Say it ain't so DiFi

So California Senator Dianne Feinstein, aged 82, is looking like she is going to stand for re-election in 2018. Of course a lot can change between now and then. Political climate change, at 82, her health may change, but my feeling on this has nothing to do with those sorts of thing. It really comes down to this. California needs two true progressive senators. Senator Feinstein is not now and never has been a progressive. While it is true that she has sided with the progressives on some issues, but only when that was the party line. I can't recall any time she has stuck her neck out to stand up for individual rights (Patriot Act) or protecting the New Deal (Glass–Steagall). She is and always has been at best a Corporate Democrat with a dash of chicken hawk and at worst a Democrat in Name Only. She has stood by the party in most cases but she has not led the party. As most in government do, she has done a decent job of representing her campaign contributors. But she has done less decent job of representing the working people of California. I am not saying that she has been a terrible Senator, she has not been. Only that she has been less than we need, especially now. Please madam Senator, step aside and allow someone show will advance the interest of the people against the encroaching corporate monolith. The battle between democracy and feudalism is rapidly approaching. You are not up to the task, and I am not entirely sure which side you would be on. Tweet

Well, that backfired

I received a flyer in the mail the other day from Uber, asking me to call my representative to complain about AB2293.  Well I went to the state's website and read the text of the bill.  I suggest you follow the link and read it for yourself, it is not very long.  But this is what I got from it. 

It you summon a ride on your Uber app, the car arrives and you get in, you will know that the driver is insured the way any other person offering transportation for hire is insured.  And if Uber has not done their job, and the driver done not in fact have appropriate insurance, then Uber's insurance will cover you.  Sounds pretty pro-consumer to me.

The business model of companies like Uber, and Postmates, whom I have written about earlier, is to classify the people who actually earn the money for them as independent contractors, putting all the risk on them.

I work as an independent contractor myself, and I choose to do that.  But what I charge is a negotiated fee, it is not set by fiat of my client.  I am required by my client to carry certain types of insurance, and have to produce certificates of insurance to demonstrate that I have them.  And my client never tells me “Say this, not that” because they are pretending to be a different business that they are.

So I called my representative and I said, “If Uber is trashing you, then you must be doing something right.”

I like to go to Reno for a weekend every now and then.  I have considered putting an add on Craigslist to see if I anyone around me would like to share gas in exchange for a ride.  That is ride sharing.  What Uber (and Lyft) are doing is running a taxi company.  They have been calling it something else to avoid the responsibility (and corresponding expense) that comes with running a taxi company.

No, they don't have meters.  But I have ridden in taxis that had no meters too.  Years ago, I had occasion to take a cab in Washington DC, and they looked up their rates on a printed sheet.  There was no meter, just a flat rate that you knew as soon as you got into the car.  Sound familiar?

The only difference I can see between them and a taxi, is that they cannot be flagged down on the street.  They are tied to the app for their income. 

The thing that ticks me off about this business model is the sense of entitlement, that they are just too fucking precious to have to assume the responsibility for anyone or anything other than themselves, or to follow laws that everyone else has to follow.
Tweet

Primary the bastards

Social Security uses the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) to determine the cost of living increases.  While this is applicable to the population at large, it understates the fact that the older you are, the more you consume medical services.  As the fastest growing portion of that cost of living, this tends to understate the actual increase that retirees face in their cost of living.

This of course leads to the common problem among those social security recipients with the least supplemental income.  That is the question, do I buy food, medicine, or heat this month?  Which of these can I do without?

Now comes a proposal to use a different index for social security index,  the 'chained-cpi'.  This tends to understate the actual increase in costs even more.  It does not kill social security, it just makes it slowly wither away until it becomes so insignificant that nobody will object when it finally dies.

But the big lie is that this has anything at all to do with deficit reduction.  Social Security has not caused one penny of our current deficit.  And at the current rate of growth, it will be 20 years before it does become an issue.  And that 20 years could become 'the foreseeable future' if they would only eliminate the cap on wages subject to Social Security.

