Ryann Lizza wrote:

[Wisonsin Republican Representative Paul] Ryan was, and remains, the leader of the attack-and-propose faction.

“I think you’re obligated to do that,” he said. “People like me who are reform-minded ignore the people who say, ‘Just criticize and don’t do anything and let’s win by default.’ That’s ridiculous.” He said he was “moving ahead without them. They don’t want to produce alternatives? That’s not going to stop me from producing an alternative.”

Ryan’s long-range plan was straightforward: to create a detailed alternative to Obama’s budget and persuade his party to embrace it. He would start in 2009 and 2010 with House Republicans, the most conservative bloc in the Party. Then, in the months before the Presidential primaries, he would focus on the G.O.P. candidates. If the plan worked, by the fall of 2012 Obama’s opponent would be running on Paul Ryan’s ideas, and in 2013 a new Republican President would be signing them into law.

Sitting in his office more than three years ago, Ryan could not have foreseen how successful his crusade to reinvent the Republican Party would be. Nearly every important conservative opinion-maker and think tank has rallied around his policies. Nearly every Republican in the House and the Senate has voted in favor of some version of his budget plan. Earlier this year, the G.O.P. Presidential candidates lavished praise on Ryan and his ideas. “I’m very supportive of the Ryan budget plan,” Mitt Romney said on March 20th, in Chicago. The following week, while campaigning in Wisconsin, he added, “I think it’d be marvellous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan’s budget and adopt it and pass it along to the President.”

To envisage what Republicans would do if they win in November, the person to understand is not necessarily Romney, who has been a policy cipher all his public life. The person to understand is Paul Ryan.

Ayn Rand is a large part of understanding Ryan:

His father’s death also provoked the kind of existential soul-searching that most kids don’t undertake until college. “I was, like, ‘What is the meaning?’ ” he said. “I just did lots of reading, lots of introspection. I read everything I could get my hands on.” Like many conservatives, he claims to have been profoundly affected by Ayn Rand. After reading “Atlas Shrugged,” he told me, “I said, ‘Wow, I’ve got to check out this economics thing.’ What I liked about her novels was their devastating indictment of the fatal conceit of socialism, of too much government.” He dived into Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman.

In a 2005 speech to a group of Rand devotees called the Atlas Society, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told the group. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” To me he was careful to point out that he rejects Rand’s atheism.

Yes, there is that pesky bit about gawd being a silly fantasy.

Terry Gross inteviewed Ryan Lizza on 1 August about his interview with Ryan.

0550: 15 Grammar Mistakes to Avoid

Via Mano Singham…

Back in 2005, Nathan Poe formulated what has become known as Poe’s Law which states:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won’t mistake it for the genuine article.

On Mano Singham’s blog yesterday, he posted a piece about The Thinking Housewife, a group championing the idea that:

the increasing acceptance of feminism and homosexuality is leading the country, if not the world, into disaster and only a return to ‘Christian patriarchy’ can save us from doom.

Mano raises Poe’s Law and writes:

I had taken this site at face value. But now comes another post that has me wondering if the whole site is not some elaborate spoof and that they have successfully pulled my leg.

Mano’s post was in the forefront of my mind this morning when I read on BuzzFeed Politics that:

A group called “Jews and Christians Together,” which backed Rick Santorum in the Republican primary, is sending a memo to Republican National Convention delegates urging them not to vote for Mitt Romney at the convention, even if they’re bound to him.

I surfed over to the Google Doc of the manifesto and I had to run for paper towels to clean the spewed coffee off my laptop from just reading the table of contents.

How does it play in the Swing States? 16
Abandoning Monotheism 20
Mormon Racism and the Hispanic Vote 23
The Sci-Fi President 27
Horny Prophets 29
The Martyred Molester 32
Mormons, Multiversers and Bill Maher 35
Mormon “Truth” 47
Romney Spawned Gay Wedlock 48
Mitt’s Sexual Confusions 55
Naked Temple Rituals 59
Same Sex as Sandusky 62
Anderson Cooper was Born Gay? 71
Our Manhattan Project 74
Can we really Dump Romney? 77
American Monotheism, Monogamy and Survival 82

In my comment to Mano, I highlighted this paragraph:

So, let’s now face it squarely, the Big Problem: Can there be any real doubt that the fascinating metaphysics of Mitt’s Mormonism – which belligerently declares all other faiths to be “ABOMINATIONS” – will soon find wide distribution in Bible Belt areas of FL, VA, IA and MO? Can any of us (including our own LDS loved ones and friends) watch this animated yet accurate summary of Romney’s sci-fi polytheism without cringing? No mere adherent, Romney presided as the LDS equivalent of Boston’s Cardinal Law. In 2008, Obama had his Jeremiah Wright problem; in 2012, Mormon Bishop Romney is Jeremiah Wright.

