Tag Archives: critical thinking

Posted on by

When The ACLU Thinks You’ve Stepped Over The Free Speech Line…

When the ACLU won't back your free speech play, you might be on the wrong side if the issue

When the ACLU won't back your free speech play, you might be on the wrong side if the issue

We’ve written previously about USMC Sgt. Gary Stein and his trouble with the Corps in terms of free speech. It seems he is bound and determined to see how far he can take this. From the OC Register:

 A Camp Pendleton Marine facing dismissal for running a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party that criticizes the Obama administration is still speaking out but has been getting little support from military law experts and free speech advocates who say he may have crossed the line.

Sgt. Gary Stein planned to speak at a Tea Party meeting in San Diego County on Thursday, a day after the Marine Corps notified him that it is moving to dismiss him for violating the Pentagon’s policy barring troops from engaging in political activities.

The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticizing the commander in chief.

David Loy, of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego County, said he has not followed Stein’s case closely, but that based on what he has seen in the media he thinks there may be a legitimate concern on the part of the Corps about Stein appearing to be speaking as a member of the armed forces because of his Facebook page’s name.

“The military has a very strong interest and appropriately so to remaining neutral,” he said. “The last thing we want is our military taking sides on political issues.”

Former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, agreed.

“He’s really rubbing the government’s nose in it,” he said. “It’s really hard to have sympathy for him.”

Plenty of others have tried going this route before. They don’t get very far. In fact, most of the people the Register talked to said that the Corps has gone very easy on Sgt. Stein up until now. But he seems hellbent to try to push the issue.

Here’s a tip, Sgt., not that you asked – if the ACLU thinks you’ve stepped over the free speech line, you might want to listen. When folks who will fight for the right supremacists to assemble and speak – because the organization supports free speech – when they won’t back you, you’re on the wrong side of the fight.

As the Register notes, this has been a regulation for the armed forces since the Civil War. Does he really think he has a new argument to make for it. As a commenter noted on another post, USMC can also mean U Signed the Motherf’in Contract. Stein is a recruiter. He knows the regs, and he knows them well. And he signed to extend his service. He knows the rules, and he chooses to flaunt them. If he continues, he’ll be lucky if all they do is demote him and discharge him. Insubordination is not a term tossed about lightly in the armed forces. And if Sgt. Stein wants to wear that term like a badge of honor, I have a hunch the USMC will be glad to oblige.

Posted on by

When “Free Speech” Gets You In Trouble

USMC says Stein crossed the line - they're right.

USMC says Stein crossed the line - they're right.

No, this isn’t a post about Rush Limbaugh.

This is about the fine line between free speech and not-so-free speech. A Marine in San Diego is facing discharge for things he posted on a Facebook page he created (via USA Today):

The Marines on Wednesday told Sgt. Gary Stein — a Camp Pendleton Marine who started the Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party — that he is in violation of Pentagon policy barring troops from political activities.

Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he started the page to encourage fellow servicemembers to exercise their free speech rights. He has also criticized U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for his comments on Syria.

The Marine Corps said in a statement that Stein’s commanding officer ordered a preliminary inquiry on March 8 after receiving allegations that Stein posted the political statements violating the Pentagon’s directives.

“After reviewing the findings of the preliminary inquiry, the commander decided to address the allegations through administrative action,” the Corps said.

“I’m completely shocked that this is happening,” Stein said. “I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve only stated what our oath states that I will defend the constitution and that I will not follow unlawful orders. If that’s a crime, what is America coming to?”

Stein said he planned to fight the charges. He had applied to extend his service, which was set to expire in a few months.

Stein said in addition to being discharged, he would have his rank reduced to lance corporal if he is proven to be in violation. He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego on Wednesday and given a desk job with no access to computers.

This is where the nuance of free speech get tricky. At first glance, it looks like Stein was simply exercising his right to free speech by posting on Facebook. But as most who have served in the military will tell you, there is no such thing as “free speech” in the military. And in particular, you are not allowed to say derogatory things about the senior officers, nor even intimate that you would defy command. That includes saying you would not follow orders.

He had already been warned in 2010 about such activity.

According to Pentagon directives, military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president.

