Just in case anybody's interested, I quoted Patterson Hood lyrics twice today in the comments to Prof. Heather Cox Richardson's "Letters from an American" blog post. "Monument Valley" (knowing when to print the legend) and "Puttin' People on the Moon" (entire).

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:17 am

Just in case anybody's interested, I quoted Patterson Hood lyrics twice today in the comments to Prof. Heather Cox Richardson's "Letters from an American" blog post. "Monument Valley" (knowing when to print the legend) and "Puttin' People on the Moon" (entire).

Spoiler: I don't know the answer to the questions posed below.

I wonder whether the current contretemps between D's and R's over the committee to investigate the 1/6 insurrection is emblematic of the disconnect between those inside the Beltway and the rest of us. Pelosi, McCarthy, their spinmeisters, other leading officials and talking heads are all trying to position the other side as unreasonable and the bad guys. This is a very big deal with big stakes for the major players in Washington. The question is how does this play in the actual United States? Or, IOW, does anybody really care about any of this posturing and does anybody not see through it? I think the questions are worth answering whether those same people care about the investigation itself or not (although the latter case presumably answers itself). Just to be clear, I think these questions apply equally throughout the country; I assume (though I don't know) that there is no red/blue, urban/rural, racial or other divide in how people see and respond to this kind of thing, but I guess part of the reason to ask the questions is to determine whether that assumption holds up.

it's 2021... do you think facts will shake people off their own narrative?

i mean...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epnq84/ ... all-a-hoax

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 26, 2021 11:29 am

Spoiler: I don't know the answer to the questions posed below.

I wonder whether the current contretemps between D's and R's over the committee to investigate the 1/6 insurrection is emblematic of the disconnect between those inside the Beltway and the rest of us. Pelosi, McCarthy, their spinmeisters, other leading officials and talking heads are all trying to position the other side as unreasonable and the bad guys. This is a very big deal with big stakes for the major players in Washington. The question is how does this play in the actual United States? Or, IOW, does anybody really care about any of this posturing and does anybody not see through it? I think the questions are worth answering whether those same people care about the investigation itself or not (although the latter case presumably answers itself). Just to be clear, I think these questions apply equally throughout the country; I assume (though I don't know) that there is no red/blue, urban/rural, racial or other divide in how people see and respond to this kind of thing, but I guess part of the reason to ask the questions is to determine whether that assumption holds up.

I haven't really kept up but it seems like individuals who actually participated are getting swift justice. No?

boyyourself wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:48 pm

I haven't really kept up but it seems like individuals who actually participated are getting swift justice. No?

I don't know. I heard a lot about arrests in the 30 or 60 days after the incident, but haven't heard much about convictions. I guess I assumed that means that they haven't come to trial but I haven't actually followed up on that. Maybe tomorrow.

tinnitus photography wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:01 pm

it's 2021... do you think facts will shake people off their own narrative?

i mean...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epnq84/ ... all-a-hoax

This is horrible and horribly depressing. It is further evidence that we may never get back to a widely shared fact based reality. Wow. I think "whenever he's drinking" probably has a lot to do with it, not that that's an excuse.

What is the justification for not increasing funding for IRS enforcement activities? Really. I don't understand.

I know that at some theoretical or fantasy level Republican orthodoxy would say that we don't want taxes at all. But let's try to stay in the real world. There is a tax code. While it reflects a lot of input by a lot of people over a lot of years, in its fundamental structure it is right now a Republican construct. It's the law. Why would a political party's position be "we don't want to enforce the law"? Isn't that pretty outrageous?

The only justification I can think of is that the cost of extra enforcement won't pay for itself in increased compliance but I'm pretty sure nobody believes that. Some estimates of unpaid taxes due to lax enforcement are as high as a trillion dollars. Let's say it's half that. I think the Dems were proposing something like $150 Million in increased enforcement (though I could be wrong about that). Why wouldn't you spend $150 Million, or even a billion dollars, to bring in $500 billion? And btw, the target of the proposed additional enforcement is the wealthy, so it won't result in the IRS showing up in the average person's living room. To me this seems like an insult to all taxpaying Americans, of which I am one, and represents complete disrespect for the law and the legal system. I'm not looking to argue or even discuss this; I'm just seeking [possible] explanations even if you're just playing devil's advocate so all responses are welcome.

