Because that’s where the money is

I realize that in a world where ideology trumps practicality at the ballot box every time this makes for a politically ineffective argument, but my belief in increasing taxes on the rich isn’t based on a concept of fairness or communalism, it’s because that’s the where the money is:

[T]he top 1 percent includes about 1.13 million households earning an average income of $2.1 million.

Raising their total tax burden to, say, 40 percent would generate about $157 billion in revenue the first year. Increasing it to 45 percent brings in a whopping $276 billion. Even taking account of state and local taxes, the average household in this group would still take home at least $1 million a year.



Epitaph for an era

McMegan provides it:

People are far too prone to confuse outcomes with good decision-making.

The context is Fiorina’s tenure at HP. You see, it doesn’t matter that Fiorina blew up HP, because she was a serious person with good decision-making skills, outcome be damned!

Likewise, it doesn’t matter that the Iraq War was a disaster, its supporters were serious people with good decision making-skills, while its opponents were unserious hippies who needed to learn from a 2×4 how very effective violence can be when it’s applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.

When historians look back on this era, this will be amazed by how little elite media cared about reality.

(h/t reader A)



And they said he was a very great man

Even by the low standards of our wretched elite media complex, this is amazing..the NYT had a buddy of Kissinger review Niall Ferguson’s Kissinger hagiography and this is what he wrote:

[I]f Kissinger’s official biographer cannot be accused of falling for his subject’s justifiably famed charm, he certainly gives the reader enough evidence to conclude that Henry Kissinger is one of the greatest Americans in the history of the Republic, someone who has been repulsively traduced over several decades and who deserved to have a defense of this comprehensiveness published years ago.

(via)



Can you pay my bills?

That NYT article about work practices at Amazon got so much attention that I’m sure the Washington Post will pick up the story too. Ha ha, just kidding.

Speaking of rich assholes, Vox has done a couple good Trump articles recently. Here’s one about how Trump is the kind of “moderate” that Ron Fournier should be masturbating about; it sounds like a Slatepitch, but consider this:

Trump opposes cuts to Social Security and Medicare, hasn’t signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, believes single-payer health care works well in other countries, and is skeptical of free trade.

The immigration stuff is nuts but the last GOP presidential candidate — who was widely described as “moderate” — wanted people to self-deport, and that’s pretty nuts too.

Why won’t Fred Hiatt and Ron Fournier praise any of Trump’s moderation? They’d claim it’s the incivility but of course McCain could be pretty uncivil too, and they loved him. I think here’s the real reason, and it’s also part of the reason Trump is doing well in the primary (from another Vox article):

While most elite-funded and elite-supported Republicans want to increase immigration and decrease Social Security, a significant number of voters (across both parties) want precisely the opposite — to increase Social Security and decrease immigration.

Who do Ron Fournier and Fred Hiatt work for? A self-described “neocon guy” and the “centrist” sociopath who’s engineered a new form of white collar serfdom. Both are filthy rich, and both have views that are typical of the donor class.

Media elites pimp donor class-style “centrism” because they work for members of the donor class. The end.



It’s a chopper, baby

The helicopter is the new tire swing (via).



It’s got a groove, it’s got a meaning

The Washington Post is edging closer to calling for a coup in Greece:

Diehl

Ignatius
Lane



A simple twist of fate

For some reason, a lot of establishment journalists love counterfactuals. I blame Niall Ferguson. Most of the time, they make me think more of What if Napoleon Had a B-52 at Waterloo than of The Man in the High Castle.

Given establishment media’s obsession with the Borking of Bork and how it caused all the problems that currently exist in the country, it was not surprising that there’s been a lot of discussion about how the marriage equality decision would have gone down differently if Bork had been confirmed. I’m not sure how much sense that makes, since Bork died a few years ago. But that doesn’t bother me since at least in this parable, liberals got somewhere by fucking fighting, not by moderating their divisive hippie rhetoric to appeal to centrist middle Americans.

I had an exchange with an establishment journalist whom I like, John McQuaid, where I said over-the-top things about how Borking was the root of all evil. He couldn’t tell I was kidding, and I thought what an idiot, but looking back at some of stupidity that’s been written on the topic by serious people, I can see why he took it at face value. Even the liberal Joe Nocera wrote an article called “The Ugliness All Started With Bork” that ended:

The next time a liberal asks why Republicans are so intransigent, you might suggest that the answer lies in the mirror.