Stein was first cautioned by his superiors at Camp Pendleton in 2010, after he launched his Facebook page and criticized Obama’s health care overhaul. Stein volunteered to take down the page while he reviewed the rules at the request of his superiors.

He said he determined he was not in violation and relaunched the page. Last week, he said his superiors told him he could not use social media sites on government computers after he posted the message stating he would not follow the president’s unlawful orders.

Stein said his statement was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.

So, he himself determined he was not in violation. Probably not the right person to make that judgment.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road. Most employers have some type of clause that states that you can be terminated for any action that is found to reflect badly on the employer. Pretty common stuff. Stein’s employer is the USMC. And their code of conduct is more strict than most civilian employers. They rely on order to be able to do their job. And they take it pretty seriously. Having a recruiter post publicly that he would countermand orders from the Commander-In-Chief – particularly in the context of a political debate in a public forum – reflects badly on the Corps. And to start a group called the “Armed Forces Tea Party” is in direct violation of the regulations he says he complied with. So is calling the President an enemy of the state.

I’m all for free speech. But as I’ve noted before, there is a consequence for that free speech. Free speech is the right to say what you feel. It does not, however, mean you are free from repercussions of that speech. You CAN yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. You will, however, be responsible for the result of that action. In this case Stein, as an active duty member of the Corps, and a recruiter for that branch to boot, has violated their regulations. He can say what he wants. He will feel the repercussions of those statements and the choice to ignore the rules.

Posted on by

Rick Santorum: President Obama Shouldn’t Let Daughter Go To Mexico

Via Scoop.it – Edited For Clarity Politics

Remember when Santorum was attacked a few weeks ago for continuing to campaign while his daughter was very ill and in the hospital? At the time, I defended Santorum. I said that by all evidence, he was a good dad, and that there was no legitimate reason to go after him.

Now, he gives me reason to regret that.

“Rick Santorum said President Obama set a bad example and potentially endangered American tourists by letting his daughter, Malia Obama, go to Mexico on a vacation.”

Malia went with friends to Oaxaca, a popular tourist destination – and one that is not on the State Department’s warning list. There hasn’t been much reporting on the trip, as the White House has asked – rightly so – that there not be much coverage of the children if they are not with their parents. Makes sense, right?

But Santorum has decided this is a great way to jab at the President again. Never mind the fact that the State Department’s travel warnings don’t include Oaxaca. That kind of salient fact doesn’t carry any weight when your whole goal is to try to make your statements as negative as possible.

Posted on by

Gingrich Doesn’t Get It… Again

You Talkin' To Me?

So, the latest “poutrage” from Newt Gingrich is apparently aimed at…

Robert DeNiro.

At a recent fundraiser for President Obama, DeNiro made a joke when talking about the First Lady.

“Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?” DeNiro said, to laughter from the crowd. When someone in the audience yelled, “no!”, DeNiro continued, “Too soon, right?”

To me, a fairly innocuous joke, but there can be a racial element construed. So, I really don’t have a problem with someone taking offense. And when I first saw the joke, I thought there might be something I actually agreed with Gingrich on. Then, I saw his response.

“What DeNiro said last night was inexcusable and the president should apologize for him. It was at an Obama fundraiser, it is exactly wrong, it divides the country,” Gingrich said. “If people on the left want to talk about talk show hosts, then everybody in the country should hold the president accountable when someone at his event says something that is utterly and terrible unacceptable as what Robert DeNiro said.”

Yup, that’s where he lost me. See, he’s referring to the anger at Rush Limbaugh about his remarks over the course of over 20 years, that culminated two weeks ago in his attacking a Georgetown student and activist for three days, calling her a slut, a prostitute, and asking her to send him sex tapes. Gingrich, in typical GOP style, is equating that three day tirade – and the ensuing protest and boycotting in its aftermath – with the one-liner from DeNiro.

But even with that, overblown and false equivalency-ridden as it is, I might have cut him some slack. But when he calls for the President to apologize for DeNiro, he loses touch with reality. If he wants someone to apologize, then it should be DeNiro, not the President. Ask DeNiro for the apology. Sure, it could be fair to ask the President to disavow himself of the statement, if you’re really that offended. But to apologize for DeNiro? Gimme a break.