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:33 am

What is the justification for not increasing funding for IRS enforcement activities? Really. I don't understand.

I know that at some theoretical or fantasy level Republican orthodoxy would say that we don't want taxes at all. But let's try to stay in the real world. There is a tax code. While it reflects a lot of input by a lot of people over a lot of years, in its fundamental structure it is right now a Republican construct. It's the law. Why would a political party's position be "we don't want to enforce the law"? Isn't that pretty outrageous?

The only justification I can think of is that the cost of extra enforcement won't pay for itself in increased compliance but I'm pretty sure nobody believes that. Some estimates of unpaid taxes due to lax enforcement are as high as a trillion dollars. Let's say it's half that. I think the Dems were proposing something like $150 Million in increased enforcement (though I could be wrong about that). Why wouldn't you spend $150 Million, or even a billion dollars, to bring in $500 billion? And btw, the target of the proposed additional enforcement is the wealthy, so it won't result in the IRS showing up in the average person's living room. To me this seems like an insult to all taxpaying Americans, of which I am one, and represents complete disrespect for the law and the legal system. I'm not looking to argue or even discuss this; I'm just seeking [possible] explanations even if you're just playing devil's advocate so all responses are welcome.

You're thinking way too logically. The obvious answer is that an understaffed IRS will be less able to investigate the massive amounts of tax fraud being perpetrated by the 1%

Zip City wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:37 am

The obvious answer is that an understaffed IRS will be less able to investigate the massive amounts of tax fraud being perpetrated by the 1%

I guess I wasn't clear. I do get this "explanation." What I don't get is, if that's all there is, why is that acceptable even to Republicans to say nothing of average Americans of any and all political persuasions, or no political persuasion? As I tried to say, this does not seem class based to me me, it seems to me to be an attack on the rule of law itself and a license for people to ignore laws they don't like. I just don't get it.

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:46 am

Zip City wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:37 am

The obvious answer is that an understaffed IRS will be less able to investigate the massive amounts of tax fraud being perpetrated by the 1%

I guess I wasn't clear. I do get this "explanation." What I don't get is, if that's all there is, why is that acceptable even to Republicans to say nothing of average Americans of any and all political persuasions, or no political persuasion? As I tried to say, this does not seem class based to me me, it seems to me to be an attack on the rule of law itself and a license for people to ignore laws they don't like. I just don't get it.

It’s okay to politicians because it protects them and their fraud, and the citizens put up with it because they hate the IRS

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:46 am

Zip City wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:37 am

The obvious answer is that an understaffed IRS will be less able to investigate the massive amounts of tax fraud being perpetrated by the 1%

I guess I wasn't clear. I do get this "explanation." What I don't get is, if that's all there is, why is that acceptable even to Republicans to say nothing of average Americans of any and all political persuasions, or no political persuasion? As I tried to say, this does not seem class based to me me, it seems to me to be an attack on the rule of law itself and a license for people to ignore laws they don't like. I just don't get it.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/07/i ... -says.html

A proposal to strengthen IRS enforcement to crack down on tax scofflaws and help fund a nearly $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure spending bill is officially off the table, Republican Sen. Rob Portman said Sunday.

Portman, who is involved in negotiating the bill, cited “pushback” from fellow Republican lawmakers who dislike the idea of expanding the reach of the IRS, which they have accused over the years of unfairly targeting conservatives.

The proposal to go after taxpayers who skip out on income taxes initially had potential bipartisan appeal, but outside groups came forward to lambaste it as a way to enable the IRS to snoop around Americans’ personal finances.

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:33 am

What is the justification for not increasing funding for IRS enforcement activities? Really. I don't understand.

I know that at some theoretical or fantasy level Republican orthodoxy would say that we don't want taxes at all. But let's try to stay in the real world. There is a tax code. While it reflects a lot of input by a lot of people over a lot of years, in its fundamental structure it is right now a Republican construct. It's the law. Why would a political party's position be "we don't want to enforce the law"? Isn't that pretty outrageous?

