How Republicans Are Convincing Themselves That A Debt Default Wouldn't Be So Bad -- And Why They're Wrong | TPMDC.
Or, as I keep saying, Republicans are willing to destroy our credit rating, economy, whatever, in order to stop us from taking care of poor people. Those are some principled fucktards, that is for sure.
May 20, 2011
May 19, 2011
Why Sarah Palin is ridiculous
And that is saying something in this field of ridiculous Republicans. After Newt played the "blame the media" after being asked a perfectly legitimate question by a pretty lackluster David Gregory, good old stupid Sarah Palin jumped in to slam the same media. Of course, she slams them, because she is incapable of coming close to a real interview. She can only be interviewed by right wing hacks like Sean Hannity.
She is incredibly stupid and incredibly superficial. And, again, that is saying something. Even Republican Mark Salter was appalled by Rick Santorum's ridiculous comments about McCain and enhanced interrogation.
She is incredibly stupid and incredibly superficial. And, again, that is saying something. Even Republican Mark Salter was appalled by Rick Santorum's ridiculous comments about McCain and enhanced interrogation.
Former McCain aide Mark Salter was less discrete, heaping sharp criticism of Santorum on his Facebook page: "Ron Paul may be the wackiest candidate in the GOP field. But for pure, blind stupidity, nobody beats Santorum,” he wrote. “In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today.”Santorum may have been one of the dumber members of the Senate, that may be true--though Oklahoma's own James Inhofe comes to mind, but it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around the decision of who is dumber between Santorum and Palin.
May 18, 2011
Paul Ryan is an idiot
And is threatening to undermine our economy for the foreseeable future, unless we stop helping poor people. That is about the only way I can explain the complete idiocy of Paul Ryan. Does he not understand that America has never defaulted, which is why we get money so cheaply? Does he not understand that this will result in higher interest rates for all of us?
I am starting to really think that Paul Ryan is the dumbest of a dumb lot.
I am starting to really think that Paul Ryan is the dumbest of a dumb lot.
May 17, 2011
Republicans LOVE torture
Well, except for John McCain, and he should be respected for standing up to the Bush torture apologists. But on the other side, Rick Santorum, he of suggesting that gay sex is like bestiality, says that McCain doesn't actually understand "enhanced interrogation." Yeah, sure, he was actually tortured during the Vietnam war, but for supposed Christians like Santorum, torturing Muslims has to be ok.
It just has to. Because they need to believe that we can do whatever we want because we are blessed by God. Even if it means torturing people.
Santorum is sick.
It just has to. Because they need to believe that we can do whatever we want because we are blessed by God. Even if it means torturing people.
Santorum is sick.
May 15, 2011
Racism, Stupidity, and the GOP
Perhaps you have all seen that the man who calls David Barton America's "greatest historian" has decided to not run for President. Part of me applauds, as someone that stupid would be a horrible President. But it is hard to applaud a whore--who's main motivation appears to be all the money he can make on Fox and the lecture circuit.
But the remaining candidates hardly strike me as either smart or principled. Gingrich is running and called Obama "the most successful food stamp president in modern American history." But of course, the GOP isn't racist. Not at all.
And what about Ron Paul? The populist, and principled libertarian? Yeah, he might be a racist too, as we know he has ties to white supremacist sites. But we know all we need to know about Ron Paul. Friday, he told ABC that government shouldn't help people affected by natural disasters. I am sure the people along the Mississippi love his idea that they should either not live there, or buy insurance. And if they can't afford either, they are on their own. That is the Ayn Rand philosophy.
And how about the rest of the GOP? Michelle Bachman has been challenged to a debate on the constitution by a high schooler. I think someone from the first or second grade might make that an even match. And David Frum (the same one who created the "axis of evil" phrase for W) finds the current Republican party to be crazy. They are talking about defaulting on the debt like it is manageable. Because they are idiots. Every small businessman, or anyone who wants access to credit should be jumping up and down, because if these crazy idiots push the envelope, they will see interest rates jump.
On that note, however, I will say that Bush himself has responded well to the bin Laden killing, and didn't try to take credit for it. I am also reminded that he actually talked about compassion. Compare that to the Rand GOP, and W is starting to look more attractive.
But the remaining candidates hardly strike me as either smart or principled. Gingrich is running and called Obama "the most successful food stamp president in modern American history." But of course, the GOP isn't racist. Not at all.