No one has been asked to “apologize for” Limbaugh. The actions taken to contact his advertisers – and their choice to drop him – haven’t been directed to, nor requested of the GOP. Not that they would do it anyway. When asked about it, the best they can do is say “I wouldn’t have said that”. Instead, they have gone all-in trying to back Limbaugh and his misogynistic statements. Never mind he’s done it for years. But DeNiro makes one joke – and a mild one at that – and it’s suddenly the same level and requires an apology from the President on DeNiro’s behalf?

Here’s a simple idea: You don’t like DeNiro’s joke? Boycott his movies. Don’t buy DVDs that have him in them, and don’t patronize his restaurants. Write the distributors of his films and tell them you won’t see another of their films if it has DeNiro in it. Tell them you won’t spend a dime on their product unless they denounce what he said. That would be the straight-up answer to how Limbaugh has been handled. And good luck with that.

But bringing the President into this is just plain pandering to the base, and faux outrage from the GOP. Again.

UPDATE:  A spokesperson for the First Lady has already released a statement saying the joke was inappropriate. Chances that Gingrich will say that’s good enough? Zero. Chances he will even note that the statement was released. Next to zero.

Posted on by

Where Did Our Passion For The Future Go?

I grew up with the space program. I was four when man first set foot on the moon. I watched in awe as the first space shuttle launched. I saw the Challenger accident live, and stared for hours in disbelief as the story unfolded. I marvel at the wonders we see with the Hubble telescope. And yes, I wanted to travel space myself.

I came across this video compilation of Neil DeGrasse Tyson clips talking about the space program, about how it got started, and why it all but disappeared. And I wept.

Because his passion is what is missing. We had a passion for exploration, for pushing frontiers, for moving forward. And it is all but gone. He’s absolutely right, of course – the program was a result of cold war tensions. It was the original “America ‘F’ Yeah” to the Soviets. We weren’t going to be beaten. And when they no longer presented a threat, our passion disappeared.

It was born out of fear. And yet, look at the good that came of it. Thousands of technological advances were developed in the proverbial blink of an eye by engineers and scientists who didn’t care a whit about profits – only results. They worked tirelessly to solve problems that were thought impossible. And then improved on those solutions.

As pointed out in the video, the current NASA budget – to pay for everything – is less than 4/10 of $0.01. Four tenths of a penny. And the bank bailout was bigger than the entire 50 year budget of NASA. But nowadays, we aren’t fighting a Cold War. There is no big bad red beast to beat. No, today, we are more concerned with bottom lines, profit margins, and big bonuses. If the program doesn’t produce those, it’s a waste.

Of course, that ignores the fact that those technological advances required engineers, and manufacturing, and assembly workers, and a whole host of other jobs that currently aren’t being created because we aren’t spending the money to justify them. And it’s not just NASA jobs. It wasn’t that long ago that microwave ovens and freeze dried foods were “the future”. Now, they’re throwaways. But those advances came in large part from the space program. What new advances, new technologies have we missed out on because we didn’t have the passion to continue pursuing the future?

My daughter has never seen a real space launch. She’s 9. In her lifetime, we have not gone to the moon. And we’ve just about stopped sending men into space. There was more excitement about the future and wonder about space 40 years ago when I was a kid than there is now. Every kid wanted to be an astronaut. Now? They don’t really know what an astronaut is.

Maybe the technology, the novelty of it wore off. Maybe we need to have something, someone to fight against to push us forward. Or maybe, just maybe, we need to figure out how to bring back that wonder of traveling to another rock in space, to step foot on alien soil, and take that one small step, that one giant leap again.

Maybe.

 

Posted on by

Don’t Waste Your Time – Or Mine

The old adage says that you know you’re on the right track when the other side starts squealing…

So, we’ve apparently established that this guy is ok with Limbaugh’s rants, doesn’t know the definition of “socialist”, thinks I’m a “S.L.U.T.”, and has a problem with people who shave their heads.

Note that there is no response to a request for him to back his words. He’s just throwing stuff out now to see if he gets a response. And then, the “too bad they didn’t abort you” reference. Cause these guys never indulge in this stuff, right?

Mind you, this wasn’t in response to anything… Just out of the blue. I’m guessing that it was in response to yesterday’s post about Rush Limbaugh’s ongoing situation.