The only justification I can think of is that the cost of extra enforcement won't pay for itself in increased compliance but I'm pretty sure nobody believes that. Some estimates of unpaid taxes due to lax enforcement are as high as a trillion dollars. Let's say it's half that. I think the Dems were proposing something like $150 Million in increased enforcement (though I could be wrong about that). Why wouldn't you spend $150 Million, or even a billion dollars, to bring in $500 billion? And btw, the target of the proposed additional enforcement is the wealthy, so it won't result in the IRS showing up in the average person's living room. To me this seems like an insult to all taxpaying Americans, of which I am one, and represents complete disrespect for the law and the legal system. I'm not looking to argue or even discuss this; I'm just seeking [possible] explanations even if you're just playing devil's advocate so all responses are welcome.

First of all, "taxation is theft" is a libertarian slogan, not Republican.
Republicans have been pissed at the IRS since the Obama administration used it against conservative non profits.
These are just the games our duopoly plays. The truly rich will not be affected by any of this.

Thanks, zip and rod. You guys are obviously correct. I am shaking my head, discombobulated as ever but what else is new?

Edit: Thanks for the instructive quotes, zip.

Zip City wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:05 pm

Poorly phrased. They actually DO denounce cancel culture. I think the word he's looking for is "hypocritically." Or maybe he should add "without any awareness of what the fuck they're talking about" to the end of the sentence.

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:19 pm

Zip City wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:05 pm

Poorly phrased. They actually DO denounce cancel culture. I think the word he's looking for is "hypocritically." Or maybe he should add "without any awareness of what the fuck they're talking about" to the end of the sentence.

They verbally denounce it while actively engaging in it. The "P" in GOP stands for "Project"

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:19 pm

Zip City wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:05 pm

Poorly phrased. They actually DO denounce cancel culture. I think the word he's looking for is "hypocritically." Or maybe he should add "without any awareness of what the fuck they're talking about" to the end of the sentence.

They might denounce it but "they canceled" the Dixie chick's. And by they I mean corporate country radio which quit playing them for having opinions that flew in the face of the propaganda being rolled out in the form of "country music" by the establishment. Toby Keith much?
It always baffled me. I thought grandaddy fought for our freedoms and that's what we celebrate. Natalie Maines, daughter of Loyd, and whom I went to school with for a year at West Texas State University right before the chicks blew up, should be able to say whatever she wants and not have it affect her career but that's not what happened. Different times then though. Thankfully now you can be sturgill, Tyler, Stapleton Jason etc without radio. Making those guys uncancellable. Hard to cancel the one thing that threatens all establishments......independence baby.
I was actually listening to terrestrial radio today driving, classic country, and the commercials and news stories were nothing shy of frightening, from the standpoint of how many people are getting this fed directly into their brains all day long. I was almost ready to Vax up and hunker down there for a second but then I lost the station.
Also made me think of kids listening to this shit and thought about Todd Snider mentioning how 1st graders watch the news and get fed shit their brains are not designed to process. I don't think adults brains are designed for that either. Fear sells. The only thing to fear is fear. Livin in fear is just a well you get it. Speaking of Cooley, DBT belly up Solana Beach, 2005? Anyone else there? As Love Like This was ending Cooley says "Toby Keith can still kiss my ass" daaaaaamn. Then he ended Toby and the sad sacks that canceled Dixie chicks in Once They Banned Imagine so ya know it always circles back.

boyyourself wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:08 pm

Then he ended Toby and the sad sacks that canceled Dixie chicks in Once They Banned Imagine so ya know it always circles back.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly but it sounds like you're saying that "Once I Banned Imagine" is a protest against both corporate media and individual country singers that Cooley doesn't like (you mention Toby Keith specifically but I'm guessing you mean it more generally). If that's what you're saying, I don't get it. It seems to me that the song is primarily about corporate media and secondarily about cowardly politicians behaving like lemmings. I don't see country singers, Toby Keith or otherwise, in there at all. If your interpretation is different could you explain it in more detail?

