The Neal Jeremy Show

Critical thinking is difficult. It’s easier to just ignore things that don’t gel with your preconceived ideas of how the world works. However, the problem with doing so inevitably leads to hypocrisy.

The current debate over health care reform is riddled with phony claims and deceit.

Republican heads are exploding because Democrats are using the budget reconciliation process to pass the Senate bill. However, the historical record clearly shows that Republicans have used reconciliation to pass partisan bills three times more than Democrats have.

David Brooks’ hypocrisy was on display this week when he asserted that the use of reconciliation is on the rise and Republicans have only used reconciliation to pass bipartisan bills. Brooks is either lying or he’s just ignorant. He’s not an idiot.

“Reconciliation has been used with increasing frequency,” writes Brooks. “That was bad enough. But at least for the Bush tax cuts or the prescription drug bill, there was significant bipartisan support.”

And then came Washington Post’s Ezra Klein.

“None of Brooks’s evidence is true. Literally none of it. The budget reconciliation process was used six times between 1980 and 1989. It was used four times between 1990 and 1999. It was used five times between 2000 and 2009. And it has been used zero times since 2010. Peak reconciliation use, in other words, was in the ’80s, not the Aughts. The data aren’t hard to find. They were published on Brooks’s own op-ed page.

Nor has reconciliation been limited to bills with ’significant bipartisan support.’ To use Brooks’s example of the tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts passed the Senate 50-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. Two Democrats joined with the Republicans in that effort. Georgia’s Zell Miller, who would endorse George W. Bush in 2004 and effectively leave the Democratic Party, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. So I’d say that’s one Democrat. One Democrat alongside 49 Republicans. That’s not significant bipartisan support.”

So even Brooks, someone who isn’t the dumbest conservative on the block, can’t escape the hypocrisy inherent in defending the GOP platform of obstructionism.

President Richard Nixon warned about the so-called silent majority. It was part of Nixon’s “southern strategy.” The silent majority was made of up white Americans, Sarah Palin would call them “real Americans,” that didn’t cotton to fancy newspapers, books, higher education or black people.

Well today, Nixon would be proud to see his once silent majority is screaming their heads off. They’re shouting on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and they even have their own cable news network.

But the once silent majority is now a minority. Forty years ago, uneducated, racist, misogynistic, lovers of hate and true believers probably were a majority of Americans – at least in the south – but not anymore.

Demographics have changed considerably since Nixon was running the show. Now more people live in cities and urban areas than they did in the 1960s and ’70s. Doing so, means more people are confronted with living with “those people.” And when they do, many of them realize that “those people” are a lot more like themselves then they had believed. Cities force people to get along.

And while there will always be ignorant racists in the US, racism has been thoroughly marginalized. Hatred of “other” was a key component to the success of Nixon’s southern strategy. If that hatred existed today Obama could not have become president. If Obama had run against Nixon in 1972 rather than McGovern, he would have lost every state in the union.

Obama’s election in 2008 is compelling anecdotal evidence that today most Americans don’t have the energy, desire or time to spend hating other people because of the color of their skin.

And so what we’re witnessing on Twitter and Facebook, blogs and Fox News the once silent majority screaming their heads off because they have lost the war. Progressivism won. Despite the calls by Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck to go back to the good old days when blacks had separate bathrooms and schools, women weren’t allowed to work and white men ran everything – it’s not going to happen.

The United States, along with the rest of the world, is moving forward. We will stutter-step backwards on occasion, but if we take a long view of the path forward, despite the screeching and flailing from the losers, we’re on a path of progress.

Sarah Palin is fuming mad. The Fox cartoon show “Family Guy” made a crack at her and she’s told her daughter Bristol to take it public and make it personal.

According to Palin’s Facebook page, watching Sunday’s “Family Guy” episode “felt like another kick in the gut.”

Who knew she was a fan?

Evidently, her daughter Bristol “was one who asked what I thought of the show that mocked her baby brother.”

Let’s pretend that this isn’t a horribly worded sentence, and move on to the issue of “Family Guy” and the alleged mockery.

What’s got Palin in such a hissy is a scene in which Chris, the cartoon character teenage boy played by Seth Green, is on a date with a girl, Ellen, who has Down syndrome.

What happens is that Chris asks Ellen what her parents do for a living and she says that her mother is the former governor of Alaska.

How is this mocking a two-year-old baby with Down syndrome? Only the Palin’s can answer that, but clearly the former governor of Alaska thinks the joke was a cheap shot directed at her son Trig.

However, Sarah Palin was just too irate to even issue her own response, so she had her daughter Bristol take this one.

On Sarah’s Facebook page, Bristol said that it’s OK to poke fun of her because she can take it – she’s developed a “thick skin.” But when insults are hurled at her young brother Trig, who was born in 2008, that’s just too much for her to take lying down.

