The Case for Obama, part 2: Foreign Policy

Yeah, I had planned to go after "these high gas prices" next, but the hot-button issue in the Romney campaign right now (besides spell-checking their campaign materials) seems to Foreign Policy. So I'll do that instead.

OK… First? The easy stuff:

Iraq War: Over. Mission Accomplished. Finally.

Bin Laden. Gone. Dead. Characterize it however you want, but Obama succeeded where Bush failed.

Gaddaffi. Gone. Dead. Characterize it however you want, but Obama succeeded where Reagan failed.

And as frustrating as Libya was, our involvement was precisely what it needed to be. Any MORE and the rebels would risk being seen as pro-West, and nothing would evaporate their support faster than that. And while everybody can Monday-morning quarterback it to death, the bottom line is: We had regime change their WITHOUT having to destroy the entire country, wreck their infrastructure, kill 100,000 people and then spend a trillion dollars to rebuild it. The rebels may have wanted more, in the immediate sense art various times, but they given exactly what they needed to succeed, and not a bit more. Libya serves as a SHINING EXAMPLE of how a popular rebellion should be supported, and how regime change should be brought about, absent a Liberal Democracy with free and open elections.

(For examples of how it SHOULD NOT be done, see Vietnam, Iraq.)

Now… The Romney campaign is hitting Obama hard for not being “tough enough” or showing “real leadership” with Syria. They’ve characterized his policies as “hiding” behind the Kofa Anan plan, and playing “mother may i?” with the Russian and the Chinese, who continue to support the Asad regime.

OK. First off, when it comes to invading Syria, I was making the case for that YEARS ago. So I’m certainly no dove when it comes to this horrible, oppressive regime. But What EXACTLY would a President Romney do differently? What is their BRILLIANT IDEA to solve this problem – namely to stop the bloodshed and slaughter of Syrian Protesters and Rebels.

Well… I heard the Romney campaign claim that Obama has shown “no leadership.” But absent any real ideas, coming from a Republican “real leadership” just means “arrogant swagger.” Basically they apparently want Obama to struck around like a Cowboy, reminding the world that America can do whatever the hell it wants, because we can kick more ass than anyone else. Because you know… that worked out pretty well for Bush, right?

And then... He really didn't seem to offer anything! Nothing! Nada. Zilch. Zero.  Just that Obama should "lead more" with nary a though as to WHERE he should be leading people!

  But let's humor the nay-sayers, and look at some of the "obvious solutions" Obama should be pursuing.

Maybe we should push for SANCTIONS. I’m not a huge fan of this. First of all, they basically NEVER WORK. (see Cuba.) Second, it is always the PEOPLE who end up suffering the most from this. And finally, since most of these Governments control the Media in their countries, the story that gets told always ends up being “look at what the West is doing to us!” And after eight years of George W. Bush, I’m tired of writing their propaganda for them. But perhaps most importantly, sanctions would depend entirely on the cooperation of… duh-da-daaaaaa: RUSSIA and CHINA! So without playing “mother may i?” with the Russian and the Chinese…” OK. You get the point.

Well, then… SCREW THE U.N.! Let’s get NATO to enforce a no-fly zone unilaterally then! Sure. Great. That actually DID work in both Iraq for many years and in Libya. But what would it accomplish in Syria? Syria is a TINY COUNTRY. You don’t need PLANES to cross it! And most of the killing has been by soldiers who WALKED there and TANKS that DROVE there. Syria has no NEED for planes within their borders. So a no-fly zone would be little more than a very expensive symbolic gesture.

Perhaps AIR STRIKES then! Yeah… Except that Syria is 1/10 the size of Libya, with three times the population. And the rebels hold exactly DICK in the form of territory. So what would you HIT? The rebels are all in the CITIES! There is not a single target in Syria that you could hit and NOT kill dozens of the very people who we’re trying to HELP! Who’s LIVES we want to SAVE!

INVADE! Um… No. (see, Iraq.) And to be fair, nobody on either side is really suggesting this.

