...And That's....The End of the Story.

Newsman Paul Harvey is dead at age 90.

Bobby Jindal: Out of the mouth of Booby.

LooseScrew Louisiana Governor Bobby 'Booby' Jindal made so many stupid statements in his "rebuttal" of President Obama's state of the union address, it's hard to know where to begin. But since he's a rabid radical idjit Republican, we'll start with tax cuts.

... Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs.

Wow, this is stupid on several levels:

1. "Lowering income taxes" does nothing to "create more jobs." Creating more jobs creates more jobs.
2. If you are unemployed, you are not paying income tax because you have no income to tax. So lowering the income tax does nothing for those on unemployment.
   
3. Simply lowering taxes on business does not insure that the business will hire new workers or that it will re-invest in new equipment, especially if no one is buying products.
   
4. Creating a new tax credit for home-buyers won't help people afford homes if they have no jobs to finance the homes. All it does is increase the size of our national debt by decreasing revenue.
   
5. Creating a new tax credit for home-buyers also doesn't create more jobs. At the very best, it may help some realtors stay in business - IF they can find people who suddenly can pay for homes while unemployed.

And of course, immediately on the parrot-cries of "cut taxes!" he follows up with a familiar whine:

Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money...

Well, thanks to Bush et. al, a lot of us DID make decisions with our own money; we invested it. And we've all of lost buckets of money. Millions of Americans suddenly face bankruptcy and foreclosure. And those are the lucky ones. The ones who haven't lost their jobs.

And then Jindal starts chewing on his own foot:

$300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.

Let's break this down, shall we?

$300 million to buy new cars for the government

Why would the government spend 300 million dollars to buy new cars? Could it be because, I dunno, our automotive industry is about to collapse?

"Shares of General Motors are trading at prices last seen in the 1950s, their value cut in half in just eight weeks. Ford and Chrysler are in even worse shape, analysts say." - CS Monitor, July 2, 2008

Who else can buy enough cars to make a difference, Booby? Or maybe you think that putting millions of Americans out of work really is a good thing? I guess there are no automobile dealerships in Lousiana.

The government buys $300 million worth of cars, and they sell off the exisiting fleet to Americans for a good price: everyone benefits. But I guess that's just logical. The government should drive cars into the ground, so that we spend that $300 million on towing and repairs, and then toss in the costs of workers unable to perform their tasks because they are either stranded in their broken-down vehicles, or can't accomplish the task because the vehicle is in the shop.

I guess we could rent them a car until their old decrepit car is fixed.

And we might have to; remember, we're letting the Big Three collapse: no dealership to repair anything, and when the automakers went down, they took their parts suppliers with them.

$8 billion for high-speed rail projects

And why is this a bad idea, exactly? High Speed rail is something that every other reasonably advanced country in the world has. That the US lacks this basic mode of transportation is beyond pathetic; it makes us a laughing stock. We need high-speed rails. This exactly the kind of project the government should be doing to stimulate the economy; building it creates jobs, running it creates jobs, and its existence spawns new business opportunities, and no one else can afford to do it.

Every tried flying from Fort Lauderdale to Tallahassee on business? It's about $900 for a direct flight, but you can knock it down to $600 if you make connections - through Pittsburgh!!! So we drive it; it's only about six hours each way. Gas, plus mileage (it's a business trip, remember!) and the hotel room (maybe you can commute 12 hours and get a day's work in there too, but most of us are only human.)

And remember 9-11, and how all the airplanes were grounded? No one is taking a train off-course, Booby. It will always be on the tracks.

$140 million for something called "volcano monitoring."

They call it that because they monitor these potential hazards to life and limb we call volcanoes. Now you don't have any in the mucky cesspool that you are responsible for, but we have over 150 volcanoes in the United States, and many of them are near major population centers. I remember when Mount Saint Helens blew off one third of its mass and killed 57 people; we were lucky that it was the side facing away from the major population centers. Alaska alone has over 80 volcanic sites; and many of those could affect millions of people living around the Pacific by creating a tsunami if they erupt.

But Booby has more foot to chew:

Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt.

Unlike the Bush Adminstration, which grew the goverment, increased our taxes, and saddled future generations with debt. Or the Reagan Adminstration, which grew the government, increased our taxes, and saddled future generations with debt. Oh, and that's both Bush administrations, by the way, although the most recent Bush saddled us with more debt than his father and Reagan combined. The Republican congress of the Bush 42 era spent money like drunken sailors on a stolen Amex Platinum card, unimpeded by InCurious George.

