Citizens' Daily Lobby

I love farmers’ markets.   I enjoy talking to the farmers and getting my hands on fresh, crisp, tasty vegetables right off the farm.  Lately, I am growing less and less enamored of  the farmers’ market consumer, particularly those who also fall into the category of Boomers.  After having had my personal space violated by numerous older women, with or without their racing bikes,  crowding my back (sometimes literally making contact) to ensure that they are next in line, I have had enough.   What is it about Boomers that makes them forget all the etiquette they forced us to learn when we were kids?  How many times have those of us in succeeding generations heard a Boomer say, “Wait your turn!” or “Don’t push”?  As a parenting strategy, teaching your kids to be deferential and polite has merit.  As a diabolical plot to create a generation that will easily be pushed aside  and crowded out in the competition for resources, it’s sheer evil genius, if poor evolutionary strategy.

Word to Boomers:  If a younger person is keeping a generally regarded as sufficient distance (personal space) between themselves and the person in front of them, that is not a signal to you to cut in line and grab the last bunch of kale.

In defense of Boomers, they have contributed greatly to some industries (and not just the “Oh-my- God, I- look- just- like- Lance- Armstrong racing bike, private-part -revealing spandex, helmet, goggles, etc. industry).   Boomers have money to spend, and they spend it at farmers’ markets.  They’re a valuable consumer class for local foods.  I just can’t understand their problem with manners.

The Lobby is (finally) catching up with technology.  Now you can catch us on Facebook and, if all goes well, comments posted on Facebook will appear here like magic.

Last Sunday, September 28, over 100 pastors around the country took to the pulpit to endorse their favorite candidates in open defiance of this nation’s tax laws.    Why they bother is beyond my comprehension.   Political activism in evangelical churches is studiously and disengenuously ignored by polite society like a magnate’s mistress.   It’s tacitly acknowledged that evangelical churches constitute, in effect, an arm of the Republican party.

Tax-exempt status of churches (and charities) is predicated on their lack of direct participation in the political process.   That makes sense.  If churches want to act as political bodies, they should be taxed like political bodies,  and they should be overseen by the government like other political bodies.  When I make a contribution to the political party of my choice, my contribution is not tax deductible.   If I give money to a church, my contribution is tax deductible.   Give preachers the right to politicitize,  and money I think is going to educate the poor or feed the hungry is likely to end up subsidizing free campaign advertising for my local Conservative candidates.   Preachers have immense psychological power over their flock that should not be abused.  They don’t call it the “bully pulpit” for nothing.  Tax deductible donations should not be used for politicking.

As an interesting aside, Erik Stanley, counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that pushes for repeal of the ban on politicking from the pulpit, has this to say on the organization’s website:   “Churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it.”   I always thought religion was made of much sterner stuff.  Be that as it may, I pay taxes, and this non-tax-exempt status gives me the right to 1) campaign for/against any candidate I choose and 2) say pretty much whatever I want provided it’s not slanderous.   If I want to be a tax-exempt non-profit, I’ll need to keep my mouth shut.  Seems fair to me.

For the IRS, the group even publishes a list of participants in last Sunday’s “Pulpit Initiative.”  Here they are.  Tax ‘em.

In honor of Constitution Day, I give you The Preamble, as set to brilliantly mnemonic music by the geniuses at Schoolhouse Rock.   Relive your childhood while you celebrate the Republic.

These days, everyone’s a bona fide Constitutional Expert, especially those Tea Party patriots.    From the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to Freedom of Assembly, right down to the most hallowed of all, In God We Trust.  (We all know those rumors that “In God We Trust” is not a part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are nothing more than the work of the Devil.  After all, we are One Nation, Under God, right?)  So, I’m sure all those white, right (leaning) and  self-reportedly bright guardians of the American Way will turn out in droves on September 17th.  They’ll be out waving their flags and grossly misspelled signs not to celebrate the living document, but to lament their own selectively abridged version.   Their America, they will say, is under siege.   “Whatever happened to the good old days?”  they will ask.  The good old days when minorities and women knew their proper place.   When the poor worked hard and didn’t complain, except to each other.  When the rich stayed rich and the rest dreamed of riches.  When you went to church on Sunday or produced a darned good reason why you didn’t.

“Turn back!”  they will cry, at their corporate-sponsored rallies and fundraisers.   The Faces of the Movement will shed tears of fear and desperation on national TV,  to be mirrored in the eyes of the loyal patriots, their television audience, We, the (Would Be) People.

A small group of Progressives talked strategy and underwent some alcohol therapy this evening at Kalil’s Pub and Grill in West Little Rock.  The group gets an A+ for leadership.   Hostess Laura Packard ensured that everyone was engaged in the lively discussion.  That’s not as easy as it sounds, and good hostesses are a rarity in this city, at least in liberal crowds.  The meetings are part of an international movement, Drinking Liberally.  Here in Little Rock, they are held the 2nd Thursday of every month, from 6-8pm at Kalil’s.  You can join the fun on Facebook or the web, but, of course, liberal drinking is best done in good company.

Kalil’s, it turns out, has more to recommend it than fellow liberals.  The beer list is long, with many excellent choices.  Waitstaff were efficient and personable and even joined the discussion a few times.   Next month, make sure you save the 2nd Thursday evening for Drinking Liberally.  You’ll be glad you did.

At long last, Citizens’ Daily Lobby is mobile-phone friendly!!

Blanche Lincoln continues to push the limits of the so-called “Big Tent” the Democratic Party has created.   This week, she voted for an amendment sponsored by Republican Jim Demint that would have permanently extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  The amemdment was tacked onto the states aid bill that passed yesterday.   Senator Lincoln was one of only two Democrats to vote for the measure, which would have cost the US $3.1 trillion dollars over 10 years.   WonkRoom has the full story.