Now frankly, I find these kind of things humorous, and a bit flattering. I mean, the guy included me with @markos in a tweet. He’s a much bigger Twitter presence than I am. And guys like this crack me up. Because they know nothing more than what they hear on Limbaugh, or Beck, or Fox News. Critical thinking? Non-existent.

My standard response to these guys is simple – ask them to back their claim. If they can, I’m more than happy to carry on a discussion – even if they can’t help but drop back into stupid metaphors or insult. Why? Because if they’re dealing with facts, there’s at least  a point for discussion.

But as is usually the case for guys like this, there is no basis in fact. They just like to fire-bomb and run away. So, I let them – run away, that is. Once I see these guys aren’t interested in any conversation, it just becomes an entertainment. And when they don’t get me throwing fire back, they get bored. And off they go.

But this is the modus operandi of these guys. They think that bluster and insult makes their point. In fact, it just exposes them for the juveniles they are. These are the guys who wish they could have bullied people in the schoolyard, and now want to do it online, behind the safe anonymity of the Internet.

Of course, we all know it’s not that anonymous. It’s a GoDaddy domain, so make your own judgments.

The real sad part about these people is that they just can’t be reached by common sense. A look at this tweeter’s website reveals birtherism, a strong hatred for the President, and a willingness to believe any conspiracy theory as long as it attacks “liberals”. For example, a post on ACORN – which they call “embattled” – ignores the fact that ACORN was disbanded in 2010, even after they were cleared of any wrongdoing by four different investigations. They claim that ACORN has been spun off. Again, it’s fantasy, but with these folks, facts mean nothing. they can’t be bothered with facts – facts interfere with their preconceived, fabricated storylines that fit their varied and sundry prejudices.

Bottom line is – you’re never going to get these kind of folk to change their minds. Nor are you going to get them to see anything other than the pictures they have already painted in their heads. But the important thing to remember is – these aren’t the people that decide elections. They’ve always been around. The ones that can make real change, that can affect all of our futures, are the folks who actually listen. The folks who can reason, can have intelligent, civil discourse are the ones who sway elections.

So, when you run into one of these gems like the individual above – don’t waste your time. Let them waste theirs.

Posted on by

Limbaugh’s Belly Flop Created A Tidal Wave

I’ve held off writing this post to see if the dust was going to settle. It’s not, so it’s time to put these thoughts into some order.

Rush Limbaugh may not have just killed his own show, but he may have loosened the Gordian Knot that has given the right a stranglehold on talk radio for the last two decades.

First, to what he did. By now, you probably already know that Limbaugh went after Georgetown student Sandra Fluke for her testimony on a hearing convened on women’s reproductive rights and access to contraception. Limbaugh, in his usual bluster decided to call Ms. Fluke a slut, a prostitute and ask that if she wanted him, as a taxpayer to pay for her contraception, she should send him sex tapes.

Of course, he ignored what she actually testified about – that lack of access to contraceptives increases the danger for women who might develop ovarian cysts and other conditions that are helped by the use of contraception. But this post isn’t about arguing the merits of that debate.

No, this is about pointing out that what he did was wrong. Period. As I discussed in our post yesterday, the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that what he did was flat out wrong. No dissembling, no waffling. It was wrong. It was demeaning, churlish, sophomoric and a whole bunch of other multi-syllabic words describing how bad it was.

The defense of it first came from Limbaugh. He acted like it was no big deal, then offered the standard conservative non-apology apology: “I’m sorry if anyone was offended”. Kind of like saying, “I’m sorry you walked in front of my car while I ran the red light”. They are the cause of the damage, but it’s your fault for being there. Here’s a clue: If you did something wrong, the proper way to apologize is to say “I shouldn’t have done it”. In Limbaugh’s case, it should have been “I shouldn’t have said it”.

But instead, he uses it to rail against his detractors, complaining that they want to curtail his 1st Amendment rights, and that somehow, his words make him the victim, not the bully. And then comes the really infuriating excuse:

They do it too. (Again, see yesterday’s post for my real thoughts on that).

Let’s really break down that idiotic argument, shall we?

First, pretty much every kid I know has heard the “If your friends jumped off a bridge” line from their parents. We all learned that just because someone else does something, it doesn’t give you an excuse to. Period. So the “they did it too” excuse is just a pile of crap. But if you really want to see how it falls apart, ask them who did it. They will point to three names right now – Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and Louis CK. And that right there shows you they have no clue that they are comparing apples to oranges.