And what about Ron Paul? The populist, and principled libertarian? Yeah, he might be a racist too, as we know he has ties to white supremacist sites. But we know all we need to know about Ron Paul. Friday, he told ABC that government shouldn't help people affected by natural disasters. I am sure the people along the Mississippi love his idea that they should either not live there, or buy insurance. And if they can't afford either, they are on their own. That is the Ayn Rand philosophy.
And how about the rest of the GOP? Michelle Bachman has been challenged to a debate on the constitution by a high schooler. I think someone from the first or second grade might make that an even match. And David Frum (the same one who created the "axis of evil" phrase for W) finds the current Republican party to be crazy. They are talking about defaulting on the debt like it is manageable. Because they are idiots. Every small businessman, or anyone who wants access to credit should be jumping up and down, because if these crazy idiots push the envelope, they will see interest rates jump.
I always assumed that the first American political party to contemplate default as a way to achieve its political goals would be the Communist Party of the USA, not the GOP.Well, David, you helped create this mess. I am sorry that you are now on the outs with the idiots, but you helped give us stupidity in politics. And this is what you get when you elect people who aren't very smart on the basis that they are earnest about what they believe.
On that note, however, I will say that Bush himself has responded well to the bin Laden killing, and didn't try to take credit for it. I am also reminded that he actually talked about compassion. Compare that to the Rand GOP, and W is starting to look more attractive.
May 14, 2011
No, Grace has not left--but the post on her has.
Or perhaps the post got out though a hole. Perhaps it will return by itself. Meanwhile, here are some pictures of Gracie to tide us over.
We need some updated pictures of her here with our crew, but she and Abbie have been playing so much that it is hard to get photos. :)
May 12, 2011
Janet Porter--crank from the past
My past, that is. I used to listen to religious radio in my old truck, because the tape player broke and sometimes NPR had boring stuff on. Don't judge me.
But one that I recall listening to was Janet Porter, and I remember her as quite crankish. But I had no idea just how far away from reality she is. Or I had forgotten. As this Mother Jones piece mentions, she was an acolyte of the late D James Kennedy, one of the right's more twisted evangelical cranks, and Porter herself has continued that legacy of what might be characterized as Christian hatred.":
And speaking of the right and crazy, my friend Rusty noted this (also from MOJo) about the Tea Party's view of the Constitution.
But one that I recall listening to was Janet Porter, and I remember her as quite crankish. But I had no idea just how far away from reality she is. Or I had forgotten. As this Mother Jones piece mentions, she was an acolyte of the late D James Kennedy, one of the right's more twisted evangelical cranks, and Porter herself has continued that legacy of what might be characterized as Christian hatred.":
"Porter has maintained that Obama represents an 'inhumane, sick, and sinister evil,' and she has warned that Democrats want to throw Christians in jail merely for practicing their faith. She's attributed Haiti's high poverty rate to the fact that the country is 'dedicated to Satan,' and she suggested that gay marriage caused Noah's Flood. And there's this: In a 2009 column for conservative news site WorldNetDaily, Porter asserted that President Barack Obama is a Soviet secret agent, groomed since birth to destroy the United States from within."The piece sees her as part of Huckabee's connection to the crazies on the right.
And speaking of the right and crazy, my friend Rusty noted this (also from MOJo) about the Tea Party's view of the Constitution.
Among other things, NCCS uses materials written by Skousen suggesting that Anglo-Saxons are descended from a lost tribe of Israel; Skousen claimed this meant the Constitution may have been inspired by God, who intended for America to be a Christian nation. The very same bogus history has been perpetuated by the white supremacist movement.
Very little of the eight-hour lesson I sat through included a discussion of how the Constitution affects average people, or how it's been changed over time to reflect the nation's progress—such as the amendments giving women the right to vote, ending slavery, and lowering the voting age. Instead, my fellow classmates and I learned about how the original Jamestown settlers were communists who starved to death because of their failure to embrace the sort of capitalism that the Constitution was clearly designed to promote. We were also told that national parks are unconstitutional, because the Constitution bars the federal government from buying land for anything but military installations and post offices.
May 5, 2011
Article 7 and the Declaration?
Against my better judgement I watched the Republican clown show that is David Barton as he was interviewed by Jon Stewart. And he said something very interesting that I need some help with. He says that religion is mentioned 7 times in the Constitution, and that one of them is in Article 7, where he said (and I had to replay this several times) that the "Declaration (of Independence) is incorporated into Article 7?"
Does he mean that the word "Independence" refers to the Declaration?
And this might clear something up. Because I have never quite understood why so many on the far right combine the Declaration and Constitution into one common document.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names,"
Does he mean that the word "Independence" refers to the Declaration?