Now you would expect that the right would lie to you about why social security should be squeezed out of existence.  But when the same people who swore to defend it start talking this way, then there is only one alternative.  Primary them.

Every representative who calls themselves a Democrat that votes in favor of this lie should face a primary challenge from the left when they next come up for election.  And every Democratic voter should let their representative know that is the price they will pay for betrayal.

Every one of them campaigned on "Social Security is off the table".  Now the president has crumpled like a cheap suit, and many in the party are starting to waffle on their commitment.  Either they were lying to us all along, or they really are that stupid.  But if only I could get Obama into a poker game then I'd be set, and wouldn't need the Social Security.

Politicians of all stripes rely on your short memory.  Don't let this one slip by.  If they will screw you this way, there are no limits to what they will do to you.

Tweet

Being a Republican requires that you have a bad memory

As I have watched the rise of Newt from the ashes, I am reminded of the words of our favorite whipping boy.  You know the one, the fat guy.  Back when Bill Clinton was running for president, his mantra was 'character counts'.  That was of course before he had so publicly displayed his own lack of character.

So on one hand you have Mitt Romney, who finds nothing wrong with putting thousands of people out of work so a small group of people can make a quick buck.  We are not talking about taking a dying company and salvaging what's left.  We are talking about taking a profitable company, one that perhaps treats it workers too well, not squeezing every last drop of blood they can out of them   Or perhaps they are good citizens of their community, and don't take illegal shortcuts on disposing of toxic material.  You get the idea, there is a little more to be profit squeezed out of them so the Romney's of this world move in to dismantle it.  It is the quick buck verses the long view.

And on the other hand you have Newt Gingrich, a man who resigned in disgrace from his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives.  A serial adulterer and deadbeat dad who is so convinced of his own infallibility that he is still beating the faith and family values drum.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

What Ron Paul would bring to the debate

For the most part I cannot stomach watching the Republican debates.  There have been way too many of them and they have been long on bullshit and short on substance.  That is because, for the most part the candidates themselves are long on bullshit and short on substance.  The exception has been Ron Paul.

Let me say that much that he has to say is completely wrong.  If his economic policies were every implemented, our slide into feudalism would be completed.  It would be like Europe during the dark ages.  But on the libertarian side, he does get some things right.

But this is my thought.  Both Paul and Obama are intelligent men.  And I suspect a debate between these two would expose once and for all the issues that the American people really need to think about.  It is about what kind of country that we intend to be.

What should the role of government be?  What should the role of business be?  And just as important, what has worked, for the benefit of us all, and what has proved to be a failure?  All this matters, all this needs to be discussed, and I think that, during a debate between these two, that would happen.

How would Obama respond to Paul's observations on the failure of the War on Drugs, of his contention that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and contrary to all our ideals as Americans?  How would Paul respond the  historical evidence that the middle class has prospered and grown the most during the periods that our tax code was most progressive, and that regulating business conduct had kept us out of this kind of economic malaise since the Great Depression?  These are just a few of the issues where it is important that both sides be heard so that informed choices can be made.

Perhaps I am being naive, but I believe that Paul being the Republican nominee would raise the level of discourse, and allow the real issues facing us to be discussed and debated.  Any one of the other Republican candidates would be running on slogans and personality and character assassination.  Either way, Obama gets re-elected, but a real debate about real issues would do much to elevate the American consciousness on the decisions that lay before us.

There is a war of ideas going in in this country, but the right is doing it's best to conceal what those ideas really are from the public at large.  I think this would get those ideas out in the open.

What Protect IP is really about

The new media has many people scared.  It has the oligarchy scared.  Anyone with a cell phone can record a video of police brutality, of a demonstration of thousands of people, of any event that they would prefer to marginalize, to deny.  But what really makes that an issue is that the video may end up on a blog or on Utube and be viewed by millions of people.