OK, OK. What about the very simple measure of Arming the Rebels? Arm the populace, so that they have the tools to stand up to this oppressive regime.

Now… I could resort to satire and simply say, “Yeah – typical Republican answer: Try to solve the problem of violence by adding more guns to the equation.” But in my HEART? I would do this. I really would. My spirit? My sense of righteousness? My wrath? All tell me that this is a good idea, and what’s more: That it’s RIGHT.

But my HEAD? (You know… The part of the body that we SHOULD be using to make decisions with?) Tell me a different story. It tells me that the only possible outcome of doing this would be to increase the death toll by an order of magnitude, AT LEAST. Any last vestige of restraint being shown by the Syrian Army would be swept away and what is currently a huge travesty of human rights violations would be transformed into a wholesale slaughter the moment the first shot was fired. Dozens, even hundreds being killed in peaceful protests would become thousands, if not tens of thousands being killed in full scale battles.

If you are motivated to action by the LOSS of human life, you should not be so quick to take actions that would result in the FAR GREATER loss of human life, no matter how angry you are.

So if Obama is proceeding cautiously? Even tentatively perhaps?

I say that there is simply no better way to proceed.

Because Syria is, as I once heard North Korea described, “The Land of Lousy Options.”

As for Iran...?

This is actually fairly easy, because it's simply a question (once again) of the Right going apeshit over a non-existent threat without getting their facts strait. (See: Iraq.)

It comes down to this:

Iran has no nuclear weapons. The CIA, M-I5 and Mossad all agree on this point.

Iran has no actual nuclear weapons program. The CIA, M-I5 and Mossad all agree on this point.

Iran has no delivery system for a nuclear warhead: Their longest range missile with the potential to carry a nuclear warhead is the Shehab-3b with a range of only 2000 km.  And the Zelzal and the Fateh missiles are only short range, 300km or less.  And as small a threat as that represents, even THAT relies on the assumption that Iran would use a nuclear missile for ANYTHING other than a deterrent.  (Kind of like EVERY SINGLE OTHER NUCLEAR ARMED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.)

On every front? I just don't see the problem.

GOLD STAR AWARDS, May, 2012

And here are May's. The Year is 1975. One from the BWAA, two from the Vet’s


The RALPH KINER Gold Star #51: Freepress

Working to strengthen journalism and fight media consolidation. Change the media, and you change the world. Freepress is a a non-paritsan media watchdog and advocacy groups dealing primarily with issues relevant to the freedom of the press, corporate media monoploies, and the deterioration of the news media and the decaying state of journalism in general. Check these guys out. Great people doing great work.


The BILLY HERMAN Silver Star #48: Amazing Superpowers

This is just a really twisted web-comic with an irreverent and often dark sense of humor. I love it.


The EARL AVERILL Silver Star #49: Chuckle-a-Duck

This is truly amazing, high quality web-comic. With the style and quality of the art work, and its fairly mainstream, usually moderately political sense of humor, I do not understand why this hasn’t been picked up for national syndication. This is in the style of the 1-panels that you would see in the New Yorker, only they’re… you know… ACTUALLY FUNNY. Great stuff. A tremendous talent. Check it out.

GOLD STAR AWARDS, April, 2012

Damn. I’ve been busy this month. But I’ve yet to fall more that two months behind on my Hall of Fame awards, so here are April’s, and I’m going to follow up with May’s on this, the last day of May.


The Year is 1974 - Two BWAA inductees and two from the Veteran’s committee.


The MICKEY MANTLE Gold Star #49: Armchair Subversive

OMG! I'm so psyched! They’re back! This fine collection was originally in my inaugural HoF class, but I bumped them out in favor of Cracked.com when their website went defunct. Now they’re back, and hopefully will show Williams once and for all what the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles: Homosexuals tend to be Democrats, whilst Pedophiles tend to be Republican!