It is interesting to note that some Republicans opposed the states aid bill on the grounds that it  “bails out” the states.  That’s right.  When it’s time to bail out banks, no problem.  When states need help, they can fend for themselves.   The fully offset, deficit neutral bill will provide additional Medicaid funding as well as $10 billion dollars to prevent the layoffs of public servants such as teachers and police officers.

In today’s United States, fear of terrorism is being institutionalized at a tremendous rate.  Both political parties are guilty of fear-mongering for political gain.  As legislation to deny US citizens civil rights simply for being suspected of terrorism is proposed, the technology for detecting suspected terrorists grows more sensitive.

Reminiscent of the psychics in Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report, slaves whose predictions of future wrongdoing held the force of law, new technology being tested for airport security is touted as being able to read the intentions of travelers passing through security.  Dubbed “Malintent” by its inventors, the instrument will read physiologic signs like heart rate, body temperature, and respiration rate.  If a person is flagged as suspicious, a second exam will involve a sensitive scan to read facial muscle movement.

Inventors claim the instrument will read 7 emotions and can distinguish between those who are simply stressed and those with actual terrorist intent. It’s beyond the scope of this blog to discuss this issue in detail, but for most diagnostic procedures increasing sensitivity goes hand in hand with decreasing the specificity of detection.  That means that as the false negative rate (number of terrorists who get through security) goes down, the false positive rate (number of innocent civilians who get harassed without reason) goes up.

Let’s roll this instrument out in a little thought experiment.  I will use myself as the average traveler.  I am extremely unlikely to fall under suspicion of terrorism for the simple facts that 1) I am a woman and 2) it is hard to imagine someone more obviously white and of Anglo-Saxon descent than I.  As an opponent of violence, and someone far more likely to participate in a sit-in than a riot, I have absolutely nothing to fear from any security check.

Even so, I start to feel like a criminal the minute I take off my shoes and put my laptop in the bin.  I can’t help it; it’s just in the air. Something about being treated like a criminal tends to make one feel like a criminal.  There are a number of small deceits in which I will engage as I go through the line.  I’m sure you experience these, too.  No matter what sort of mood I’m in, or whether or not I’m running later than intended, I make an effort to look relaxed.  I make eye contact and attempt to appear relatively friendly or at least disinterested.  I absolutely fail to demonstrate irritation, even when the screeners are rude, as they occasionally are, or the person in front of me has liquid in his carry-on.  There’s no reason to give them a reason to pull me aside.   These survival techniques get me through with minimal inconvenience.This works for visual observation.  But what if they could screen my intent?  It’s hardly benign.  My intent is to get through security, pay much too much for a snack, board the plane on time (to sit there for at least 20 minutes prior to takeoff), and avoid having to get out of the minuscule seat, into which I will inevitably be wedged between two heavy-weight wrestlers, for any reason.   I have something to worry about here.  To my poor body, evolved for open spaces and the freedom of foot travel, what I am about to do is, at least, unnatural, and at worst, criminal.   Add to that possible antisocial feelings about work or bad drivers I had to deal with on my way to the airport, and what you have is a physiologic train wreck waiting to be detected by sensitive facial scanning.  Yes, Big Brother, I have committed thought crime.

Once I am flagged as someone with malintent, things will just go straight downhill from there.  Since they won’t find any evidence of criminal intent in my carry-on, luggage, or corpus, they will probably want to get a search warrant for my house and office.  They won’t find anything there, either, but they will read this blog…  If the Constitution holds, I should be just fine.

Business headlines this week gave health reform opponents, and other proponents of trickle-down economics,  something to smile about.  “AT&T Profits Down 21% Due to Health Care Charges” or some permutation of this announcement hit newspapers and blogs, and almost all focused blame on the recently passed health care reform legislation.   “I told you so,” say the Repealers, ” Governmnent intervenes and health care costs go up.”    But that position is misleading.   What’s missing from their equation is the real reason AT&T is losing this money.  You see, AT&T was actually making money through its provision of some prescription drug benefits for retirees.   It’s a complicated story, according to fastcompany.com, and the problem dates from the administration of GW Bush.

The 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, still in effect, gives a tax deduction to companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees. In fact, these companies, including AT&T, can deduct 100%–every single penny–of the money they spend on prescription drug benefits from their taxable income. Thus, AT&T gets to keep a whole chunk of money from being taxed, which basically means they get to pocket more of it. The government even goes one step further and subsidizes (read: pays for) a whopping 28% of those prescription drug benefits in the first place, to make prescription drug benefits as affordable as possible for the companies. The companies get both a 28% discount and a nice tax break, all to encourage them to provide prescription drug coverage.

But there’s a loophole in the law big enough to drive a Chevy Suburban through. These companies get to write off the entirety of their prescription medication plan, even though they’re actually only paying for 72% of it. The new health-care bill simply closes that loophole, and says that companies can still deduct every penny they pay on prescription drug benefits from their taxes–but only the money they’ve paid, not the 28% that the government hands them. That’s where the billion dollars comes from: AT&T is no longer allowed to deduct things they didn’t pay for in the first place.

AT&T (and other companies are almost certain to follow suit) has announced that it is considering reducing benefits as a result of this policy.     The employee, not the shareholder, will once again be left holding the bag.  Perhaps if a public option had been included in the package, these retirees would have a safety net.  As this particular case demonstrates, in many ways a public option would have entailed shifting money from corporate welfare directly to the public.  Don’t let Big Business snow you on this issue.