Penn and Teller: BS on Taxes

I'm a big fan of Penn & Teller's Bullshit. They perform a meaningful public service when they take on various forms of pseudoscience and fraud.

Even when I disagree with the episodes that showcase their libertarian beliefs I still think they create a great starting point for a dialogue.

In their most recent episode, they decided to target taxes. While they were upfront about their support for a flat tax position with support from advocates such as Grover Norquist, Dick Army, and Ron Paul, they did balance it with some viewpoints from the other side.

Still, it appears that they may have created a false impression about the views of one of their guests, David Cay Johnston. On camera, Johnston is presented as a critic of the current tax system, but they don't into much depth with him about how his views on the tax system focus a lot on corporate welfare and benefits for the wealthy. After watching the episode, you might be left with the impression that Johnston is also a flat tax advocate because he doesn't get much of a chance to present his own ideas for tax reform.

Penn & Teller have always been a biased program and they have less than half an hour to make all of their points, but they can still be honest about the views of their guests.

When Michael Moore creates false impressions about the views of someone he interviews, there is just criticism. I would hold Penn & Teller to no less of a standard.

Podcast

Why Craig?

Gordon Smith hasn't yet joined the chorus of Republicans calling for Larry Craig's resignation. It's probably just as well because there's something more significant going on.

I would argue that the allegations regarding Senators David Vitter and Ted Stevens are at least as serious as those associated with Craig. To his credit, Craig resolved his legal problems by negotiating . Stevens may be facing criminal charges while Vitter seems to have benefited from the statute of limitations. Craig came clean about his failings and he's being crucified for it by his own party.

Why pick on Craig? Is it because he has a safe seat and can easily be replaced by another Republican? Is it because there's more toleration for a Senator that hires prostitutes or peddles influence than one who has closeted gay tendencies? It's not like he went after pages.

The Tipping Point

There's been a lot of commentary about the exploits of blogger Stefan Sharkansky in regards to tipping and payback.

I can emphasize with a someone who works in customer service and has had some difficult experiences, it can be tough work. But, I would hesitate to publicly name someone and expose them to public ridicule just because I didn't like serving them. Even if I did feel justified, I don't think any employer would want their waitstaff to find creative ways to embarrass customers. Just doesn't seem like good business.

In regards to Sharkansky's response, what more can be said? The waitress has apologized and the relevant blog posts have been deleted. To go into detail about what Sharkansky wrote about the waitress would only expose her to more humiliation.

The Pro-War Vote

There's more discussion about Merkley's 2003 vote in support of the troops.

I guess I was naive enough to think this would be an issue isolated to the Democratic primary. I wouldn't have thought that Oregon Republicans would want to claim that Merkley's vote made him as supportive of the war as Smith.

Probably the most annoying thing about the issue is how disengenus the argument appears coming from the Republicans. At least Steve Novick could argue that Merkley wasn't as anti-war as he could have been. What's the Republican argument? Merkley was pro-war because he supported the troops in a non-binding resolution while saying he wasn't convinced that the war was justified?

The Anti-War Vote

The Associated Press is reporting on how Jeff Merkley's vote on a resolution supporting U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003 could have an impact in the Democratic Senate primary.

Since this resolution was only of symbolic value, it didn't have quite the same importance as the vote in Congress. In addition, there appears to be some dispute over whether the resolution was an endorsement of going to war or just a sign of appreciation for America's fighting men and women.

It's hard to point fingers in a case like this since so many prominent Democrats in Congress gave their approval for Bush's war. The more important question is going to be where the candidates stand now. Do they support an attack on Iran? Do they support a pullout from Iraq? If so, when? If not, why?

For me those questions could be the most important factor is distinguishing between the campaigns of Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley.

Merkley Who?

An AP article on Senator Gordon Smith reflects on the challenges facing him as he runs for reelection. Yet, the writer also appears to use anecdotal evidence to downplay the chances of the Democratic challengers:

Still, Democrats have an uphill battle. Their anointed candidate, state House Speaker Jeff Merkley of Portland, has dismal name recognition, with even card-carrying Democrats in Tillamook groping for his name "It's someone _ Merky?" said Leo Schreiner, of nearby Netarts.

"I will vote for the Democrat," put in Schreiner's friend, Bob Cooper. "But I just can't imagine someone beating Gordon Smith."

Now, I'm not trying to suggest that Jeff Merkley is a household name, but I'd like to see an analysis of name recognition that goes beyond asking a few voters in Tillamook. In addition, the article doesn't even mention the other Democratic candidate, Steve Novick. I do hope the AP coverage improves as the election season progresses.