I know I’m not the first person to have seen this coming, that the christianist base of the Republican Party would never accept a Mormon, but here is a statement in black and white.

So, you tell me. Is this real or is it parody?

My vote says spoof, but frankly, I’m just guessing.

Matt Taibbi writes:

The ostensible excuse for this outrageous difference is based upon a built-in cultural value judgment, which says that the work Mitt Romney does raiding companies with borrowed money is more valuable than the work ordinary people do laying asphalt or teaching autistic children. Here’s what one private equity spokesperson said by way of explanation for this difference:

Steve Judge, the president of the Private Equity Growth Capital Council, a trade group for private equity funds, said carried interest is a way to reward risk takers in a way that tax havens do not. “They don’t have the purpose of incentivizing risk taking,” Judge said. “That makes it inappropriate to blend carried interest with them.”

So the carried interest tax break is a way to “incentivize” the kind of work Mitt Romney does. One wonders then if the relatively higher tax rates paid by teachers and librarians and cops is … what? A disincentive? Anyway, it’s this skewed set of obligations that Mitt Romney thinks is “fair.”

And why is the carried interest tax break important? Because everyone from President Obama on down doesn’t want us to talk about how the 1 percent makes billions.

The reason the Obama administration hasn’t gone after this aggressively is probably the same reason it hasn’t fought harder to repeal that carried interest tax break (which Obama incidentally promised to do four years ago), and the same reason that everyone from Corey Booker to Bill Clinton has urged Obama to lay off the theme of private equity thuggery in his campaign against Romney. Big-time politicians are still afraid to explain to the American people how exactly it is that many Wall Street firms make their money, because they’re afraid to lose access to the crumbs those firms sometimes toss their way.

And how else would the 99 Percent survive, if the 1 Percent stopped tossing those crumbs?

I haven’t watched or posted any TED Talks for a very long time, but over at Civic Commons we’re having a discussion about civil conversation — see the ticker to the right — and in my emails this morning I got my weekly TED Talk listing of a half dozen or so videos under the title: How to disagree better.

It seemed like a perfect fit for the Civic Commons’ conversation.

I watched two videos out of group that have strong messages for those of us engaged in the conversation. The first feature Margaret Heffernan encouraging us to disagree and Scilla Elsworthy helping us to understand how to deal with a bully without becoming a thug.

Watch the videos, consider your reactions, formulate your thougths and then help us to build our community by entering the conversation.

Glenn Greenwald writes:

In response to these events, a teenaged member of that mosque, Joplin high school student Laela Zaidi, began using social media such as Reddit to talk about what happened and to discuss the importance of the mosque to her community (it’s not only the town’s only mosque, but the only one within a 50-mile radius, leaving Joplin’s Muslim families with no place to gather for Ramadan); the results of Zaidi’s online efforts (including her defense of her community) are surprisingly moving. In Salon on Monday, Joplin native Susan Campbell described the abundant humanitarianism in the town when it was devastated by a horrendous tornado last year, and called upon residents to tap into those same sentiments now by turning the July 4 attacker into authorities. Local-area churches and synagogues have quickly united in a show of support for the mosque.

As of 1228, $286,029, 114 percent of the $250,000 target, has been raised.

Take that you cowardly white terrorist!

Do you choose one, two, three? None?

Venkatesh Rao offers a fascinating examination of the possibilities.

I would think I strive for all three.

You?

Ari Berman writes:

The real story from Ohio is how cutbacks to early voting will disproportionately disenfranchise African-American voters in Ohio’s most populous counties. African-Americans, who supported Obama over McCain by 95 points in Ohio, comprise 28 percent of the population of Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County but accounted for 56 percent of early voters in 2008, according to research done by Norman Robbins of the Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates and Mark Salling of Cleveland State University. In Columbus’s Franklin County, African-Americans comprise 20 percent of the population but made up 34 percent of early voters.

Now, in heavily Democratic cities like Cleveland, Columbus, Akron and Toledo, early voting hours will be limited to 8 am until 5 pm on weekdays beginning on October 1, with no voting at night or during the weekend, when it’s most convenient for working people to vote. Republican election commissioners have blocked Democratic efforts to expand early voting hours in these counties, where the board of elections are split equally between Democratic and Republican members. Ohio Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has broken the tie by intervening on behalf of his fellow Republicans. (According to the Board of Elections, 82% of early voters in Franklin County voted early on nights or weekends, which Republicans have curtailed. The number who voted on nights or weekends was nearly 50% in Cuyahoga County.)

