Americans have historically been fearful and suspicious of paying taxes.  This comes as no surprise to any of you, I am aware.  From the American Revolution through today, speaking out against high taxes is a sure-fire applause line and thus no candidate for office would be caught dead advocating for its increase.

I have returned from hospital with a decidedly reformed viewpoint.

Those of us with college degrees and some degree of intellect often forget how the other half lives. Instead of confronting directly what seems to us like superstitious pseudo-science or urban legends, we forget how very real these prejudices and unquestioned theories are. We dismiss them as quackery and scoff at their very existence in any rational plane of existence.

Let me give you the point of view of an European Leftist on what is happening:

The United States of America are on the brink of a major revolution. I am not talking about some fuzzy "internet revolution" or similar hogwash but the real McCoy.
I mean armed uprising, riots, civil war. The full Monty.

I know, I know, you are going to say that this is impossible, no way, I am being pessimistic etc.

Let us look at a few facts after the jump:

My friend is alive, well, and although shaken, very much okay.

Thank you all!

Yes, this is a candidate diary.  Or maybe it isn't.  You be the judge.

But it seems to me that if this is the "theory of change" primary, we ought to do a little thinking about just what this system is that we're trying to change.  And more specifically, we ought to do a little thinking about conservatives, and just what it is that makes them conservative.

Most people don't have a clue where money really comes from. Nor are they taught in schools the nature of simple economics. In addition to being a total travesty I would even go so far as to argue it's a deliberate measure to pull wool-over-the-eyes of the common citizen. More people would be up in arms if they realized the discomforting fact that money, in its current reality, is purely speculative--based on supply, demand, and imaginary constructs in much the same fashion as the value of the stock market at any point in time.

Crossposted at Docudharma

This is a defense of OPOL’s diary "Why I Am A Radical."  Some of the respondents thought that OPOL wasn't "really a radical," others thought that   our "solution" to present-day political problems should focus on the election of Hillary or Obama or Edwards or whomever, more others just cheered another well-decorated OPOL diary.  Here I wish to set radicalism on the bedrock of economic thinking incited by Karl Marx in the Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," and compare the words of OPOL to those of Vijay Prashad, from his book "Fat Cats and Running Dogs."

(Bumped -- kos)

The UAW has struck General Motors, and as you read this, pickets are going up through Michigan and across the country.  It's a strike that -- as the UAW explains -- is primarily about health care.  As you know if you've been following the story, the big questions are 1) whether the UAW will accept the risk of health care liability by bringing its GM members out of the employer-sponsored plan and into a union-controlled health trust called a VEBA, and 2) how much GM is willing to put into the VEBA to get it started.  The lack of national health care is at the core of American automakers' difficulties -- it's the reason why Canadian plants are more profitable than American plants, despite the fact that Canadian auto workers make as much (if not more) than their American bretheren.  Hell, it's a big part of the reason that the Canadian Auto Workers union split off from the UAW in the ealy '80s, when the Canadian locals were offered a better deal than the Americans.  It's just cheaper for manufacturers to build in Canada, because all employers (even Wal-Mart!) are on a level playing field when it comes to health costs.

But as critical of an issue as health insurance is, this strike is about something even bigger.  It's about whether we're going to have a middle class in this country.  The UAW was at the heart of the creation of what we know as the American middle class -- more than any other force in society, it institutionalized the idea that workers should be entitled to health care, vacation, and a secure and comfortable retirement.  Before the rise of the UAW, blue-collar workers had no hope of securing their family and their future, and lived in constant fear of injury or layoff, with no prospect of anything resebling "retirement."  The UAW changed that.  The UAW made sure that the workers at the base of the postwar boom got their share.  The UAW made it possible for a man like my grandfather, a brilliant guy from the Irish ghetto in Buffalo who never had the opportunity to study past high school, to send every single one of his kids to college.  And the victories won by the UAW bore fruit well beyond the homes of their members -- because of the size and importance of the union, every UAW contract had a massive ripple effect.  Employers in other industries -- even non-union employers -- had to raise their standards to attract employees.  In short, the UAW allowed workers to get a taste of a life where leisure was possible, where relaxation and economic security were something that could be earned with hard work, and where their labor was treated with honor and dignity.

All of that has been under assault for the past 25 years.  The prevailing political forces have been pushing to dismantle the network of fairness and justice on the job woven by the UAW and its visionary leader, Walter Reuther.  And it's no secret that the union has lost influence in direct relation to the decline of American manufacturing.  But as the UAW stands out on strike to win a fair settlement that protects their heath care, and the health care that every American deserves as a matter of right, they're standing for all of us once more.  Don't for a second let the media try and convince you that this is an isolated fight, the dying throes of a union in decline.  This is a fight for the fundamental idea that if you work hard, and play by the rules, you should be able to sleep contented at night knowing that you and your family have got health insurance and a fair pension.  And if that's not a fight that every American should support as much as they can, then there really is no such thing as society.

These are the words enshrined at the gates of Liberty. This is America. Our ideal. Her lamp shines for all of us, lighting the way to freedom and a better life. The refuse. The homeless. The tempest-tost. We will have a place for you all. We will give you a helping hand, and opportunity. That's the promise Lady Liberty gives us.

France's former Socialist leader hits at backers of globalisation

Lionel Jospin, France's most recent Socialist prime minister, has denounced a "new caste" of financiers, industrialists, top civil servants and privileged journalists for promoting globalisation at the expense of ordinary workers.

The word 'rednecks' is used a lot on this site. The origin of this word is as follows: a redneck is a light-skinned person who does agricultural labor out in the sun for long hours and who, consequently, has a sunburn on his neck.

In other words, the origin of this expression is classist. Using it, at least historically, was a way for middle- and upper-class whites to put down those who had to work for a living doing hard agricultural labor. Analyzed in terms of its origin, therefore, it is a divisive and nasty word.

I understand that most of you who use it mean something like 'working-class rural conservative', but is it really necessary to use a word with this sort of history and prejudicial overtone to indicate that group? Presumably, as people interested in social and economic equality, we would like working-class rural conservatives to see improvements in their standard of living. Why then insult them every time we discuss them?

My jaw hit the floor! My premium due is now about $2375...up from 1860 in October....that's a jump of more than $500....more than the cost of insuring another person.

It reminds me of the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry is tipped off about the terror threat supposedly hitting LA, only without the humor.

And given how completely Byzantine and almost purposefully punitive it is in its various provisions, there is no better tool than the AMT to turn people into anti-tax zealots willing to burn everything down and start again, which is exactly what Grover Norquist wants.  (hint:  they left AMT reform out of the 2001 bill for a reason)

And there would be no better tool to help dispel the notion that Democrats never met a tax they didn't like, than a bill to abolish the AMT and raise the upper brackets of the ordinary income tax to make up the difference.  

Class warfare?  You bet.  But in this case, even the accountants would thank us, despite the fact that they'd be losing work; the AMT is that bad.

On the flip, I go into what the AMT is really about.