It is really very simple.  If the oligarchy can control what you see and hear, then they can shape what you see as true.  If there are other sources of information that will show you what is really happening, then they lose that control.  Hence, the Protect IP act.

The pretext of this is protecting intellectual property.  That is a worthy goal.  If you put your sweat and effort into producing something, then you expect to be able to reap the rewards.  So if you produce a film, or music, or a novel, then you have a right to expect that someone else will not copy it and sell it, or even give it away.  That is what copyrights are all about.

Now lets look for a moment at the new media,. and how it works.  Think of any of the major alternative news sources, like the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos, or even the quasi mainstream source like yahoo news.  All of them accept commentary, they allow readers to voice their opinions relative to what they have read.  What happens if a commenter posts something quoting a copyrighted source?

Well, under Protect IP, not only is the blog author responsible, so is the web host.  This blog here is hosted by Google, so if you post a comment that someone feels is infringing on a copyright then Google becomes responsible for shutting this site down.  Google becomes the police and the mere complaint by someone requires that this site be shut down.  Now the burden of proof is on me to prove I should be allowed to continue.

Note, I didn't say the the offending content has to be removed, I said Google has to shut me down.  And someone complaining about copyright infringement does not have to prove it to Google, there is no reasonable doubt standard or preponderance of evidence standard that would be necessary in a court of law.  That burden falls on me to justify why my site should be reopened.

Protect IP is about suppressing the truth and nothing else.  That is why it must be defeated.  But, should it become law, then the progressives of this country should invoke another law, the law of unintended consequences.

Any web site which is engaged in soliciting funds for right wing causes, and right wing candidates, should be challenged.  Claims of copyright infringement should flood the service providers, placing them into a constant battle to defend their web sites.  Add to that list the sites of anyone who voted for the law. 

The same rules?

Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

We on the left, would like to limit the influence of corporations and their money, on electoral politics.  Defining a corporation as a person, with all the rights under the constitution afforded a person just seems absurd.  So the struggle goes on to try and rein them in.

Those on the right, would like to limit the influence of unions and their money on electoral politics.  They would be aghast if a union were treated as a person.

How are these two entities different?  Both are composed of people who are the ownership/membership.  Both have a hierarchy that is elected by the ownership/membership to make the day to day decision of operation as well as decisions about political contributions and lobbying.

So why are unions held to a higher standard?
There is never any talk about limiting political activity of a corporation based upon the preferences of an individual shareholder.  And yet the right would say that a union member should be able to object to political contributions made from his or her dues.
When shareholders vote on electing members of the board, or any other business presented to the shareholders for a vote, shares not voting are never characterized as 'no' votes.
Having union dues withheld from your paycheck is no different from having your 401K investment withheld from your paycheck.  Neither is to the benefit of the employer, they are for the benefit of the employee, and yet one is attacked while the other is not.

So here is my suggestion.  In all legislation where there is an attempt to muzzle the unions, the progressives should be fighting tooth and nail to insert 'and corporations' into the text.  Will they fail?  Sure they will.  But at least they will be highlighting the hypocrisy of the right.

Whether or not you can win is not what defines if a fight is worthwhile.  The right relies upon the public not understanding what they are really about.  So every opportunity must be taken to show them for their true colors.

A small jab at hypocrisy

I am sure it came as no surprise when it was revealed that Teahaddist darling and stimulus critic Michele Bachmann sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack thanking him for the use of stimulus money to help support the Minnesota pork industry, and encouraging him to spend more.  After all, who doesn't expect hypocrisy from a politician?

Now it is my understanding, that in many cases, exactly where money will be spent is not in the legislation itself, there is considerable flexibility by the federal agencies that are disbursing the money.  So how about this?

If you as a congressman voted against it, then none of the money goes to your district.  If both of the state's senators voted against it, skip that state.   You want to take credit for bringing home the bacon, then actually help bring it home.  Time to play a little hardball.