Love and Confusion
How much do you love what Colin Powell said on Meet the Press? Not even the bit about endorsing Obama but this bit:
Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I cried. Did you cry? I did. Because he’s Colin frickin’ Powell and he’s finally saying what I wish all of the other powerful people would say. Even if he came out to endorse McCain, I would have still felt the same surge of extra respect. Endorsing Obama is just the icing on the Colin Powell cake.
As for the Sarah Palin on SNL, I’m confused by my feelings. First of all, she wasn’t funny. Second, she just kind of seemed like a punching bag, which I love, but that also makes things murky for me because here’s this woman who isn’t smart enough to realize that just because she’s on Saturday Night Live doesn’t mean she’s in on the joke. She was still the butt of the joke and the fact that she wasn’t smart enough to realize that and not put herself in that situation speaks to her desperate ignorance even more than any terrible Katie Couric interview. It’s one thing for Tina Fey to do her hilarious imitation of her when Palin isn’t there, but I couldn’t believe that Palin felt good about standing there while Alec Baldwin went on a tirade about her, calling her “that horrible woman” and her only comeback was to tell him that Stephen is her favorite Baldwin brother.
I was afraid that they would write some really funny stuff for her and then she would seem human and hilarious, but that’s not what happened. Remember when Hillary Clinton was on SNL? It was good and funny and smart. And, of course, the writers wrote better for Clinton, but I think that Palin should’ve been savvy enough to realize that the writers would not do that for her. At every turn, I thought it looked like they were all laughing at her, not with her. And it made me feel weird, like, as a woman, which was confusing because I really, really abhor her as a VP candidate, so I would think I would have just laughed at her, but I didn’t. I don’t even know if there’s a word for how I felt. I thought I would be happy that she didn’t have any good lines, but it just made me go, “Holy cow, you really are that dumb.” And it made me sad-ish. And scared. What if we have a VP who is that dumb? That would be bad.
So I walked around with a furrowed brow all weekend wondering why I have any feeling other than, “Haha! You’re dumb,” and wondering why I would even hope that she would be show us a glimmer of intellect. I guess I’m just going to chalk it up to the fact that she’s a woman and when a woman with that much power looks bad, I worry that we all look bad. Way to go, Palin. You are a ridiculous embarrassment and now I’ll never be chosen as anybody’s VP candidate. You’re ruining it for everybody.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:09 am
You are clearly reading my mind. I wonder if the writers didn’t write for her (since they hate her) or if she wouldn’t do the stuff she suggested. Like did she really refuse to do the rap? Or was that Amy’s thing the whole time?
October 20th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Oh! Also! Do you think the McCain campaign made her do it? She didn’t look happy to be there.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I feel you. I loved Amy’s rap, but it completely bashed her. I just felt like she didn’t understand the difference between having people laugh WITH her and having people laugh AT her. But I can’t say that I felt sorry for her.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Yeah.. if you are going on SNL then you should insist on some good lines or something. Just being there doesn’t make it better.
Why did you feel weird?? Well, Abby, I think you are a decent, kind person (maybe you have me fooled). While it is fine that they (the writers) don’t like her, seeing someone being openly treated like shit makes decent kind people uncomfortable. Plus, I think you are right. It appeared she had no clue; and you hate that because she has been put up as a, or at least as one, role model for women. She is just the 2nd woman on a major party presidential ticket, as far as I know, and that means something. So, when ‘one of yours’ seems to reflect negatively (wow, that woman doesn’t have a clue) you hate it cuz you may be caught up in a generalization.
Let me relate: I’m a big guy…larger than normally heavy. When I see very fat people (men usually) in sweatpants plus a too-small t- or sweat shirt (you know the one, where the bottom of the belly shows cuz the shirt just can’t cover everything) I want to scream BUY SOMETHING THAT FITS!!! I mean, I understand the challenge of clothes shopping at this size but THERE ARE CLOTHES THAT FIT. When people see ‘that guy’, the the usual ‘lazy, fat slob’ generalization is confirmed. And I get angry; angry at the guy for not having more self-worth; angry at me for identifying with him and angry at the ‘normal’ sized world for the way the heavy are treated.