The WHITEY FORD Gold Star #50: A Blog of Dorain

Although infrequently updated, and from Canada, this crazy cannuck has a better understanding of U.S. policy than most Americans. It’s also a great collection of political cartoons, including critiques of some coming from the opposition. He posts in fits and spurts, being quiet for awhile and then posting a lot for a couple of weeks.  Very insightful when he does though, and his blog makes for a fun read.


The JIM BOTTOMLEY Silver Star #46: The Princess and Eve’s Apple

Two web-comics by Christine Smith. Both feature transgendered protagonists, portraying both in a positive light, while at the same time addressing the social hardships they face. Eve’s Apple (which seems to have gone on hiatus) is drawn in a noir style and deals with the complex relationships between the Transgendered and Homosexual communities. The Princess is drawn in a more cutesy, cartoonish style, and deals with transgendered youth though it’s protagonist Sarah; who made her first appearance in Eve’s Apple, and whose mother is Lucy’s sister. (One of the reasons I’m combining these is that both take place in the same universe, so I consider them two parts of the same thing.) Superficially, The Princess appears more light hearted, but in truth is considerably darker, considering that the events are happening to, and being dealt with by, a child. I recommend reading both from the beginning, and the beginning.


The SAM THOMPSON Silver Star #47: Power Nap

“The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.”

A newer web-comic with an infrequent update schedule, Power Nap presents a dystopian world in which people no longer have to sleep, thanks to Z-Tabs, and the struggles of one man to survive in this world who’s allergic to them, and thus… still needs to sleep. It’s still in its infancy, but I see a lot of promise with it, and can’t wait to see where it goes. It’s been a real trip so far. Read it from the beginning.

Gayer?

Rand Paul Says He Didn't Think Obama's Views 'Could Get Any Gayer'

And I didn't think Rand Paul's views on anything could get any stupider.
Two things...  President Obama finally coming out an saying he's OK with Gay marriage? Is really the first INKLING in his entire Presidency that he's show ANY evidence of having any balls at all. (And seeing as how he's the last person in his administration to 'come out' so to speak, it's pretty scant even so.)  But hey: It's the RIGHT position, it's common sense, it's American, and it's about damned time. Good on you, Barry!

As for the Right Honorable Redneck from Kentucky?  Um... using "gay" as a pejorative...

(1) Stopped being funny after the 3rd grade. So grow up.
(2) Is bigoted and homophobic

You wouldn't say Obama's views couldn't get any blacker, would you?

Well, OK, YOU might...

But I wouldn't say, "And just when I though Justice Scalia's view couldn't get anymore Sicilian..."

Because there is no reason that 'Sicilian' can be used in that context and it NOT be racist.  Likewise, there is no context to use "gay" as a pejorative that isn't hurtful, and that doesn't encourage the continued mistreatment of so many freedom loving Americans.

So... FUCK YOU, YOU HOPELESSLY WITLESS SCUMBAG.

And reading over your budget, man... I didn't think I'd ever see something so Kentucky in my entire life.

(How do you like it, you fucking inbreed?)

LMFAO...

Because apparently there are ways to fuck with the cops and not get in trouble:



LOL

Idiotic

There's so little I can add on to this stupidity, other than to say that to say that I'm sure there a certain Conservative poster that will probably LOVE this new law, and spend 57 posts defending it.  Once again, Conservatives have chosen suppression over discussion, ignorance over information, and have gotten Government off your back... but in your pants.

On Thursday, State Rep. Jon Lundberg told NBC station WCYB-TV that a focus on abstinence is needed because Tennessee has the seventh-highest teen birth rate in the nation and the 11th-highest HIV infection rate in the nation.

This is particularly relevant, because Tennessee already HAS Abstinence-only sex education in theirs school system:

 proponents say the new law helps define the existing abstinence-only sex-education policy.

Though, to be fair... the laws "proponents" are mostly rednecks Conservatives from Tennessee.  What the EVIDENCE has shown, as acknowledged by State Rep. Jon Lundberg is that their abstinence only sex education curriculum has been one of the least effective in the country, and has not brought about the desired results.

