Tag Archives: Republicans

Posted on by

Bullies, Bashing and the GOP

Let’s get this straight right up front: What someone does as a teen is not necessarily a reflection of how they are 50-60 years later. there may be clues, but to flat out extrapolate from one to the other is just plain silly. That’s what folks are trying to do with this latest Mitt Romney flap. As written in a Washington Post article, Romney was apparently part of a bullying incident during high school where he and others pinned down another student and cut his hair, ostensibly because they believed he was effeminate and didn’t fit in. They were going to teach him a lesson.

This behavior is, without a doubt, reprehensible. But making the case that since he did it then, he’d do the same now – or even have similar tendencies – is simply ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney fan. But fair is fair.

If you want to see how the man’s character has developed, you need to look at more than just his high school years. He protested in favor of the Vietnam War, then got himself moved to France to avoid the draft. His time at Bain Capital, where he made his money buying, then dismantling businesses, pocketing the profits while moving jobs offshore and putting Americans out of work. Or his battle with and elimination of a Massachusetts state-sponsored group that worked to educate against gay bullying. You can look at his current focus at cutting the taxes on the wealthy, while increasing them on the poor. There are plenty of things you can point to that show where his thinking has “evolved”. You don’t need to extrapolate it from his behavior as a teen.

But there is a pattern here. And in that sense, there is some value to knowing about this incident. Romney has always been couched in privilege. And from that privilege comes arrogance and a sense of entitlement. It comes with the perception that those who are different must be made to toe the line. And that getting ahead, getting your own way, takes precedence over the welfare of others. In other words, he acts like a bully.

Today, that bullying is in the form of money. He will spend as much as it takes to get himself the nomination, and if he can, the Presidency. It doesn’t matter how awful things in his past might be, nor what the consequence to the average person is. This isn’t about class warfare, because Romney doesn’t recognize a different class. You can tell by his speeches, his statements – he truly believes that he is average, that everyone has the same opportunities he did. So he believes he is doing the best. And anyone who doesn’t have what he has is just lazy, doesn’t need help. Remember his statement about not being worried about the very poor? He thinks they’re ok. He thinks the fact that they have fallen into a safety net shows that the system works. Never mind the fact that they need a safety net is a prime example that the system isn’t working, and that he is supportive of removing that safety net and letting them fall. Same attitude as “Let Detroit Fail”. If it doesn’t affect him or his cronies directly, he really doesn’t care. But take away a penny of their income in taxes, and they scream of lost freedoms and war on the rich.

It’s the entitlement of bullies. They’ll bash everything around them if they are allowed. It gives them a sense of power, a sense of control. It’s the GOP brand. Case in point – today’s vote in the House on a Republican measure to restore military funding that they gave up in the debt ceiling deal. You’ll remember that in the deal, Republicans agreed that if a debt reduction deal was not passed by November of last year, there would be automatic cuts to the military. They agreed to that because Democrats agreed to cuts on the programs they favor as well.

Now, however, Republicans want to renege. They want to turn back the clock and not cut a penny out of the military. Instead, they want to make further cuts to social programs, like school lunches, health care subsidies, child tax credits and food stamps, on top of the cuts already agreed to. Typical bully behavior. Make the deal, then try to bash your way out of it when it starts going south.

Of course, this deal has no chance in the Senate, and even if it did, it would not get past the President. They made a deal, and they’re going to have to stick to it. But the reality is, they don’t care. How could they? Politically, in an election year, do you really want to pit the poor, children and the elderly against military spending? Do you want to remind folks that you made a deal, in an effort to reduce spending, and that you don’t want to keep your word?

Bullies don’t care.

Again, this isn’t about class warfare. This is about entitlement. They have the money, they want to keep it, and they don’t intend to give any of it away. So they’ll beat up whoever they have to toward that end.

So, no, Romney’s high school activities aren’t indicative of what he would do today. But they are a piece of a puzzle that shows that his sense of entitlement, his willingness to bully those he doesn’t agree with, has a clear progression from then until now.

Posted on by

I Finally Get ‘Personal Responsibility’

The GOP mantra, the conservative rallying cry for “personal freedoms” is one that seems to be particularly hypocritical at first blush. When they demand to legislate what happens in a woman’s body or extend the right of free speech beyond the individual and onto a corporation with the same rights, it just seems all out of whack.

And then I figured it out.

It’s not about “personal freedoms”. It’s about “personal” freedoms. What’s the difference? Everything, actually.

Most people, when they talk about “personal freedoms”, are talking about those rights that should be afforded and protected for individuals. We might actually call them “civil freedoms”. Those things to which we believe every man woman and child should generally be granted,, and protected from usurpation. Makes sense, right?