How many times has any of those individuals actually influenced anything the left does? Anything? Moore makes movies and spouts his rhetoric. And to be sure, I condemn about half of what he says. He, like Limbaugh, is earning a buck. And no one on the left actually takes advice from Moore, regardless of what the folks at Fox News believe.

Maher and Louis CK are stand-up comics. They offend as part of their act. And yes, I cringe with disgust when I hear some of their jokes because I find the language or attack offensive. But are they major players in the Democratic Party? Not even close. They’re entertainers.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, has been a major player in Republican politics for years. How many times has John Boehner said something, have Limbaugh attack it, and suddenly reverse his tone? Limbaugh scares the Republicans, and until now, has been able to wield his program like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of the Republican Party. If Rush doesn’t like it, it gets quelled quickly.

Which is why comparing what the other guys do to Limbaugh is wrong on so many levels. They aren’t in the same field, much less the same arena of followers. But they also act like Limbaugh has only been offensive this one time. It isn’t true.

“This one time”, or as one commenter described it “a five-minute lapse”, was actually three days of bashing a private citizen. When Maher or Louis CK go after someone, it’s usually someone in the public eye. I have yet to hear them go after someone who is not a public figure. But Limbaugh went on for three days about a private citizen. And whether she is an activist for women’s issues is irrelevant. Had Limbaugh not decided to go after her for three days, the vast majority of people would not have a clue who she is, and she would have been a footnote in the whole contraception brouhaha. Instead, he chose to make her more prominent.

Contrast that to Sarah Palin, who uses every opportunity to promote herself, to the point of using her followers’ money to tour around the country on vacation last year in a bus with her name emblazoned on it. That’s not just in the public eye, that’s sticking your finger in it. This is a person who craves the spotlight. Does this justify using some of the more vulgar language that has been directed at her? No. Just like being President doesn’t justify being called some of the more offensive racist slurs. Those are reprehensible. I condemn that from anyone. But it’s part and parcel of being a public figure.

Sandra Fluke was not a public figure, until Limbaugh made her so.

But the real issue to consider is that she is only the most recent. Here are some choice quotes (h/t to Milt Shook who has compiled these and many more, along with sources):

  • “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”
  • “Holocaust? Ninety million Indians? Only four million left? They all have casinos — what’s to complain about?” Source
  • To a black caller who disagreed with him: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” Source
  • “Feminism is about victimization. Don’t forget Undeniable Truth of Life Number 24. Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.” Source
  • On Fox & Friends, defending his selection as a Miss America judge, 02/03/2010: “I’m a huge supporter of women. What I’m not is a supporter of liberalism. Feminism is what I oppose. Feminism has led women astray. I love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.” Source
  • On his TV show in 1993, while holding a photo of Chelsea Clinton, then 13: “Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?” Source
  • On women who protest sexual harassment: “They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.”Source

You get the picture. There are plenty more.

So why now? Why this time? Because the right has been on a tear of late attacking women. Blocking contraception, invasive transvaginal ultrasounds, the Komen Foundation fiasco – all of these have heightened the awareness of women. And Limbaugh thought he was playing to a friendly crowd when he decided to go down this route.

Make no mistake – it was a conscious decision on his part. You don’t keep bringing the topic up for three days by accident. He wanted to milk it because his loyal dittoheads were soaking it up. But the world of social media got hold of it. Ten years ago, this would have flown right by. But now, a movement can be started with a text message and a tweet. And he kept digging.

But before anyone starts complaining about stifling his free speech, let’s remember one thing – no one is saying he can’t say what he wants to say. No, what folks have done is coalesce behind the idea of contacting the companies that advertise during his program to let them know what they are sponsoring, and that if they choose to continue to sponsor that kind of program, they will lose a customer. Free market, baby! Back in the early 2000′s, when the Dixie Chicks released a song critical of the Bush administration, and spoke out against policies they were against, I guarantee there was not a Conservative tear shed for the backlash against them. It was the free market, and their “fans” spoke with their wallets. Limbaugh is no different.

