The Wall Street Journal wrote a love letter to the rich and the people who wish they were also rich today.  For a taste of the message, see the tax stats below:

I've got a boner for the Wall-Mart family!

A few notes for the record:

1% of America earns 21% of the income and pays 39% of the taxes, thus barely getting by on what little is left for their meager estates and barely functioning private jet fleets.

the next 4% only earn a piddly 14% of the income!  and they pay 21% of the taxes!!!  At that rate there will be helicopter dealerships going out of business all across the country…

Wait a second… what does that mean about the next 5%?  Does that mean that they (gasp!) pay slightly less than their “fair share” of taxes?!!?  Dear, sweet Wall Street Journal, why do you deny us the rest of the relevant data?

Also note that 1% of Americans are over 3 million millionaires.  Yet the top 400 of those paid quite a bit less than their “fair share”… curious.  I guess that’s why the bush campaign didn’t run out of cash when the next 2,999,600 richest saw their taxes climb?

Needless to say, I am a bit skeptical of WSJ’s analysis both regarding its depth, its consideration of ramifications, and its, shall we say, thesis-driven aspect.

McCain voted against the waterboarding ban (bill to bind interrogators to Army Field Manual which prohibits waterboarding) on the grounds that waterboarding is already illegal.  But he followed that up with saying that cia and others need more leeway than the AFM allows.

Is he for waterboarding or against it?  This WaPo article makes it even more confusing.  Feel free to supplement- MoreJew and I couldn’t figure out what he really said/did last night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/opinion/16friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I know you hate Thomas Friedman, and although he employs the all-too-contrite conclusion to an Op-Ed which I vehemently hate, I think he makes a great point.  In the absence of American hegemony (and that is fast approaching…or is already here, depending on whom you ask), are we willing to succumb to the Chinese and Russian visions of the world?  Whereas the imperfect US has stood for moral principles at the international level, China and Russia obviously act without even the hint of appreciation for the consequences of their actions.  Thoughts?

Obama came out decisively against private school vouchers, thus reasserting his believe in policies that can be supported by definitive evidence rather than the bullshit make-believe every man for himself Republican platform.  Booyah.

Check out this editorial by prominent thinker, Dr. Alec Baldwin, PhD (honorary).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html

have at it boys.

this article expresses precisely what all my annoyance with Obama the last few days has been about.  Dahlia Lithwick, who can write no wrong, lays out the ways in which Obama knowingly spits at the constitution because, hey, that’s the Right thing to do.  (Wrong.)

scope that shiz.

posting this for Andy:

Reason number (I’ve lost count) why we should have impeached this fucker:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=opinion&xfile=data/opinion/2008/July/opinion_July32.xml

Does this not seem blatantly illegal to you? I get the feeling that the Bushies are much less like the fascists of 1984 qand much more like the drug king pins who actually ran NYC during the 70s… run by and and populated with members of the adjoined security contracting/ oil company web which exists solely to feed our nation’s addiction to oil.

This is a blog in which three liberals beat up on one conservative.  It’s ok, he can handle it.  We’ll argue about a lot of things, and the liberals will argue amongst themselves sometimes, and maybe even throw around a few accusations of communism, naivete, and paranoia.  Most of the action will be in the comments.  Also, no one is going to read this, but we’re ok with that.