But that’s not how today’s GOP with their inexorable move to the right mean it. No, they believe in “personal” freedoms. As in, whatever works for them personally is ok, and anything that doesn’t is not ok. When you look at their positions in this context, it all starts to make sense.

Why, for example, do they want to control a woman’s right to decide what she can and cannot do with her body? In this new context, it’s very simple – the control. With that control, they can do whatever they want, and a woman must accede to it. A concrete example is that of Newt Gingrich. Conservatives rail about family values, want to legislate it. So why no real problem with Newt? Because, it’s his “personal” freedom to blow through marriages. He was adulterous and unfaithful. And yet, when he chose to go after Clinton in the 90′s, it was somehow a huge problem. Again, Newt could do that because it was his “personal” freedom to be unfaithful. And in the mind of these folks on the right, whatever you choose to do for yourself is fine, but if someone else does it, bring on the brimstone and hellfire.

Look at Mitt Romney. I believe he genuinely has no idea how disconnected he is with the average American. Why? Because he’s acted on his “personal” freedoms. He likes the idea of being able to “fire” people, because doing so is to his benefit. Cutting taxes on the wealthy while increasing them on the poor is fine, because it works for him “personally”.

Perhaps that’s the easiest way to translate the right’s obsession with “personal” freedoms. Just think of it as “it’s all about me”. If it helps them, “personally”, then it’s ok. To them, anything that helps others is pointless, unless they garner some benefit to themselves. Altruism does not fit into their views. They don’t see the point, because it doesn’t benefit them. Once you have that concept in your mind, it’s much easier to understand how they think. It’s also much easier to understand why they get supporters.

On the surface, everyone says they want to help others. But more and more, people pay lip service to this idea. They’re willing to help, unless it requires some sacrifice on their part. To be sure, the economy and hardships folks have faced have hardened them and forced them to think about their own situations first. But there has also been a steady move toward the idea that one takes care of themselves first. And as that moves farther, you add “and to Hell with everyone else.”

I think we saw this movement really start in the 80′s. I distinctly remember the movie “Wall St.”, and abhorring the Gordon Gekko character. His mantra “Greed is good; greed works” was particularly offensive to me. But the sad reality is, the second half of that mantra is correct: Greed does work. And I know far too many who to this day still see Gekko not as the villian, but a hero, a role model.

Gekko was right in that greed motivates. And once you get something, you naturally want more. And how dare anyone deny it to you. But we can’t all be Wall St. tycoons. That’s where the simplicity of greed meets the American Dream. Everyone wants to believe they can  be the tycoon, the multimillionaire. So, instead of acting on their best interests in reality, they fall prey to the dreams and fantasies of the rich. They’ll vote against their own interests to preserve the chance that someday, maybe, they might be there too.

“Personal” freedoms that they will never see.

And all the while, those with the money and the power will feed them that glimmer of hope, like the slot machine that pays out just enough to keep you pulling the handle. The odds are stacked against you the minute you walk into the casino, but you still drop the cash into the machine. And in the same way, the folks on the right keep feeding those dreams, while taking their livelihood. They’ll let you dream of keeping those taxes if you make it rich, while shipping your jobs overseas. They’ll give what you do pay to oil companies, then write the laws so those companies pay a fraction of what they should. Because it’s all in their personal interest. If they can get you to vote in their interests instead of yours, they win, and they won’t shed a tear for you.

Everything the right does is designed to help themselves, not anyone else. And the damnedest thing is, they tell people right up front – they want to be “personally free”, they want “personal responsibility”. All this time, you thought they were trying to tell you that you were irresponsible. What they were really telling you is that they don’t give a damn about you, they’re being “personally responsible” for themselves and no one else.

Posted on by

From Desperate To Ridiculous

The past week has been particularly tough for Mitt Romney. It seems every step of the way, he has found another pothole to trip over. His statements about bin Laden, his faux pizza delivery, caving to the hard right and firing his gay spokesperson – none of these paints the picture of a guy who can win the Presidency.

And Republicans see this. It’s why they’ve never liked Romney to begin with. But, they’re stuck with him, so now they’re getting desperate, looking for something, anything they can use to try to put a negative spin on the President.

The latest act of desperation? Trying to connect the Obama campaign’s use of the word “Forward” to Marxists and Nazis. Really.

That’s how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten. We can’t use common every day words, because they might have some sinister, nefarious meaning. Never mind that the Wisconsin state motto is “Forward” – the state must have been founded by those evil Marxists, right? And that bastion of Marxism, George W. Bush when he proposed “the way forward” in Iraq in 2006.