Its not the same; changing size is much easier than changing gender. And changing race really isn’t possible. But still… I can understand.
Oh… what happens in Memphis Stays in Memphis
October 21st, 2008 at 3:20 am
I think she is the kind of person who is so convinced of her “rightness” that she never realizes that people are making fun of her.
You know people like that, don’t you? (I do.)
So I don’t feel sorry for her at all. And she has set back women 40 years.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:46 am
Set women back 40 years?? 1968? Should I look for a rash of bra burnings??
Seriously, I don’t see it. She is a governor and now a Vice-Presidential candidate. That is not setting back. Now, if you are talking of some of the apparent oblivion to what’s gong on around her… I guess the argument could be… look, women don’t belong; she is the VP and she doesn’t even know some basic positions of the current adminstration. She can’t even tell when she is being mocked and ridiculed. She sounds like an idiot.
Well, 1–the idiot part is only if you don’t agree with her positions. For those who agree with her, she sounds fine. That is more ideological (sp?). As for the ‘look, women are ‘too clueless’..’. Some people will think that, but those are the people who already think it. She will be used as an example for people with those beliefs already. I don’t think her candidacy will change anyone’s mind about women in power. So, I would guess she hasn’t done a lot to advance women but I don’t think she has the pull to reverse the past 40 years.
But, perhaps I was taking you too literally. I am just a man…
October 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Well, “just a man,”
I don’t agree with her, but my read is that lately even the ones who agree with her are disappointed in her performance. What candidate has to be shielded from all media for fear of what she might say? If this V.P. candidate was a man, the ridicule would be even more savage.
As for being treated badly on SNL, the word is that she herself is the one who wanted to do the show, and unless she is a complete idiot, she should know that she would not be in friendly territory.
So, yes, I think she is close to being a complete idiot. With all the women available to John McCain as possible V.P. choices, I wish he would have chosen one less embarrassing. Or not, actually, since she is helping to run his campaign into the ground, and I look forward to a landslide for Obama, since only a landslide will guarantee that the Republicans can’t steal another election.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
But the trouble with Obama (and Hilary and too many Dems) is that they seem to ‘know what’s best’ for us. The feeling I get (and many I know get) is that they would rather we pay more and more to the feds and then the feds will dole out what we need… health care, education, child care, housing, etc etc…
Now, do I think that many of these things are ideal as they are now. Shit needs to be squared away, as they say. I have no confidence that government control is what is needed. I think government health care and I see Vet Admin, Medicare and Medicaid… Housing/Financial… Freddie and Fannie… etc.
So, when someone wants more and more control of me and mine, I don’t like it. AND… my party that is supposed to be for less control has really screwed the pooch in the last few years…
That said… a Dem pres with a Dem congress and a blank checkbook… spend it and print it as fast as possible… I just don’t know
Finally, back on point, Palin was great for a couple days… hey a woman, a MILF even (sorry, but man, remember?)… but next time… find a MILF with some charisma…. some ability to handle the crucible of national politics… (NOT: MILF-ness not required… just a common sense and intelligence to do the job)
October 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Judging by history, the Democrats really do know what’s best for us. The economy has always done better under Democrat “rule,” for example, and it was Kennedy who lowered Eisenhower’s top income tax rate from 90% to 70%.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html
October 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Speaking of stolen elections… JFK…anyway,
should taxes be 70%? I heard that all taxes are ‘income redistribution’ and that we are distributing for roads, bridges, defense, etc etc. That’s fine. But, when Obama says he is taxing the 5% to give a break to 95%, well, not all of that 95% actually pays taxes. the lower 1/2 of AGI in 2005 paid a total of 3.07% of all taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
Other data has shown (in 1999 at least) that the bottom 20% paid -2% of taxes.. yes, they actually received larger refunds than their tax burden. The link for the 2005 also shows the break points for the data. the 50% split is around 30,000 annual. To be at the magical 250,000 dollar level you are in the top 2% to 3% range.
So, should I pay more taxes so that a check can be sent to someone else? Not to provide better roads or schools or what have you but to simply put more cash in someone else’s pocket? Should the government decide how much the fruits of my efforts I get to keep? Or, how to share my piece of the American Pie?