Liberal solution: DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

Conservative Solution: DO MORE OF THE SAME THING, ON STEROIDS.

I don't know... Maybe having the seventh-highest teen birth rate isn't enough... Maybe they want to be number one.  The only way they rank any higher five years from know would be is Mississippi, Alabama and other States where fear, ignorance and ideology routinely trump common sense also double down on their stupidity, and manage to do more harm to themselves than Tennessee will do.

Hey: Maybe they can just ban contraception altogether. Why not? As EVERYONE KNOWS, if you keep contraception away from teenagers, they'll stop having sex, right?

This is textbook stupidity.

What deficit?

I'd almost make this into another "case for Obama" post, but that would, of course, be absurdly presumptive. 

OTOH, to hear the liars on the Right tell it, the defict was so huge (TRILLIONS!) and so historically out of proportion (THREE TIMES WHAT IS WAS UNDER BUSH!) that we would be sacrficing our children's very lives if we did destroy the economy RIGHT NOW in an effort to fix it!

Well, just as with the TARP "cost," which is now projected to turn a profit for the American Taxpayers, it seems that their abusrdly apocolyptic rhetoric (or, as Liberals prefer to call it, "LIES") is just that. Because this month? Obama is sitting on a buget surplus.

And in a no doubt vain attempt to cut off the idiot who no doubt is going to mock me for exagerating the importance of one month's worth of data, despite what I said, quite plainly in my opening line,let me ble clear: The point is NOT that the deficit problem is fixed. It isn't. And neither me nor anyone else said it was. The POINT is that if anyone was to actually believe the LIES told by the Right about the defict, debt or our economic recovery, the last thing one would expect is a month of budget surplus.

It's the kind of thing that takes the wind out of that argment's sails.

RIP Maurice Sendak

...And Max, the king of all wild thing was lonely
and wanted to be where someone loved him best of all.

Then from far away across the world
he smelled good things to eat
so he gave up being king of where the wild things are.

But the wild things cried, "Oh please don't go -
we'll eat you up - we love you so!"
And Max said, "No!"

The wild things roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth
and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws
but Max stepped into hi private boat and waved good bye

and sailed back over a year
and in and out of weeks
and through a day

and into the night of his very own own room
where he found his supper waiting for him

and it was still hot.




At what point did I reach the age when I started to notice how all of the good one's keep dying?

Right on so many levels...

I'll try to respond to some of the comments tomorrow night. Gotta get posting again too. Too tired right now. The kids and I moved a bunch of rocks (sandstones / flagstones?) from the back yard to the front yard today and built a sweet rock wall with it, bordering up the dirt aoround our cherry tree.  Wife is happy with it, but I am very tired right now. Good night.

RIP MCA

And that's all I have to say.

King Gets It!

Although I honestly believe IT to be among the greatest books every written, and to date it is the only one that has actually, truly scared me,  I must say that it's been awhile since I've given any consideration one way of the other to Stehen King.  Until now.

I wish I could sum it all up, but I can't.  Check out his column for the Daily Beast, entitled, "Tax Me, For Fuck's Sake!"

It's great stuff. 

The Case for Obama, Part 1: These "hard" economic times

There are two things I'm sick and tired of hearing about.  The first is that Obama and the Democrats are strong with voters on social issues, whilst Romney and the Republicans have the edge on economic and fiscal matters. In a word? BALONEY SAUSAGE. I've written plenty of posts in the past showing just how mush better things are under Democrats on purely economic terms, and [and this is the other thing I'm sick of hearing] "these hard economic times" are no different.  And don't expect the mainstream media to tell you any of this, but the fact is? Times ain't so bad. In fact, well... I'll let the data do the talking.