This is how ridiculous the conversation is getting. Anything is a “dog whistle” or has some dark, evil purpose. But I think there’s a very valid reason why the Republicans and the right think that way – it’s how they operate. It’s part of their make-up. While the average American thinks of words like “forward” as simply statements of direction of movement, the folks on the right have to find another meaning. It’s because when they use words like “Patriot”, they don’t mean someone who loves their country and fights for it. They mean someone who thinks just like them. When they say “food stamp President”, what they mean is “lazy, dark-skinned thief stealing my money”. Of late, they’ve been even less transparent, calling the President a “tar baby” and “boy”. There’s no shortage of phrases and messages that the right uses to get their base fired up. They are always looking for that “secret” meaning because they’re always including a secret meaning.

And because of that, they will always look for messages that don’t exist. Messages that no ordinary American will ever see. And of course, when we point that out, the argument is that we “just don’t understand”, or we’re blind, or don’t love our country.

You want to raise the level of discourse in this country? Try saying what you mean, and not looking for or using those “dog whistles”. Chances of that happening? Next to zero. And as we get closer to the election, and as Romney continues to bury himself in his own inanity, watch for the desperate to become even more ridiculous.

Posted on by

Remember, They Are Worried About Voter Fraud

Republicans have been yammering about voter fraud for the last few years, working to pass legislation to address this “menace”. Of course, they’re the ones getting caught in the fraud. And today we see yet another example of it in Wisconsin:

The state Republican party says it plans to run fake Democrats in four upcoming recall elections targeting GOP state senators.

Party spokesman Stephan Thompson says the move guarantees that a Democratic primary has to be held. He says that ensures one clear date for the primary and a separate one for the general election, thereby limiting any scheduling control for Democrats.

Republicans used the same tactic last year in recall elections targeting six other GOP state senators. The move gave the incumbents more time to campaign and raise money.

The incidence of actual voter fraud has been so low as to be laughable. Instead, the Republicans will waste time and money on running fake candidates just to play a political game. This isn’t about putting forward a solid agenda, or about doing what’s best for constituents. No, this is about doing whatever it takes to win, regardless of the moral or ethical considerations.

But this right out of their playbook. Create straw man problems, then tell everyone how terrible those non-existent problems are. And when that’s not working, go ahead and actually do what they have been railing against. Is it illegal to run fake candidates? Unfortunately, no. But if they are willing to do that, what else are they willing to do? And how can they be trusted if they are voted into office.

We need pols in office who actually have some ethical backbone remaining. And every day, the Republicans show that they are not the party to display that backbone.

Posted on by

The Wrong Day To Mess With Me

I’m not in a good mood. My congestive heart failure symptoms are giving me fits today. Weight is up, chest hurts, didn’t sleep. I thought I’d take it easy, not write any political posts, just kind of unplug.

I even, for the most part, just blew off the right-wing posts I was seeing, regardless of how near-sighted, self-centered or just plain stupid they were.

And it was working just fine, until someone decided to turn a post about how to fix Facebook settings into an attack on the left, and Christians on the left in particular.

Don’t ask me why, but it set me off. Maybe my filters are just off today. Maybe I’m just tired of the hypocrisy. Maybe my inner asshole decided it needed to come up for air. Whatever it was, I had a rage come up that made my blood boil. Not a great idea for a guy with a bad ticker.

I let loose on the individual in question, but the anger, the rage is still there. And since writing is my way of making sure I don’t go looking for a bar fight, I decided to get it out. So, if you’re still reading, be prepared – I’m about to vent. As in radioactive steam release vent.

I’m usually fairly mild mannered in my writing. I don’t usually drop the f-bomb. So if that word offends you, feel free to go look for cute kitten pictures now. Because I’m fucking pissed.

Why? Let’s start a little list, shall we?

For example, don’t rail against sharia law, and how Muslims are going to somehow circumvent the Constitution and how you have to pass laws to ensure it never happens, then turn around and tell us that the country should be ruled by your God’s law first, and the Constitution second.

Don’t tell me you defend the Constitution then work to dismantle every bit of it you don’t like.

Don’t find some reason to turn any discussion, no matter how mundane, into an attack on your religion, then turn around and try to tell me you know the difference between a “Christian” and a Christian, just because they don’t agree with everything you say. Or question the faith of the President of the United States.

Don’t tell me you’re all for the civil rights and equality for everyone and then argue against women’s reproductive rights, the rights of homosexuals to marry, or the right of a Muslim church to build a mosque in which to pray.

Don’t rail against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wing blowhards and then ignore it when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Bill Maher say something equally as offensive.