Bristol said that people with “special needs” should be treated, well, special.

“Their lives are difficult enough as it is,” she said, “so why would anyone want to make their lives more difficult by mocking them?”

But did the “Family Guy” writers actually mock the baby Trig? The character, Ellen, is a teenage girl – not a two-year-old baby. Yes, she appears to have Down syndrome, but so what? The jokes seem to be more about two awkward teenagers on a date, and one half of one sentence refers to Sarah Palin.

Is it really mocking someone to have a character in a cartoon comedy that is somewhat similar to them?

Is the character of Cleveland mocking black people?

Well, maybe it is, but isn’t that the point of true equality?

Isn’t it a good thing that we can have a guy in a wheel chair, someone with Down syndrome, a black couple, a pervert, rich people, a goofy mayor and a complete moron all on a show making fun of our entire culture, including Sarah Palin?

Or perhaps it would be better to just pretend “those” people don’t exist? Maybe it’s easier for us as a society to ignore our fellow citizens with Down syndrome? It’s just wrong to talk about them – they’re different.

I think more people with Down syndrome should be on television and in movies – comedic roles, dramatic roles or whatever. They’re here too, and they’re just as much a part of our culture as a black man, a nitwit, a cop in a wheel chair and Quagmire.

Well, you be the judge. Here’s the complete transcript of the scene that’s got the Palin’s all riled up and a video clip below.

Chris: “Well I’m glad we’re finally going out Ellen. I’ve really liked you for a long time.”

Ellen: “Hey, what the hell do you think you’re doing?”

Chris: “Sitting down.”

Ellen: “Get up and pull my chair out for me.”

Chris: “Oh. Goodness. I’m sorry. I’m so sorry.”

Ellen: “That’s better. Are you going to be this rude all evening? You haven’t asked anything about myself.”

Chris: “Oh um. Sorry um. Uh. So what do you parents do?”

Ellen: “That’s better. My dad’s an accountant and my mom’s the former governor of Alaska.”

Chris: “That’s cool.”

Ellen: “It’s real cool.”

My roommate Carl is a conservative. It’s not as bad as it sounds, he’s actually a great guy and has been there for me when I needed him and vice versa.

Carl watches the Glenn Beck show on Fox News almost every day. Well, last night, evidently Beck explained the craziness of taxing the rich.

“It makes total sense,” Carl said. “If you tax the rich, they’re going to hide their money in offshore bank accounts or whatever, and if they do pay more taxes they then won’t be able to invest and expand their businesses and create jobs.”

“Yeah but we’ve been slashing taxes since the 1980s when Reagan decided the rich were paying too much and now we’re in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression,” I responded.

According to Carl, Beck’s theory is that low taxes and the limited government spending lead to the ‘roaring twenties.’ Evidently, that was a time when everyone was economically doing really well, according to Beck and Carl.

“But what about the Great Depression?”

“That had nothing to do with cutting taxes and reducing government spending,” Carl assured me.

“Well, what caused the depression then?”

Carl didn’t know, but he’s sure that it had nothing to do with cutting taxes.

I’m no expert on the Great Depression, but if I remember my history, it was caused by runaway greed among the wealthy. And I certainly remember the last few years and what caused the Great Recession – it was once again runaway greed.

What happened during the 1920s was the the rich got really rich, and the average white worker did OK. The clearest indicator of this was the alarming economic inequality.

In 1927, the wealthiest Americans controlled nearly 50 percent of all income (see chart below). So while the average worker’s wages did go up during the decade leading to the Depression, compared to the Henry Fords of the day, it was pennies. As a result, the economic system collapsed.

In 2007, the same thing happened. Once again, the wealthy controlled about 50 percent of all income, greed ran wild and the system collapsed.

During the 1940s, when the liberal agenda was in full-swing, the problem of income equality was largely solved. The wealthiest Americans controlled about 33 or 34 percent of total income because a progressive taxation system was put into place and the wealth was more evenly distributed across all of society’s classes. This of course lead to the decade many conservatives idolize – the 1950s. (See chart below)

What was great about the 1950s, at least from a liberal perspective, was that there were strong labor unions, good paying jobs, a fair tax system and a powerful and well-off middle class. What sucked about the 1950s was that women were still locked out of the job market and many blacks lived in the Jim Crow south, but that’s a story for another day.

And so for about 3 decades income inequality was effectively kept in check by the progressive tax system. It’s called progressive, not because people with progressive political ideologies support it, but because as income progresses upward, people pay more taxes. It’s the more you make the more they take system.

But then the 1980s rolled around and Ronald Reagan convinced enough people that the government is the enemy and taxes on the rich are too high. And for the next 20 plus years, various congresses and presidents have chiseled away at the tax burden on the wealthy.

This has lead to the rich paying less in taxes, income inequality reared its ugly head again and in 2007 the bottom fell out.