And this might clear something up. Because I have never quite understood why so many on the far right combine the Declaration and Constitution into one common document.
Gernonimo
During a recent FB conversation, I was told that the operation was named after the Apache warrior, while bin Laden was actually code-named "Jackpot." They also claimed that these code words are random.
I am not sure I believe them.
I am not sure I believe them.
Because the poor are immoral
Which is why, I think, Republicans like Oklahoma's James Lankford defend oil subsidies, but hate any money going to poor people. Their plan to reduce Medicaid costs? To have the option of kicking unworthy people off. You know, like the poor.
Now that's how you save money: throwing people off Medicaid, or making it next to impossible for them to get it in the first place. Innovative!
But Rep. Phil Gingrey kind of gives up the game here: "'Take the handcuffs off the governors,' Gingrey (R-Ga.) said at the bill's unveiling on Tuesday, arguing that current law prevents the states from 'ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse, finding out if someone's falsified information on income…maybe even if they're illegal immigrants.'" The primary objection here isn't budgetary, it's moral. Many conservatives feel that poverty is a moral failing, and if you're getting help from a government program, you're probably some kind of scamming welfare queen sucking off people who work for a living, getting a benefit you don't deserve.
May 4, 2011
bin Laden's code name is Geronimo?
CIL sent this response from Indian Country to the fact that when they killed bin Laden, they sent back the code that "Geronimo" was "KIA."
This is, unfortunately, not new. During the VN war, enemy-held territory was referred to as "Indian Country," and many of the bases in those areas were named (or nicknamed) after western military forts.
This is a complex issue, and one rooted in our past. But like so many things, most Americans see it without any backstory, and for them, I think, Geronimo is not even thought of as being Indian. He is symbol, and icon, and has been, essentially stripped of historical context and personhood. At least, of course, by non-Indians.
This, of course, is the other side of the use of Indians as mascots, and unlike those, impossible to suggest that this is meant as a positive comparison. But in both situations, images of real people have been stripped of personhood and historical context. They become cartoon characters more akin to those from Star Wars than to historical agents who built, defended, and reformed communities.
The good part about that is when the Seals used the word Geronimo as a label for bin Laden, they didn't mean it as the historical figure who defended his people. They meant it as symbol and icon and cartoon. But the problem, as this article points out, is how Indian children see that comparison, and, I suspect, how non Americans will make that connection.
This is, unfortunately, not new. During the VN war, enemy-held territory was referred to as "Indian Country," and many of the bases in those areas were named (or nicknamed) after western military forts.
This is a complex issue, and one rooted in our past. But like so many things, most Americans see it without any backstory, and for them, I think, Geronimo is not even thought of as being Indian. He is symbol, and icon, and has been, essentially stripped of historical context and personhood. At least, of course, by non-Indians.
This, of course, is the other side of the use of Indians as mascots, and unlike those, impossible to suggest that this is meant as a positive comparison. But in both situations, images of real people have been stripped of personhood and historical context. They become cartoon characters more akin to those from Star Wars than to historical agents who built, defended, and reformed communities.
The good part about that is when the Seals used the word Geronimo as a label for bin Laden, they didn't mean it as the historical figure who defended his people. They meant it as symbol and icon and cartoon. But the problem, as this article points out, is how Indian children see that comparison, and, I suspect, how non Americans will make that connection.
May 3, 2011
Ugh--Republicans again defend torture
Should not find this surprising, but Republicans are now saying that torture produced the intel that gave us bin Laden.
We have been through this argument before. The evidence suggests that torture didn't give us this info, but it doesn't really matter. Torture is still wrong. If utility is the measure, then there is no check on what we can do. If the terrorists life is worthless, and getting information is the only guide, then there is no reason to stop at water boarding, but only more reason to throw ethics and morality out the window. If the only moral equation is what we can get, then we can murder family members, cut off fingers, drill holes, etc.
When did the Republican party become the party of torture? At what point did that switch happen?
We have been through this argument before. The evidence suggests that torture didn't give us this info, but it doesn't really matter. Torture is still wrong. If utility is the measure, then there is no check on what we can do. If the terrorists life is worthless, and getting information is the only guide, then there is no reason to stop at water boarding, but only more reason to throw ethics and morality out the window. If the only moral equation is what we can get, then we can murder family members, cut off fingers, drill holes, etc.
When did the Republican party become the party of torture? At what point did that switch happen?
May 2, 2011
the post-bin Laden world
I have to say that today has been a surreal one. This day has historic connections--my students informed me that the same day saw the end to Hitler and Voldemort--which made me smile just a bit.