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:20 pm

boyyourself wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:08 pm

Then he ended Toby and the sad sacks that canceled Dixie chicks in Once They Banned Imagine so ya know it always circles back.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly but it sounds like you're saying that "Once I Banned Imagine" is a protest against both corporate media and individual country singers that Cooley doesn't like (you mention Toby Keith specifically but I'm guessing you mean it more generally). If that's what you're saying, I don't get it. It seems to me that the song is primarily about corporate media and secondarily about cowardly politicians behaving like lemmings. I don't see country singers, Toby Keith or otherwise, in there at all. If your interpretation is different could you explain it in more detail?

"Boot up their asses" is a quote from a Toby Keith song.

Ah, Rod, what would I do without you? I probably knew that some point but thanks for the reminder/ guidance. I don’t think that reference is the same as the ones about media & politicians but my fucking back is killing me so further exploration of the subject, at least by me, will have to wait.

LBRod wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:38 pm

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:20 pm

boyyourself wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:08 pm

Then he ended Toby and the sad sacks that canceled Dixie chicks in Once They Banned Imagine so ya know it always circles back.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly but it sounds like you're saying that "Once I Banned Imagine" is a protest against both corporate media and individual country singers that Cooley doesn't like (you mention Toby Keith specifically but I'm guessing you mean it more generally). If that's what you're saying, I don't get it. It seems to me that the song is primarily about corporate media and secondarily about cowardly politicians behaving like lemmings. I don't see country singers, Toby Keith or otherwise, in there at all. If your interpretation is different could you explain it in more detail?

"Boot up their asses" is a quote from a Toby Keith song.

That's all I meant. Hope they play it Sunday. Me and the kid love that one.

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:03 pm

Ah, Rod, what would I do without you? I probably knew that some point but thanks for the reminder/ guidance. I don’t think that reference is the same as the ones about media & politicians but my fucking back is killing me so further exploration of the subject, at least by me, will have to wait.

Its impressive that you even try to decipher what I'm thinking. You usually do a good job.

Yes I know some of you don't exactly get the warm fuzzies about Mother Jones, but read this anyway.

I don't post it for its ultimate conclusion; I disagree w/ the conclusion pretty definitively. In fact, you may not even want to read the last 1/3 or so. But I think there's some really interesting data up to that point about historical attitudes and changes over the past 50 years. See for yourself.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -fox-news/

The academic or "creative class" version of a lot of what CY and boyyourself have been saying over the months/years. Yes, some of the writing is insufferable (it is David Brooks after all) and some of the terminology is gag inducing but I think chunks of it are dead on and damn important. Highly recommended despite the slog.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ic%20Daily

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:56 pm

The academic or "creative class" version of a lot of what CY and boyyourself have been saying over the months/years. Yes, some of the writing is insufferable (it is David Brooks after all) and some of the terminology is gag inducing but I think chunks of it are dead on and damn important. Highly recommended despite the slog.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ic%20Daily

His conclusions and solutions are bogus, but he's proved a useful tool in identifying part of the problem. He also has gotten me pushback for posting this with approving comments, so he's probably onto something.

John A Arkansawyer wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:02 pm

His conclusions and solutions are bogus

Mostly but "more pathways to success" seems like a good idea.

beantownbubba wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:38 pm

John A Arkansawyer wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:02 pm

His conclusions and solutions are bogus

Mostly but "more pathways to success" seems like a good idea.

It can't hurt! I have my doubts how much it'll help without much more change, thus my charge of bogosity. But why not?

John A Arkansawyer wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:46 pm

bogosity

Forgot to give you appropriate props for the wordsmithing. Well done.

I know I'm supposed to be old and mature and beyond this sort of thing but I can't help it. It annoys the hell out of me that the same people who insisted that the government can't tell a baker how to choose (or not choose) his customers are the same people passing laws telling business owners that they can't choose (or not choose) their customers. Because I guess unmasked and unvaccinated customers are a lot less dangerous to the health and prosperity of those business owners than coming within 6 feet of homosexuals. If they were at least consistent, I might actually consider the possibility that they're motivated by real principle but they don't even bother to pretend anymore so why should I?