Two thoughts on the right

So, I was thinking about the opposition to the windfall profits tax on oil companies. For some reason I was listening to RightWingTool2 (Hannity). He was railing against it, because the caller (whose dad was a geologist for the oil companies) complained that a windfall profits tax could not be imposed on foreign companies and especially governments. I doubt that is the case, the government has the right to tax whatever hits our shores, and most of those companies probably have local subsidiaries that do the business here and repatriate. Anyway, companies that are supposed to get the $18B or whatever in tax breaks in the current law are probably taxable.
I have fundamental problems with a windfall profits tax, but I disagree that it discourages investment - if there is money to be made, it will be made, regardless of what the companies would say:

BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.

I don't believe either of these, if they gave away a chance to make money, they are doing a disservice to their shareholders. Also, if more refineries are brought online, the price of gas would go down - refineries are the major bottleneck here.

I would rather just cut the tax breaks, instead of the government interfering with the market (which would effectively get the government out of interfering with the market in the tax code.) For the same reason, I don't like a gas tax holiday. But I do like the tax credit to middle-income families for gas. Good plan.

That's not what I wanted to talk about. The Right is talking up Palin in standing up to the oil companies, and for returning money to the taxpayers of Alaska. As I was thinking about this, and the $3K check that each citizen of Alaska will be receiving on Friday, something I heard a while ago popped into my head. Why doesn't the GOP mention that her standing up to the oil companies and returning money to the citizens of Alaska were the same act - she instituted a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, around the same time the GOP shot it down in Congress, to increase this years' check by $1200 per person.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

I don't hear that story thrown around a lot. Does that seem hypocritical?

I was really listening to the Ed Schultz show (where America comes to talk). He had Michael Isikoff on to report on the ethics investigation in Alaska...

-- inner monologue -- ooh, that's not sexist is it, to talk about the ethics investigation, I think she is a woman. Well, I am going to brave it anyway. -- end inner monologue--

Michael talked about the rapid response team sent to Alaska to help (i.e. interfere) with the investigation by the McCain campaign. I think he mentioned 15 lawyers and staffers or something like that. He also talked about this team working to muddy the waters (his words) and try to screw up the process (my words). But my question there is: who is paying for them. To send 15 people to Alaska for a few weeks has got to be pricey. Are campaign contributions allowed to be used for this? Or the public financing McCain accepted? Should someone be looking into this?

CREW FACT SHEET: PALIN ADMINISTRATION NOT SO OPEN OR TRANSPARENT AFTER ALL | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

CREW FACT SHEET: PALIN ADMINISTRATION NOT SO OPEN OR TRANSPARENT AFTER ALL Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: "The Alaska Attorney General issued an opinion on August 21, 2008 concluding that state employees have a right to privacy while using state-issued communication equipment shortly after it was revealed that Governor Palin and her staff used their state-issued blackberrys and computers for communications related to Governor Palin’s efforts to have her former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, fired. [read Alaska AG opinion here]

This is a radical departure from Alaska’s previous position that employees have no expectation of privacy in government email. [read AK State Policy Regarding Personal Use of State Office Technologies here]"

Why does this sound familiar?

Irony

To me, this is the ultimate irony, watching C-SPAN showing people dancing to different songs between speakers. This was the first song I saw, around 8:30 pm EST on Wednesday night,

Everyday people - Sly and the Family Stone

Yes, Everyday People - a great song and really fun dance song. But here are the lyrics to Everyday People:

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/sly_and_the_family_stone/everyday_people.html

Sometimes I'm right then I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my songs
A butcher, a banker, a drummer and then
Makes no difference what group I'm in
I am everyday people

There is a blue one who can't accept
The green one for living with a
black ones tryin' to be a skinny one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby
Ooh sha sha
We gotta live together
I am no better and neither are you
We're all the same whatever we do
You love me you hate me
You know me and then
Still can't figure out the bag I'm in
I am everyday people
There is a new man
That doesn't like the short man
For being such a rich one
That will not help the poor one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on scooby dooby dooby
Ooh sha sha
We got to live together
There is a yellow one that won't
Accept the black one
That won't accept the red one
That won't accept the white one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and
Scooby dooby dooby
Ooh sha sha
I am everyday people

Based on the bolded lyrics and knowledge of the times of this song, it seems to be to be railing against the estabishment and their narrow mindedness about different people and different lifestyles. Not exactly what I think of when I think of modern Republicans, especially the Evangelical base. And then there is the very first line of the song - Sometimes I'm right then I can be wrong- when was the last time Republicans admitted they were wrong?

The next few songs -
Stray Cat Strut - a song about long haired freaks out dancing and acting tough
Footloose - Theme song from a movie about what - breaking out against an oppressive religous leader so they can dance. Have you heard of Republicans fighting against Religous Orthodoxy in order to dance?

Then Carly Fiorina came on to speak - she is the poster child for Republicans. She took over HP, engineered a terrible invasion, oops, sorry, merger of Compaq, then was forced out in disgrace by the board, but not before taking millions with her.

And they have no concept of the irony.

Does Palin's daughter need to be discussed

Link above

Posted by Bonnie
Bucqueroux on Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:59 PM Sorry, George, Bristol's
pregnancy does matterPlease remember that Mother Palin wants to impose her
religious views on matters of choice and family values on us. And, as an
advocate of abstinence education, Palin expects us to pay for programs that
express her narrow views -- yet her own family shows us how ineffective such
efforts often prove to be. I want my tax dollars used to give young girls
information on birth control. Sarah wants families to handle such matters, but
clearly she didn't do a good job of teaching her daughter how to avoid a teenage
pregnancy. Or doesn't she believe in birth control?I also think it's outrageous
that Mrs. Palin accepted the offer to become vice president knowing that this
would put her daughter into the spotlight at what must be a difficult time for
this young girl. Why didn't Sarah "just say no"?It isn't the media who thrust
Bristol into the spotlight - it was her mother. I thought conservatives believed
in putting family first?

this is the first article to get close to expressing my thoughts on the value of this story. The hypocritical nature of the conservatives and their assuredness on their own opinion regardless of facts is the real story here - how can she advocate abstenance only when it clearly doesn't work with her own grandchild as evidence.

Also, some of the comments of this article show a narrowmindedness of the conservative movement.

Let's look at it from another perspective. After all the years of taxes going to
this ill fated project how many boys and girls, men and woman are still not
using proper birth control methods? For this reason we should eliminate this
funding. Why should my tax payers dollars go for an unsuccessful program
that
Bonnie wants her taxes to be used for?

Well, how about the fact that there are less teen pregnancies and cases of STD's in situations where all concepts are taught, not just one. This is the definition of narrow minded. Another comment, which actually uses the term.

I want my tax dollars used to give young girls information on birth
control.
Great, send a donation to the government. Unfortunately, in the real
world, you are forcing me, through the tax code, to pay for something I may not
agree with; or as you articulated "to pay for her narrow views". Perhaps I
believe your view is narrow. How is this situation any different?

I think I get it now - science, with it's facts and logical thought process is so narrow minded, especially since it interferes with the thought methodology of the right - if it feels right in the gut, regardless of evidence, it must be right. Truthiness at it's best. And the worst for anyone that thinks.