You see, the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. It protects you from government stifling of that free speech. You know what’s not guaranteed in the 1st Amendment? That there won’t be repercussions from you opening your mouth. It doesn’t guarantee that if you say stupid, offensive things at work that you won’t be fired. You can say them, but the ramifications of that choice are yours. And it doesn’t guarantee that saying “Sorry you were offended” will make it all better.

But Limbaugh’s situation may be leading to a much more dramatic shift – a change in talk radio. It’s been a trend that has been coming for a few years, but may be hastened by the controversy. The fact is, Limbaugh’s listeners are generally older males. They’re loyal, but they’re not a great buying demographic. You know who is?

24-45 year-old Females. Oops.

The demographic that advertisers seek the most, find the most valuable, are exactly who Limbaugh has completely alienated, with little to no chance of ever getting them to listen in the future. And he plays to an older crowd. Old enough that one station manager has been quoted as saying the mean age for a Limbaugh listener is “deceased”. Not a growing demographic, and not one advertisers seek.

While Limbaugh has tried to play this off as no big deal, his distributor Premiere Networks is in full-blown panic mode. They sent out a memo to stations that carry Limbaugh’s show that all of their national advertisers were to be pulled from the show for a two week period that started today. That’s not small potatoes. That’s major revenue loss. Also, you have to understand the dynamics behind Limbaugh’s show and most other talk radio programs. Most shows are given “free” to affiliates, and the ad time during the show is split, with half going to the affiliate to sell, and half going to the show. Good deal for both.

But Limbaugh actually charges for his show, as well as keeping ad time. It is among the most expensive shows, and the ad time on the show has some of the highest rates. With advertisers pulling out of the show at both the national and local level, his show becomes very expensive for a local affiliate to run. Very expensive. And they aren’t in the business of losing money.

And the ad pull wasn’t just for his show. It includes Michael Savage, Sean Hannity – and any other program deemed “controversial” or “offensive”. That’s a big ripple and a very large chuck of revenue.

Meanwhile, another prominent conservative – with a much softer approach – is making headway in the time slot that has been traditionally Limbaugh’s. Mike Huckabee, who has been a contributor for Fox has been hosting his own show, and is gaining popularity. His non-confrontational, friendly style is much more appealing to the golden female demographic, and he has pledged that while he might talk politics, his show will be much more. To with, he recently interviewed Meryl Streep. Imagine that on Limbaugh’s show.

Will this be the end of Rush Limbaugh? Hardly. But he may end up going the way of Glenn Beck, with a much smaller, loyal audience, and much less of the impact on politics he has been able to wield for the last two decades.

Posted on by

Shove “They Do It Too” Up Your Ass

I have a lot of friends on the right side of the political spectrum. They’re generally well-meaning folk, even if I think their politics is dead wrong. And they think I’m just as wrong.

They usually take some offense when I rail against some stupidity on Fox News, or the rantings of some overzealous wingnut displaying their thinly veiled racism. Probably because they don’t see themselves that way. And if I thought they were racist, they wouldn’t be in my circle of friends either.

But they also hide their heads in the sand.

Case in point – they will make plenty of excuses for the following examples of right-wing insanity. They’ll say it isn’t representative. But the fact is, it’s reality.

Today, Fox News reported about the President issuing an apology for the killing Afghan men, women and children in an unprovoked attack by a US serviceman. For a reason as yet unknown, this individual walked out of the base, opened fire, then set fire to children.

This is an unhinged individual, and does not represent our brave troops. And an apology and a pledge to investigate is certainly in order. Unless, of course, you’re a Fox News website commenter.

Note – three people liked this. This was about 5 minutes before I typed this line. But hey, he’s just one, right?

Luckily, only 2 people liked this. Note how they ensure that they add spaces in their comments to avoid the filters.

Four people liked this one. Apparently, killing women and children is sport.

That one was climbing the popularity charts…

Of course, there is the anti-Obama racist sentiment…

Note that not one of these is a repeat. They are different commenters. And people are “liking” their comments.

Here’s the one that wishes for a military coup…

And the guy who cuts to the chase

You get the point.

So, then, what’s MY point?

For every conservative right winger who claims that the right isn’t infiltrated by racist, homophobic, violence fueled idiots like the individuals above, I can find ten of these examples. There are well-meaning folks on the right. And there are stupid, crass, neanderthals like the commenters on the Fox News site, who say what they do because of anonymity. I understand many reasons for anonymity, but hiding behind a pseudonym so you can indulge your white supremacist fantasies isn’t an argument I’ll accept.