Republicans shrink government and cut taxes? Not since Nixon!

On to health care. I used to work in the Health Care industry. I know quite a lot about it, as a result. So what's the GOP Boy Blunder's take?

To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in healthcare. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage -- period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. What we oppose is universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats.

You know who else shouldn't be making health car decisions? Accountants and stockholders, that's who. Our health care is overpriced for only one reason: we gave it to middle-men; the insurance industry. Any health care transaction should consist of exactly two parties: the patient, and the health-care provider. You want to reduce health care costs? Eliminate everything but catastrophic care coverage.

Funny, that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in his speech.

Ooh, next up is education; let's see what he has to say:

To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system, opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice.

[sniff sniff] Smells like vouchers to me.

Louisiana is still at the bottom of education rankings.

All voucher systems are inherently and fatally flawed; first, they pull money out of already cash-strapped public schools. Second, private schools, as privately-owned businesses, are under no legal obligation to accept students using vouchers to pay for all or part of the tuition. Third, schools do not have to keep under-acheiving children. Fourth, because they are private, they are not bound to the same systems of measurements as public schools; in other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that private schools actually do a better job of teaching; their success is more likely due to the fact that they only accept students who are already academic acheivers. All a voucher system really does is insure that those students who can't get into private schools will be stuck in schools that have been stripped of any chance at excellence.

Oh, but Booby is far from finished parading his idiocy!

To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana was said to be half under water, and the other half is under indictment. No one says that anymore.

Not since Katrina actually put half the state underwater, destroyed a lot of homes and left thousands dead, anyway.

Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation and today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past.

The corruption of...last year. This is supposed to impress anyone? "We've been honest for six months?" You are boasting about this?

Sheesh. I wonder if he was put up as the result of a bet? "Bet you don't have the guts to put the idiot in front of the cameras!" "oh yeah? How much?"

....dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops.

Deep cuts? Who's calling for deep cuts? Wasn't it...Bobby Jindal? He was just calling for lower taxes and reduction in spending...so, if we're cutting taxes, but still spending billions on national defense that we don't actually have, we're passing on debt to our descendants...which Jindal was just slapping Democrats for doing. Hypocritical much, Booby?

Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say this: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share, the principles you elected us to fight for,

Actually, Booby, you guys lost the national election. We elected them. We chose their principles, not yours.

All that said, I do have to say that I'm not happy about the Stimulus bill. I'm frankly appalled that it was passed without anyone having had the opportunity to review the damned thing. If we're distributing so much money, I want rock-solid, understandable, and fair rules dictating how that money is going to be used. We should have created policy, not project lists.

But the fact remains that cutting taxes does not create jobs, nor does it reduce the debt that is the legacy of the Bush 42 Republican congress. It's the mantra of a party in the throes of senility, spewing forth from addled brains, punctuated with spittle and rife with dementia.

If Jindal is really the best the GOP can do, it's time they wiped the drool from their chins and admitted that the party of Lincoln is lost to us.

Dictionary Fun: Anonymity

The alignment of the stars juxtaposed against the limbo that occurs between the end of Football season and the start of Baseball season leads many otherwise sensible people to start tossing around the word "anonymity" as if they knew what they were talking about.

Basically, a bunch of people seem to think that bloggers who don't post under their actual name are posting anonymously, and thus are cowards or cretins (or worse) who should be ignored, if not actually run out of town on a rail.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Carlos Miller // Feb 16, 2009 at 8:51 PM

I believe a blogger who uses their real name has more credibility than those who blog anonymously because they stand more to lose by what they write.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that if you are writing a blog, you are not, by definition, anonymous. In fact, you can't be.

As always, we should start with that book that too few of us ever bother to open (because we arrogantly think we have already mastered our own language just because we grew up with it); The Dictionary.

anon·y·mous

Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anōnymos, from a- + onyma name — more at name
Date:
1631

1: not named or identified 2: of unknown origin 3: lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability

If you author a blog, you may not be named, but you are identifiable: you are the person writing the blog. Eye on Miami, for example, is written by two distinct individuals. We do not know their names - we don't even know their gender! - but we know that every article was written either by Gimleteye or Genius Of Despair, and we even know which party wrote which article. The articles do not appear out of thin air; they were authored, and those authors are distinctive and recognizable.