And don’t dare bring me the fucking “They do it too” excuse. Don’t. It only shows how stupid you are and how stupid you think I am.

Don’t talk to me about how you represent “the 99%” and then break into buildings. Here’s a clue genius – 99% of people don’t think someone who is breaking the law represents them. Peaceful, persistent protest, yes. Doing shit that is intended to aggravate “the man”, like hurling things at the police or through windows? Not a chance.

Here’s another clue: There really is supposed to be a separation of church and state. You deciding there isn’t doesn’t change history or the Constitution. I’m an agnostic, have been for most of my life. Your ardor for your faith does not give you the right to force me to bend to your beliefs. See “sharia law”.

Oh, and by the way, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government stifling your free speech. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of voicing your asinine beliefs.

For those who haven’t figured it out, things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security aren’t “entitlements”. If I paid my money into the system, they were an investment. If your investments are so fucking precious, how about treating these investments with the same amount of care, rather than raid them to fatten your damned offshore Cayman Islands bank accounts.

Don’t tell me it’s too easy to get welfare or assistance, then tell me that I can’t get any medical insurance or food assistance because my disability insurance pays me too much. And my rent is more than half of what I get.

Don’t rail against the President about gas prices (regardless of political stripe) but tell me oil companies need continued subsidies. And don’t tell me gas prices are about supply and demand when we have a surplus and prices are still climbing. Meanwhile, speculators are laughing their asses off as we have to make decisions about whether we eat or put gas in the car. Think that’s an exaggeration? I made that exact decision yesterday.

Don’t tell me that climate change and evolution are “controversial theories”, but insist that “creationism” or “intelligent design” are sound scientific hypotheses.

Don’t tell me about defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood and remove access to birth control, then rail against abortion because of unwanted pregnancies. And when you talk about womens’ pregnancies in terms of barnyard animals I have two words for you: Fuck. Off.

Don’t talk to me about how a racist can’t be a racist because he’s not actually a caucasian while a family buries their young son because he had the temerity to walk back from 7-Eleven with Skittles and iced tea. And don’t even defend the very same racist  who is heard saying “fucking coons” on a 911 tape when the kid he followed, who he vastly outweighed ended up with a hole in his chest from the gun that was fired in “self-defense”.

And you better not try to tell me that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. No, stupid fucking people with access to guns kill people. And no, genius, that doesn’t mean I want to take away your guns. It means there are responsible ways to control who has a gun and when they can have it on them, and if your excuse for carrying it is the Second Amendment, your reading comprehension in terms of the Constitution is embarrassingly low. Look up the definition of “well-regulated militia”, and I’m pretty sure you ain’t it. And it doesn’t give you the right to carry a bazooka like an extension of your johnson. You don’t need a fucking AK-47 to hunt rabbits, moron.

The next person who uses the term “race card” in my presence may get a well-placed fist in the puss. Racism is racism, and I don’t care who is guilty of it. And guess what? It’s out there, uglier than ever. And if you’re black, and you see something that was racist against a black, it’s ok to call it out. And I expect you’ll call out racism against whites, hispanics and Asians. Just like I expect all of them to do the same. Same with anti-Semitism. I don’t care the race, creed or religion of the person being racist. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

And don’t – don’t - defend a racist remark by trying to redefine it. The word “nigger” is not defined as someone who is lazy or slothful. It’s a derogatory term derived from the mispronunciation of “negro”. So using your definition of it to excuse a bumper sticker that says “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012″ isn’t fooling anyone. If you’re going to be racist, at least have the decency of wearing your fucking hood so we can see you more easily.

Speaking of hoods, wearing a hoodie and jeans isn’t supposed to be a death sentence. And then turning around and saying that the reason a kid got killed was his choice in clothing is the epitome of stupidity and blatant idiocy. Maybe the problem is the perception that someone wearing a hoodie is automatically a thug, you fucking gasbag.

And no, there isn’t a “liberal media bias”. There is a bias to what makes money. Fox is focused on the right because Murdoch realized he could make a buck there. Liberals don’t watch as much TV. If they did, he’d try to suck that market dry too. CNN, MSNBC, and all the rest – they aren’t journalism anymore. They are reporters. They repeat what they’re told and fuck the truth. It’s waht they can get you to watch that’s importannt. How the hell else do you justify nearly 30 Republican debates with the same questions asked over and over and over again, like there was any real chance of the answer changing.

Another clue for some of you – just because Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul call it “gotcha journalism”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t answer the damned question. If you are asked a question about something you said, it’s your own damn fault for saying it. Blaming the person asking the question and calling it a gotcha question means you realize you opened your fucking mouth when you shouldn’t have, and now you don’t want to have to answer for it. Shut up, and either back your statement or recant it. But asking you about something you said isn’t “gotcha journalism”. It’s follow-up.