Do folks on the left say stupid things? Absolutely. But in general, there isn’t a movement of folks supporting those stupid statements. They get admonished for it. And apologies are made. But these nutjobs on the right won’t apologize. And the folks who aren’t nutjobs won’t simply state “They’re wrong and idiots”.

No, they’ll go back and say “Well, the left does it too!”, as if that makes it ok. News flash: It doesn’t. It’s wrong when either side does it. And when either side does it, I find it offensive. So you telling me the other guys do it is like my kid telling me she cursed because she heard other kids do it. It doesn’t fly for her, and it sure as hell doesn’t fly for grown adults. I don’t care how well meaning you are. Condemn the crap above or don’t. If you do, leave it at that, because the minute you use the excuse “they did it too”, you’re no better than a 3rd grader. You want to condemn the other side? Do it when they make the statement that you find offensive. And if it’s offensive, I’ll join you in that condemnation. And I won’t say “the right does it too”.

But use that lame-ass excuse of “they do it too” – on either side of the fence – and you have lost any credibility you can have with me.

None of the comments have have ANY acceptable explanation other than racism, homophobia, xenophobia and extremism. None. And justifying them by claiming someone else does it puts you on the same level.

There. I said it.

 

Posted on by

A Net Gain In Employment – April ’12 Update

Graph from PortalSeven.com

U6 Unemployment graph from PortalSeven.com

So…

A few weeks ago, when the unemployment numbers for the President started looking good, the folks on the right decided that the old standby for the unemployment figures was not good enough. It’s been used for years – the last adjustment to it was 1996 – and is the number you hear quoted on the news. It stands at 8.3% today, the same number as February 2009, the first full month that the Obama administration could have responsibility for the numbers. In other words – any additional jobs from here out are an improvement during his term.

So they needed to find a way to somehow paint the accomplishment of lower unemployment in a bad light. They switched to the broader U6 number, which traditionally is nearly double the U3 number. Why? Lets look at what  the U6 number includes (from PortalSeven.com):

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the “marginally attached workers” include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

A much more comprehensive number, right? And a much more accurate measurement of total unemployment, agreed? So why wouldn’t the folks on the right go after this much bigger scary number?

Well, if they bothered to do a lick of research, they’d see that number is an even better marker of how well the administration has done in getting people back to work. The U6 figure in February ’09 was 15.1%.

In February ’12? 14.9%.

That’s a net gain in the number of people employed in the U6 number. But the real encouraging number is when you look at the U3 and U6 numbers together.

The U3 number staying the same is not all about fanfare. But the interesting thing is, the U6 number means a greater number of people have found work. Since the U6 number includes those who have stopped looking for work, then it stands to reason that more people are working, period. Less people are out of work, underemployed, etc.

It’s fairly simple math. And at the current pace, the U6 number will be better than the previous administration’s closing number (14.2%) fairly soon.

So, what numbers will the GOP gin up next? They can’t claim a single job bill, not a single piece of legislation to explain why the job market has improved. They can claim no credit for this improvement. So what will it be?

Then again, they don’t worry about the burden of facts, do they?

UPDATE 4/7/12 12:04 pm: The U6 number for March shows a continued improvement. The U3 dropped to 8.1% while the U6 dropped to 14.5%. This is below February 2009, the first month the President had full control, and approaching being lower than the January figure of 14.2%. So what’s the GOP – and “professional left”  - spin on this? It’s not fast enough. There is continued job growth, more people not only back to work  but entering the workforce, and it’s not fast enough. Just goes to show – they have to find a negative spin, no matter how good the news is.

Posted on by

Stop Talking To Ostriches

Image © 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

This makes it hard for them to listen... Image © 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

I keep myself pretty informed. As much as I can, I base my opinions on data, not other people’s opinions. Yes, I probably have a bias – most people do. But I do try very hard to back my assertions with facts, not conjecture.

I have come to realize that trying to express those opinions to some individuals just isn’t worth the stress.