On Daily KOS, Meteor Blade writes:

[Ohio Secretary of State Jon] Husted and other Republicans can try to label this nothing more than a local affair adjudicated totally within the rules the state has set forth. Move along. Nothing to see here.

In fact, it’s the new Jim Crow.

On Facebook, Anastasia Pantsios commented:

This is garbage. Last year Husted tried to block Cuyahoga (and several other primarily large urban counties) from sending out absentee ballot applications on the grounds that a lot of smaller, rural counties didn’t have the resources to do so, so it was unfair and unequal. When he cast his tiebreaker in Cuyahoga about extended hours, he also gave that as a primary reason. (It’s not up to him to tell a board how to allocate resources). He’s all about equal voting opportunities when he thinks the urban counties are getting a little advantage. He is contradictory and hypocritical, and I hope his ass gets dragged into court over this too. (He’s already being sued for unequal access to the voting window three days before the election, which Democrats want to open to everyone if it’s opened to anyone). He’s rapidly becoming a worse secretary of state than Ken Blackwell was.

Gawd, I miss Jennifer Brunner…

Juan Cole give us his Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others:

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.”

2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.”

3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen.

4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong.

5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.”

6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes.

7. White terrorists are never called “white.”

8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people.

9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill.

10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists.

I would add one more to Cole’s list: 11. White terrorists don’t get profiled.

1947: The implications of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

Previously…

The results didn’t surprise me — I’ve known that I’m an existentialist for as long as I knew what an existentialist is — but taking Arocoun’s 36-question self-assessment, Philosophy quiz confirmed my impression.

Here is how I answered the questions (the number is the number of the question and the letter indicates where on the scale — from left to right — I placed my answers): 1E, 2A, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7C, 8C, 9C, 10B, 11F, 12A, 13E, 14E, 15A, 16D, 17E, 18C, 19D, 20C, 21D, 22A, 23D, 24A, 25B, 26F, 27D, 28D, 29A, 30F, 31B, 32B, 33D, 34A, 35F, 36F

This was my result.

According to the Arocoun:

Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” “It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.” –Jean-Paul Sartre

“It is man’s natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.” –Blaise Pascal

I’ll buy that.

So how did I get to the quiz? Reading Mano Singham this morning, he mentioned his previous posts involving John Rawls and his book: A Theory of Justice.

I’ve not read the book, but I’m marginally familiar with the content from other reading and Mano’s posts. This morning I’m going back to follow the Rawls thread on Mano’s blog to see what else I might glean.

A while back I listened to a radio show on WCPN where an executive of Exxon defended his companies record profits by stating the obvious, the consumer cost for refined petroleum products was up, his company sold a lot of those products, so, of course, his company’s profits were up.

I tried to call in so that I could ask the executive what the result would be for the consumer if Exxon were to say, cut its profit margin by 50 percent. I didn’t get through, but I doubt I would have gotten a clear answer.

A similar smoke screen is being blown about concerning the taxes paid by the 1 Percent and Mano Singham takes a pass at the silly argument.

The media lackeys of the oligarchy are combating the rising calls for greater taxes on the rich by trying to confuse the issue. Take for example, the popular complaint of the rich that “the top 10% of income earners provide 70% of all income taxes” and that this implies that the current tax system is unfair to the rich. Some time ago, Chris Hayes pointed out that first, this statistic only includes federal income taxes and excludes state taxes, payroll taxes, and property taxes. Second, the ratio of taxes paid by the rich to that paid by the rest is largely determined by how income is distributed, not by the rates.

For example, if only 1% of the population earned enough to put them above the minimum taxable income, then 100% of the taxes would be paid by this 1%. Does that mean the tax system is unfair to the rich or is it an indication of a highly skewed income distribution? As another example, some are saying that too many people are not paying any taxes at all and that this is so unfair and what should be done is increase the number of people paying taxes. Again, the reason that so many people pay little or no federal income taxes (though they do pay state and local and sales and payroll taxes) is because they earn too little, not because they are somehow finagling the system. Again, does that mean the tax system is unfair to the rich or is it an indication of a highly skewed income distribution?

The below graphic lays out the reality quite neatly.

The graphic essentially reduces the argument to the “your brain on drugs” level. For those who want a more detailed examination, you might take a look at this graphic.

More to the point, however, I think we’re having the wrong conversation because the issue isn’t income, it’s wealth. That’s why I favor a flat tax, with low-end limits for those near or below the poverty line, that taxes it all, not just income, along with a national sales tax on all purchases of any kind, including the purchase of financial instruments.

Radical? I don’t think so. Neither does Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.

How, as a journalist, do you hear yourself uttering such obsequious, demeaning tripe and not jump off the nearest bridge?

Glenn Greenwald on the veepstakes.