October 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pm
@Tony Yes, if you make loads of money, you should pay more taxes to put more cash in my pocket in order to support capitalism. So I can buy things like food and a house to keep our economy going. And don’t give me the “I worked harder so why should I be punished by paying more” line because we all know that it’s not all hard work; it’s circumstance, birth right, skin color, gender, not needing student loans, and a whole host of other things that contribute to making more money. I will say it again: Bryan and I are better educated than we were 8 years ago and we make less money. Something is wrong.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 am
>>>So, should I pay more taxes so that a check can be sent to someone else? Not to provide better roads or schools or what have you but to simply put more cash in someone else’s pocket? Should the government decide how much the fruits of my efforts I get to keep? Or, how to share my piece of the American Pie?<<<<
Yes, indeed you should. Or, *I* should and will do so gladly. I don’t appreciate paying for stupid-ass wars based on lies to the American public, but I don’t mind helping a child get a decent education. I’m in that top tax bracket, so I’m not arguing self-interest here. I won’t be getting a tax break, but I don’t mind if you do. And by the way. Tax rates have always been progressive, so it’s just a matter of degree, and whether we would rather give more tax breaks to the richest (and the oil companies) or make it a little easier on the middle class. There has not been a time in American history when there has been such a gap between the haves and the have-nots. Open your heart.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 am
If hard work was the basis for bestowing wealth, my father would have been a zillionaire. (He was not.)
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
@ Kathi and Abbs
I don’t disagree. If you have more, you pay more. I may get a tax break for the first couple of years, but once I have completed my dissertation, I should be up there in the top 5% as well. And I believe I should pay more to help folks who aren’t as economically well off. But how much? In 2005, the median AGI was 30,081. Should all of the money of the country go into a pot and be divided up? Or, if you take the total AGI and divide it by the total number of returns, you get around $56,000. Should everyone with income or AGI above these amounts give it up to be distributed to those below? Median income of 30,081 means as many people made less than that as made more…
The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation’s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns. (Note, this is 2005 data and is dollars, not as percentage of income)
The IRS data includes all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 90.6 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 42 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here.
Note that 1/3 of returns were from folks with NO tax liability… they may even have had a larger refund than their withholdings. Now, some of these (probably more than we want to know) are people with certain investments, shelters, etc and are well-off but avoid income tax by planning. But, many of these 42 million filers are in the 95% that will get Obama’s tax cut. But, how do you cut lower than 0? Here, my problem is that the term ‘tax cut’ is political bullcrap. It is a ‘refundable credit’ meaning you get the whole credit even beyond your tax liability. And I am ok with that, the that’s what the country wants. Just call it what it is… that’s all.
The link in post 10 connects to the source for this data. Understand that AGIs and IRS data is not always indicative of true wealth.. but it is a decent measure.
And finally about taxes and such, please know that too much increase on the ‘rich’ will be bourne by those its meant to help anyway. Think tobacco settlement; they finally ‘got’ those evil companies… and the companies simply raised prices to cover the costs. And, the probability of smoking seems to be inversely related to education and socio-economic status. If the taxes take to big of a bite from those controlling production and pricing, then expect to see higher prices to help compensate.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I don’t think we need to decide here how our taxes will be spent, especially since nobody is asking me.
What I do know is that I trust Obama to spend my taxes well and I most definitely do NOT trust McCain, whose answer to nearly every international problem is war, and who admits he doesn’t know much about economics. Given his ignorance, he might have been better served to choose a V.P. who would fill in his knowledge gaps instead of being a MILF-y attack dog.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
P.S. And don’t forget to call Socialist McCain’s “health care plan” what it is as well, then. A refundable tax credit.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
If you trust Obama to spend your taxes, then that is an absolutely stellar reason to vote for him. You are voting for the person you think will do the best job for the USA and that’s what its about.
MILF-y attack dog??
I like it. I may have to use that. Re: Palin. I liked her…for about the first day she was a VP candidate. But, too many … ugh. I dunno. I mean, is she really as clueless as she seems? Either she really doesn’t know… or she doesn’t realize she has looked foolish. Either way… yikes.