Exhibit A: The Dow Jones Industrial Average.  Generally considered one of the best indicators of overall economic health in this country.  Now, to put in context just what a wet, steaming pile of bullshit it is that people are talking about Obama like (1) he's done anything wrong, (2) that there IS actually anything wrong, and (3) that [even though it isn't wrong] it's all his fault, I want to start back a bit, to when George W. Bush took office, just to remind everyone what a shitty stock market REALLY looks like.  This is the DJIA from Inauguration day, 2001 to Election Day, 2004 (From Yahoo Finance):

Bottom line? DOWN 5.13%.  DOWN. Over FOUR YEARS! And that asshole got re-elected despite that!  Of course we all know how his second term fared.  Here's Election day, 2004 to Election day 2008:

Down 13.9%! And Conservatives wonder why Obama got elected? Conservatives are still trying to  argue that OBAMA destroyed the economy?! The DOW was down 13.9% in the four years since we reelected the guy under whom it had all ready fallen 5.13%!  Here's Bush's eight year term, Inauguration Day, 2001 to Inauguration Day, 2009:

Wow. DOWN 24.23%. Way to go, Georgie! Here's what's happened since Obama took office:

BOOM! UP! UP! UP! 66.4%! Wow! Now... I don't want anyone to get the idea that I think the President is directly, 100% responsible for the stock market, but... Let's not forget that the guys who are whining about "these hard economic times" are the guys who (1) got re-election after a 5% decline, and (2) were down over 24% by the time they were done.  And we're up 66% right now and I'm supposed to believe that it's THE OTHER GUYS who have the economic wherewithal?  Bullshit. According to the DJIA, Obama's done roughly three times the good in under four years than the amount of harm down by George W. Bush in EIGHT. 

Well, maybe the DJIA has a Liberal bias or something. I wonder what the S & P 500 looked like during Bush's first term:

Whoa. Down 13.16%. How the hell did that redneck get re-elected?! Is anyone goimng to seriously tell me that there's Liberal Bias in the media?!  Where was it in 2004?  Oh, and uh... How's things go the second time around?

Oh my God! DOWN 21.38%!  Almost as bad as the DOW. And people say Obama's presiding over a bad economy?!  Here was Shrub's eight year performance on the S & P:

Down 38.6%. Holy. Fucking. Shit. And since Obama took office?

And BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE! UP SEVENTY FOUR POINT TWO-EIGHT PERCENT! Oh, yeah: Let's get rid of this guy!

The NASDAQ tells the same story:

Down 28.03%. That in just his first term folks! Can someone PLEASE tell me how John Kerry didn't beat this ass-clown in a LANDSLIDE?  Liberal Media, my hairy, unwashed ass!

Second time around:

Down another 19.2%. And they wonder why the lost. Must have been that Liberally biased STOCK MARKET. 

Overall, our roughly fifth worst President of all time managed to take a whopping 46.88% out of the NASDAQ during his tenure. Remember: This was the guy who mocked Al Gore's legislation that created the Internet.  OK, so how's the NASDAQ doing under Obama?

Up... One-Hundred... and... Thirteen... Percent.  Holy... Fucking... Shit... (I should have bought more!)  And really, to show how skull-fuckingly stupid (or just plain screwed) the Republicans are here, they keep trying to disappear George W. Bush's UTTER ECONOMIC FAILURES, every time Obama reminds people how bad things were under Bush. Thing is? The main reason that Obama's stock market has been as good as it was, is because it started in such a deep, dark hole! Saying that he came in essentially just at the right time, would be the easiest way for the Republicans to poo-poo his success. But, of course, they can't say THAT, because (1) they'd have to actually ACKNOWLEDGE his success, and admit that he also did the right things, and (2) they'd have to acknowledge Bush's FAILURE.

And... it's just easier for them to lie about it.  None of the Conservatively biased Mainstream Media is going to break from the narrative that the Right's strength is economics, (note: it isn't. they have no strengths) nor call out Fox News for going above and beyond in the field of outright deceit and propaganda.