It's our sloppy approach to language that causes us to miss this subtle distinction, but it's important, and it makes all the difference. If any piece of writing, or series of writings, can be attributed to a common individual, and a source of origin can be determined, its author is not anonymous.

So while many bloggers do not post under their given name (the one that appears on their identification), they do post under a name. And there is a word for that, and it's not "anonymous."

pseu·don·y·mous

Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Greek pseudōnymos
Date:
circa 1706

: bearing or using a fictitious name

And when you write pseudonymously, you write under a nom de plume, which translates to "pen name." Wikipedia does a fine job summing it up:

A pen name, nom de plume, or literary double, is a pseudonym adopted by an author. A pen name may be used to make the author's name more distinctive, to disguise his or her gender, to distance an author from some or all of his works, to protect the author from retribution for his writings, or for any of a number of reasons related to the marketing of the work. The author's name may be known only to the publisher, or may come to be common knowledge.

So using a pseudonym is in fact an old and respected tradition. Hardly lacking in integrity, someone posting pseudonymously is as worthy of respect as anyone.

CASE IN POINT

Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers, was a respected scientist, journalist and publisher. He was widely know and respected for his writings. And yet, his first articles were published under another name:

Benjamin was very interested in his brother's newspaper and desperately wanted to help him write it. Unfortunately, he knew that James would not allow a fifteen year old boy to write articles. Benjamin thought of a plan. He would write under an anonymous pen-name and slip the articles under the door at night. He chose the name Silence Dogood. Articles written by Silence Dogood became very popular. People throughout Boston wanted to know who she was. She spoke out about issues abroad and the poor treatment of women.
- MrNussbaum.com

Years later, he again wrote under an assumed name; 'Richard Saunders,' a persona created by Franklin to be the author of Poor Richard's Almanac.

CASE IN POINT

Up until very recently, female writers did not get the same respect as men; while we now praise the Brontë sisters, they published as brothers under the names Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell. Out of Africa was written by Karen Blixen, but couldn't get a publisher interested until she attached the name Isak Dinesen to it.

And even in the last few years we find women hiding their gender: S. E. Hinton, D. C. Fontana, and even J. K. Rowling!

In a reverse twist, Charles Leslie McFarlane wrote the the earliest Nancy Drew mysteries, and even several of the Bobbsey Twins stories! Yet those books are still accredited to Carolyn Keene and Laura Lee Hope, respectively.


CASE IN POINT

Some authors choose to disguise collaborative efforts. Ellery Queen (Frederic Dannay & Manfred B. Lee) is an example of that, as is Robert Randall (Robert Silverberg and Randall Garrett).

CASE IN POINT

Many authors use different names when they write for different genres:

• Nora Roberts writes romance novels, but wrote thrillers under JD Robb
• Samuel Clemens is best know for his stories as Mark Twain, but he also authored under Sieur Louis de Conte.
• Rev. Charles Dogsdon was a noted mathmetician, but is known to us as Lewis Carroll.

Some authors feel their names don't suit the material they produce: would you read a rugged western by Pearl Gray? Pearl didn't think so, and so we know him as Zane Grey.

CONCLUSION

If you are going to pound your chest in righteous indignation, you really ought to do the least amount of research to make sure that what you think you're saying is the same as what you actually are saying. A large number of theoretically literate people have been parading their ignorance as fact. Shame on them!

As we can clearly see, if you stake out a corner of the internet, create an identity for yourself, and post your beliefs, musings and rants and raves, you do so not 'anonymously,' but 'pseudonymously.' And writing under a pseudonym is an old and respectable tradition, practiced by some of the greatest journalists in history.

Are there examples of true anonymity in the blogosphere? Of course there are; all those twits and half-wits who leave unsigned comments appended to various blogs. Coconut Grove Grapevine has a bumper crop of those; mindless drivel, for the most part, contradictory missives all indistinctly appended "anonymous," making any sort of meaningful discussion impossible. The auhors are unknown, and un-knowable. We can't identify one "anonymous" from any other.

But - and this is the thing - they are not bloggers. Bloggers write blogs; readers merely read the blogs, and they are the ones that leave comments. You are not a blogger if all you do is leave comments on somene's blog. If you read a novel and write a comment in the margin, no one starts calling you a "novelist," do they?