There are two main reasons for taxing people. One reason is to discourage a certain behavior, such as, smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Another reason is to redistribute the wealth. Conservatives hate that because they represent the wealthiest of the wealthy – even if, like Carl, they aren’t wealthy. But without an effective progressive tax system, the middle and lower classes suffer economically – these people are the real backbone of the American economy.

As a result, the wealth in the nation rises to the richest and leaves the middle classes pinching pennies and unemployed. The whole notion of trickle-down economics is a load of horse-hockey. The wealthy just hoard their money. The real job creation comes from small businesses run by people who aren’t considered wealthy.

Our current regressive tax system is unfair, and unless we restore taxes to what they were in the 1950s, we’ll be left with a boom and bust economy and a deteriorating middle class.

Of course, Carl thinks that’s just pinko commie talk and many Americans agree with him. However, history shows that I am correct.

Here’s a report detailing the economic inequality from the 1920s to 2007 .

I’m new to Twitter. I have only 10 followers. In the few hours I’ve been tweeting, I’m in utter shock at the things people say to one another. Is this the future of political organizing and discourse – name-calling, racism and ignorance?

I’d never heard of the terms libtard or libiot before entering the Twitterverse. Is this really how Americans think of people they don’t agree with?

@baseheadtim tweets about the Super Bowl ads. “Libtard Sallys crying about misogyny in the Super Bowl ads, your tampons are just as bloody as the Jesus freak Tebow lovers, fuck off!”

Huh? I don’t know what this “person” is talking about, but it’s vile and disgusting.

And here’s someone that’s confused about the science of global warming. Apparently this twit isn’t aware that it’s winter so it’s supposed to snow, which is odd considering their username is alaskablog.

@alaskablog tweets, “Just saw footage of a huge plow truck stuck in a ditch in Maryland. So much for global warming. #libtard”

Here’s another twit confusing pro-choice with genocide. Abortion is a choice. Genocide is not.

@WayneSense: “interesting how the libtard agenda fully endorses the genocide of the black community via Sanger’s vision of Planned Parenthood”

So far my experience with Twitter is that it’s an awful and disgusting place where people filled with hate come to spew their vitriol.

I don’t think social media is creating this hatred, but it is certainly highlighting the lack of intellect and the gaping divide separating liberals from conservatives. Maybe it’s good that we can all communicate so easily, but I fear it will only push us further apart.

If you want to follow me, I’m @nealjeremy, but I can’t say how long I’ll stay on Twitter.

Enough with politics for today. I’m going to veg in front of the television and watch the Super Bowl.

I haven’t watched football in years, so I have no idea who will or should win this game. It’s a good reason to suck down a couple of beers with Carl and Lilly.

Cheers.

Wow, I just watched the Sarah Palin interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News. Among other things, she said that she stands behind the her 2008 assertions that Obama “pals around with terrorists.”

I need to stop learning more about Palin – it’s depressing.

Sarah Palin will not take back her Obama ‘Pals around with terrorists’ comment.

I just watched Sarah Palin’s speech. Oh my god.

She scares me. The people that cheer for her scare me more.

I don’t know who wrote that speech, but it was awful. It reminded me of something a high school student would put together for their first speech in speech class. Her voice was all over the place. There was no building to a crescendo. It was simply a series of catch phrases about how wonderful America is and how horrible President Obama is.

What concerns me so much about politics today is that so many people seem to be completely ignorant. These so-called tea party folks appeared to eat up Palin’s every word. They don’t seem to be at all suspicious that she’s telling them everything they want to hear. When a politician says nothing that I disagree with, I assume they’re lying to me, but maybe I’m just cynical.

I don’t know why McCain picked her as his running mate in 2008. The thought of Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency scared the hell out of me.

Now it appears that she will be running for president in 2012. My guess is that she’ll run as a third-party candidate and not the GOP. I wonder if the party will be called the Tea Party.
Form your own opinion and watch the speech yourself.

My name is Neal Jeremy. This is my blog.

I setup this blog to talk about my life, politics, friends and family.

I live in New England. Professionally I’m a fact-checker for various newspapers and several clients. When I’m not researching stuff for my clients, I write. I like to write short stories and I’m working a book.

My roommate is Carl. We’ve been friends since college. He’s a conservative and I’m a liberal (a libtard to the uninitiated). Some people ask me why I’m friends with Carl – considering our seemingly contrasting political views. However, unlike many people, I don’t have a problem with conservatives, and I’m certainly not going to stop being friends with Carl just because he thinks Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin represent the future of American politics. There’s more to life than politics.

My other two close friends are Lilly and Boomer. Lilly and I also met during college. We dated for a couple of years, but now we’re good friends. I’ve known Boomer since we were kids growing up in St. Paul, Minnesota.

If you’re interested, please check back often. I’ll try and update my blog at least twice a week. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

Neal