OK, so admittedly the Stock Market MIGHT not be the best measure. (That sure was FUN for me to go through though, let me tell you!)  How about the GDP? Well, here's a chart:

It's from this article. My favorite part of which is the following line:

The average growth rate in private real quarterly GDP since 2000 has been 1.76%, so the private sector of the U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter of 2012 at twice the average rate over the last 12 years

I keep hearing about how slow, and sluggish and disappointing that 2.2% rate is, but "double the rate of the last twelve years?!" Seems like we're doing just fine in that regard as well.  BTW, you see those RED LINES?  Well, the Conservative Toadies in the Mainstream media won't tell you this, but... those are REDUCTIONS in Government Spending. And contrary to what the Macroeconomic Failures who drew up the Paul Ryan Budget will tell you: That's a drag on the economy.  So, if you think Obama should be doing more (meaning SPENDING more?) I'd agree with you 100%.  But that criticism sure as hell isn't a reason to vote Republican! And if you think he should cut more? Then you're either a Billionaire or an idiot who doesn't understand how economics works and will be out a job sooner than he thinks.

Speaking of which, unemployment is becoming so much NOT A PROBLEM, that Fox News has gone so far as to allege a conspiracy over the numbers!  Sarah Palin even questioned their accuracy!  Eric Bolling again accused the BLS of being partisan! Imagine the gall it takes, for a guy on FOX NEWS to accuse the BLS of partisan bias!  There should have been a quantum singularity forming in his crotch due to the gravity created by his massively HUGE BALLS.

Here's an unemployment chart that ought to get Obama re-elected:

Wow. Again what do we see? Things getting worse and worse and worse under Bush... And things getting better and better and batter, and the staying in the green under Obama.

Now, I'm going to look at energy and gas prices next, and I've never been shy about delving into social issues myself, but on a purely economic basis? Everything got worse under Bush, and everything has gotten better under Obama.  That not my opinion: That's what the data says. It's not a "liberal talking point" either: It's MATH.

If anyone needs a quick reference here you go:

As of 4/29/2012:

DJIA:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -5.13%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -24.23%
Under Obama: UP, 66.4%

S&P 500:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -13.16%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -38.6%
Under Obama: UP, 74.28%

NASDAQ:
When Bush got re-elected: DOWN, -28.03%
Bush's Presidency: DOWN, -46.88%
Under Obama: UP, 113.05%

I'm still stunned by this. Can you imagine what they'd be saying about Obama's economy if his markets had George Bush's returns?  Oh, yeah, but Bush gets re-elected after net first-term losses, and the so-called 'Liberal' media media keeps up the narrative that Republicans know their asses from their elbows when it comes to the economy.

One final note, regarding the millions of people still trying to find work.  In no way is my post here implying that your plight is not real. You're out of work. And no amount of economic data is going to put food on your table. (Of course... the Republicans want to kill anything that WILL do that as well.) The point here is WHY. WHY are there are so many unemployed people? And WHO, WHO is going to make things better and who will make them worst? History says the Republicans will make it worse. They're the ones who MADE IT BAD in the first place. And AUSTERITY won't fix anything. Obama has been embracing Austerity at an astounding rate, mainly to appease the Right, and it is the number one thing HAMPERING our economic recovery.  The Right will only give you more of he only thing Obama actually IS doing wrong economically. And that's not my opinion, or mere conjecture. I KNOW this because they've promised as much.  That's what massive SPENDING CUTS will do folks: Kill the economy. DO NOT give the Republicans this chance!

I'm back / Personal message

Unlike the other audios, this one's not a joke or anything. I just resorting to that becasue I can't type very easily right now rigth now. (I explain why in the audio.)


Also, some of my future posts may be in audio format as well, IDK.  We'll see.

A Joke About Presidents...

Finally something vaguely political...

A Joke About Churches...

A Joke About Men...

A Joke About Viagra...

Missed another day. Oh well.

A Joke About Golf...

A Joke About Matchmaking...

This should have been posted yesterday. Oh well.

A Coming of Age Joke...