These individuals come in all stripes. They range from the people who still believe the President is some Manchurian Candidate character whose birthplace is in question to people who complain that their health is failing while lying to the doctor about their diet and medicine regimen. They all make me crazy. And they shouldn’t. It’s my choice to discuss these things with them. And going forward, I’m making a concerted effort not to.

Why? Because they won’t change, they won’t listen to reason, and facts mean nothing. For example – one individual I know was recently admitted to the hospital for a possible stroke. When asked about what they had eaten that day, the response was “Coffee and a cookie for breakfast”. The doctor asked “Aren’t you a diabetic with blood pressure problems?” – the individual couldn’t see how their diet choices were that big of a deal. When asked whether they took their medications regularly, the answer was “Of course”. “Did you take them this morning?” – The answer was no.

This individual’s pantry is filled with a diabetic’s dream – pastries, breads, cookies – every form of bad carbs you can imagine. And yet, they can’t figure out why they can’t lose weight. Instead, they look to fad diets, like drinking “cucumber water”, which results in a temporary loss, but no improvement in the long term. They refuse to acknowledge that their own choices are killing them.

It’s like the proverbial ostrich sticking their head in the sand. If they just ignore the facts, ignore the evidence, and just say “Oh, that doesn’t work for me” without even trying, they think they can just keep on going the way they have.

I see the same thing with conservatives. Their need to hate President Obama is so consuming that facts are irrelevant. Here are some classic examples:

  • He’s going to take away your guns! Except the only gun legislation the President has signed granted the ability to carry concealed weapons in National Parks.
  • He’s a Communist/Socialist/Name your “ist”!  Except bank bailouts, multiple small business tax cuts, and cutting government payroll say otherwise. If they call a Communist, or a Socialist, they have no real concept of the meaning of those words.
  • He’s a foreigner! Yup, this one is still around. The “Donald” is still searching for clues, despite the fact that the Secretary of State in Hawaii has produced both versions of the birth certificate. Regardless of facts, they still want to question his authenticity.
  • He’s destroying the economy! This one makes me crazy. All evidence points the other way. Job losses have essentially stopped, and unemployment has dropped steadily. Of course, once the numbers for the standard measure of unemployment (U3) showed significant improvement, conservatives jumped on the bandwagon to say  that we really should look at the U6 numbers, which take into account ALL unemployment and underemployment. Except, that number is also vastly improved. If the trend for the last 20+ months keeps up, the current administration will reach U6 levels below the levels at which President Obama came into office before the elections. And, the Dow is at levels unseen since before his election. GM is showing record profits, back from the brink of extinction. And corporations are hiring again, and showing record profits in a wide variety of industries.
  • He’s gonna kill us with these gas prices! He wants them higher! A complete twist of the President’s statements. He has said that $5/gal gas prices might reduce demand further, but demand is already at 1997 levels, and the number if rigs drilling in the Gulf is 4x what it was when he took office, despite a one year moratorium on leases. If current production trends hold up (and the industry thinks the projections might be conservative) – with no additional drilling than is already approved – the US is poised to become a net exporter of energy products in about a decade. The price of gas has nothing to do with supply and demand. It’s about speculation.

There are plenty of other examples, like refusing to give the President credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, or the assertion that somehow, he’s soft on terror because he chooses to work with diplomacy first. Every single one of these is easily refutable with data and facts. But that doesn’t matter.

No, these folks will not change their beliefs. Period. If presented with facts, regardless of how valid, strong, unassailable they are, they will actually redouble their efforts to believe despite all evidence to the contrary. Those facts are perceived as an assault on their very core, and their resulting behavior is to simply stick their heads in the sand and ignore what is right in front of them.

How else do you explain Tea Party proponents who want government “entitlements” slashed, but turn around and say “keep your hands off my Medicare”? They want to cut the very programs that they rely on – but don’t want those programs cut when it comes to their own welfare.

In a nutshell, you won’t change these folks’ minds. The more you show them that the facts are against them, the more entrenched they become. And the deeper their heads dive into the sand.

So, I had to come to a conclusion. I’m not going to try. Their beliefs are so entrenched that no amount of persuasion, fact, data or debate will change their minds. So, the easier solution is to focus on those folks who haven’t buried their heads in the sand, who are open to discussion. The independent thinkers who still value information over rumor, data over innuendo.

And when things continue to get better, the ostriches still won’t see it.