”

But even putting aside the condescending, haughty nature of such an argument, just think about its insensitivity. Physical intimacy is a vital part of a healthy relationship and one of if not the fundamental experience in life. Sex is a beautiful thing to be shared between intimate partners. Be it for just one night or for a lifetime, it still holds its own beauty and powerful meaning to every single one of us. It is one of the few things that connect nearly every human. It’s one of the few desires that we all share, yet still there are people who argue others shouldn’t be allowed to experience it based on socioeconomic status. Honestly, I believe these people and such ideology should not be tolerated, let alone legislated.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying go wild with sex or that we can’t question whether or not someone should be having sex. I’m just saying that “if you can’t afford birth control or a baby, you shouldn’t have sex” is no political argument, or any reason to oppose access to birth control, abortion, or proper sexual education. As a matter of fact, my entire point attests to the necessity of sexual activities to remain in the hands of individuals, and not governments or institutions.

So please, could we all just use some damn common sense and stay the hell out of other peoples’ business when it comes to sex?

(Side note: Due to a very odd work week and writing an article for LargeInCharge magazine, this will likely be my only article this week)