Oh, and you rocket scientists on the “professional left”… Just because you had some unrealistic fantasy that the President would fix eight years of backward, destructive policies within 90 seconds of taking office doesn’t mean the rest of us had the same stupid expectation. And the most ridiculous thing you do is then decide you’re going to punish the one guy who actually has gotten things moving in the right direction by not voting for him, or trying to weaken him. Result? You allowed the guys who fucked things up for eight years to gain back the House so they could proceed to spend two years doing nothing but get in the way. Awesome plan. What’s next? Tell folks on the left they should vote for Romney ’cause he’s no different? Oh, right, some of you have already done that. Idiots.

Here’s another thing – shut the fuck up about family values while you’re on your third wife, screwing hookers while you’re in diapers, having sex with Congressional pages or trying to have an illicit homosexual hookup in an airport bathroom while claiming you’re straight. You’re all bunch of hypocrites. And don’t give me the bullshit that the media only covers the screwups on the right because of the bias. They cover the screwups on the right because the right claims to be the arbiters of what are “true family values”. The left doesn’t make that claim, so when they screw up, it’s less of a deal. If the right didn’t spend so much time acting like they were the pristine vestal virgins they want everybody to believe they are, it wouldn’t be as big a deal when they screw up. Bill Clinton got blowjobs in the Oval Office, and they moved to impeachment. Vitter does hookers while wearing a diaper, and he’s still getting voted in. Gingrich is on his third wife – having cheated on the first two – and he’s still running for office. So tell me again, where’s the bias?

I also can’t fathom how the guys who are so concerned about voter fraud can’t even count votes properly in their own caucuses.  They can’t complete a simple primary without accusations of voter fraud within their own people. Maybe that’s why they’re so afraid someone else will do it, even though there is no credible evidence that it happens.

But probably the one thing that really, really pisses me off is the willful, even spiteful ignorance of facts. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, even your own conclusion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. Rather than pursue fact and deal with issues based on those facts, there is a culture of simply throwing out conjecture and outright falsehoods and treating them as fact. That’s the willful ignorance. But the spiteful ignorance is when you present the facts, and instead of addressing the facts, the subject gets changed. Can’t win with your argument? Change the argument!

Along a similar line is the incessant use of a straw man argument, based on nothing but hot air. Sure, we all occasionally make an argument based on a misunderstanding of information. But in those cases, most of us, when presented with contradictory facts, will at least concede that we need to do more investigation. That’s perfectly ok – we all have the right to change our minds or be more educated. No, what I get really torqued about are the people who make stuff up out of thin air, and when you call them on it – ask for proof – they move on to the next lie, the next fabrication. They never retract a thing, they never acknowledge the facts in front of them. They just move on to the next piece of bullshit. So why does this piss me off the most? Because these people are the same ones that will demand an unending chain of proof for anything you say, and when you provide it, they’ll still call you the liar, and complain the truth is “manufactured”.

Just stop. Please. It’s bad for my heart to get this pissed off. And you guys are working too hard at it.

There. I got it off my chest. Do I feel better? No. But I’ll have to deal with the fact that sometimes, you can’t fix stupid.

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

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

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

Want Better Investments? Invest With Dem Presidents

Image © 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

Invest with Dems - 1100% return. Invest with GOP - 200%. You do the math - Image © 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

Bloomberg is no bastion of liberalism. So, when they release a report that shows Democrats make better investments, it carries a little extra weight.

Bloomberg Government did a study going back to the Kennedy inauguration – 50 years – and used as a benchmark a $1000 investment in the Dow average. They then did analysis on how that investment would grow if it was only invested during either a Democrat or Republican president. For each analysis, the investment was “pulled out” during the opposing party’s administrations.

via Analysis: Stock Returns Are Significantly Higher When A Democrat Is President | ThinkProgress.

But as it turns out, Obama is not the only Democratic President under whom the stock market has done well for investors. A Bloomberg Government report shows that since the 1960′s, stocks have done significantly better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones:

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

That’s more than 500% difference.

The GOP likes to say that they are pro-business and that Democrat policies are bad for business. They like to claim business is stifled under Democrat administrations. They like to complain about regulations, about government intrusion into business affairs.

But the numbers put the lie to those claims. According to the report, even if you remove the Democrats best run (under Clinton) and the Republicans worst (under George W. Bush), the Dems still come out ahead. Keep that in mind the next time you hear the GOP blather on about how bad Democrats are for business.

By the way – The Dow closed over 13,000 today, the highest since May 2008.