And I must say that most of what I have heard today has been thoughtful, though that may be due to the fact that I have listened exclusively to NPR. At noon, I heard a moving interview with a man who's son died hunting bin Laden. He was glad the man was dead, but had no joy or celebration in him. He had, as he said, "learned to leave hatred behind."
I am reminded of a story my brother told me years ago--though I have never been able to track it down. As the story goes, bandits attacked a buddhist camp and killed several of the monks. A visitor asked one of the survivors why they were not racing to track the bandits down and get some measure of revenge. The monk replied, "we learned long ago that we are not different than our enemies."
Maybe that story never happened, but I have always liked it. So much of our response to this seems to be cloaked in self-righteous rage and hatred at those who are different from us. But for many on my FB wall, the conversation is more muted. Most, as the man said, are glad bin Laden is gone, but not celebrating his death.
And I must say that most of what I have heard today has been thoughtful, though that may be due to the fact that I have listened exclusively to NPR. At noon, I heard a moving interview with a man who's son died hunting bin Laden. He was glad the man was dead, but had no joy or celebration in him. He had, as he said, "learned to leave hatred behind."
I am reminded of a story my brother told me years ago--though I have never been able to track it down. As the story goes, bandits attacked a buddhist camp and killed several of the monks. A visitor asked one of the survivors why they were not racing to track the bandits down and get some measure of revenge. The monk replied, "we learned long ago that we are not different than our enemies."
Maybe that story never happened, but I have always liked it. So much of our response to this seems to be cloaked in self-righteous rage and hatred at those who are different from us. But for many on my FB wall, the conversation is more muted. Most, as the man said, are glad bin Laden is gone, but not celebrating his death.
bin Laden dead
As I am sure you have all seen.
My first thought was that this didn't have to take this long. We had him at Tora Bora, but didn't do it right. Instead, we turned our sights on Iraq and an unrelated war. That has to be said. This didn't have to take this long. And this feels like catching a criminal after he has retired.
I understand that many will think this is the wrong time to point fingers. Or that I am capitalizing on this death for political reasons. Politics are sometimes just a game, but many times they are the way we get serious stuff done. This is serious. This isn't just about politics, but it is naive to suggest that politics don't matter here. And there is this. I am thinking of all the times I watched or read conservatives bash liberals for being unPatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war. And I am thinking of conservatives who have bashed Obama as soft on terrorism, or as one of my Christian friends said, "sympathetic to terrorists." And I am thinking that had this happened under Bush's watch, Fox News and my conservative friends might have passed out from the excitement. Disingenuous to now say that this wasn't due to Obama's actions.
My niece questioned the constant celebration on FB for a person's death. I see that too. I personally felt no celebration. Instead, as I noted, I was thinking of the past. I felt no celebration when they hung Saddam. I like the Wendell Berry quote from our friend Kevin:
My first thought was that this didn't have to take this long. We had him at Tora Bora, but didn't do it right. Instead, we turned our sights on Iraq and an unrelated war. That has to be said. This didn't have to take this long. And this feels like catching a criminal after he has retired.
I understand that many will think this is the wrong time to point fingers. Or that I am capitalizing on this death for political reasons. Politics are sometimes just a game, but many times they are the way we get serious stuff done. This is serious. This isn't just about politics, but it is naive to suggest that politics don't matter here. And there is this. I am thinking of all the times I watched or read conservatives bash liberals for being unPatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war. And I am thinking of conservatives who have bashed Obama as soft on terrorism, or as one of my Christian friends said, "sympathetic to terrorists." And I am thinking that had this happened under Bush's watch, Fox News and my conservative friends might have passed out from the excitement. Disingenuous to now say that this wasn't due to Obama's actions.
My niece questioned the constant celebration on FB for a person's death. I see that too. I personally felt no celebration. Instead, as I noted, I was thinking of the past. I felt no celebration when they hung Saddam. I like the Wendell Berry quote from our friend Kevin:
""Violence breeds violence. Acts of violence committed in 'justice' or in affirmation of 'rights' or in defense of 'peace' do not end violence. They prepare and justify its continuation."And that is the really sad part of this. This won't end the killing.
April 29, 2011
On choice and socialism
Had dinner with a friend last night (SOF is conferencing in another state), and we had a repeat conversation about the insanity of our healthcare system. My friend is from Germany, and so is often incredulous at our healthcare system, and how difficult it can be to negotiate.
But his biggest complaint, and one that makes this pretty calm person get flustered, is the allegation that somehow our current healthcare system is preferable to some kind of "socialized" program, because we believe in a market and having choice. To illustrate this, he notes that his healthcare choices here are chosen by his employer. Yes, he can purchase an individual plan on his own (if he lacks pre-existing conditions) but would then have to pay the entire cost of said plan. Otherwise, he has to take whatever the university chooses. Same with other portions of his benefits and retirement.
How, he asked, is this choice?
A very good question.
But his biggest complaint, and one that makes this pretty calm person get flustered, is the allegation that somehow our current healthcare system is preferable to some kind of "socialized" program, because we believe in a market and having choice. To illustrate this, he notes that his healthcare choices here are chosen by his employer. Yes, he can purchase an individual plan on his own (if he lacks pre-existing conditions) but would then have to pay the entire cost of said plan. Otherwise, he has to take whatever the university chooses. Same with other portions of his benefits and retirement.
How, he asked, is this choice?
A very good question.
April 28, 2011
More on irrationality
Good discussion in the previous comment thread on how irrational most voters are and how little they know (both sides) about key issues, including Democrats who believed that Bush knew about 9-11 in advance and the rather shocking number (59%) of Obama voters who didn't realize in 2008 that the Democrats controlled the congress.
I kind of understand the first poll, since there was a bit of ambiguity about the information that Bush knew. We know that he was given some briefings about possible attacks, so there could be some who were unsure simply because they might have thought that the briefing about vague "using airplanes" to attack inside the US is the same thing as Bush knowing that it was all going to happen on that date.
The second part is stunning to me. But then again, I know who my reps are in Congress (and have pestered them on the phone and through the mail). But I know many have no clue who represents them in Congress.
So, I am certainly not surprised to see that left and right are prone to conspiracy theories and bad science. My nephew posted this from Mother Jones about why we often don't believe science, and more importantly, how often responding with factual evidence doesn't help.
Couple of points, and then I have to get going. First, I am again struck by the fact that while left and right have constituents prone to bad information, the right has been more interested in exploiting those beliefs. At least, to be fair, of late.
Second, and more personal, the discussion about how we filter information before we even rationally start to evaluate it makes me wonder about my own biases. How often do I pre-filter information or news that goes against my belief system. I want to believe, and hope to believe, that I am open to new information. That is party of my perpetual doubt or skepticism. But I am not always sure that I do that.
Anyway. SOF is at a conference. So I better get the animals taken care of before the revolution.
I kind of understand the first poll, since there was a bit of ambiguity about the information that Bush knew. We know that he was given some briefings about possible attacks, so there could be some who were unsure simply because they might have thought that the briefing about vague "using airplanes" to attack inside the US is the same thing as Bush knowing that it was all going to happen on that date.
The second part is stunning to me. But then again, I know who my reps are in Congress (and have pestered them on the phone and through the mail). But I know many have no clue who represents them in Congress.
So, I am certainly not surprised to see that left and right are prone to conspiracy theories and bad science. My nephew posted this from Mother Jones about why we often don't believe science, and more importantly, how often responding with factual evidence doesn't help.
Couple of points, and then I have to get going. First, I am again struck by the fact that while left and right have constituents prone to bad information, the right has been more interested in exploiting those beliefs. At least, to be fair, of late.
Second, and more personal, the discussion about how we filter information before we even rationally start to evaluate it makes me wonder about my own biases. How often do I pre-filter information or news that goes against my belief system. I want to believe, and hope to believe, that I am open to new information. That is party of my perpetual doubt or skepticism. But I am not always sure that I do that.
Anyway. SOF is at a conference. So I better get the animals taken care of before the revolution.
April 27, 2011
PolitiFact | Obama releases birth certificate
And Donald Trump makes it an accomplishment. Is Trump the biggest tool in America? Hard to say, given the plethora of tools on the right. But he has to be close.
This is a sad day in American history.
This is a sad day in American history.
April 23, 2011
April 22, 2011
The Onion, again, sadly captures GOP cruelty
Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People | The Onion:
As we have said repeatedly, how sad is it that the Onion is trying to satirize the right, but actually fairly clearly articulating their approach to helping the poor and the sick?
"'My hope is that Republican voters will one day forgive me for making it easier for sick people—especially low-income sick people—to go to the hospital and see a doctor,' Romney added. 'It was wrong, and I'm sorry.'"
As we have said repeatedly, how sad is it that the Onion is trying to satirize the right, but actually fairly clearly articulating their approach to helping the poor and the sick?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)