For the Record...

For the Record...

For the Record...

For the Record...

A "pricelss" clip I was emailed...

I was e-mailed the following clip.

It was sent with the message:

"Isn't it interesting that the question out of Donahue's mouth some thirty
one years ago, is one of the primary issues Obama ran on and pushes
almost daily?"

(The clip blow is from youtube, but he email actually linked here. Same clip)
 


The blog, includes the following commentary:

Pretty interesting clip…even though it is 30 years old, the content is “timeless” If you don't think we have been going aroud on the same argument for years this will put it into perspective. Leave it to an economist to clear things up. Wow! Talk about a clear cut look at the way the world operates. This is Phil Donahue interviewing Milton Friedman thirty years ago. The audience is notably silent.

Now I'm going to say a couple of things that will probably shock my Conservative readers, and possibly some of my liberal ones. I like to burninsh my centrist cred from time to time, and this post is going to be one of those times.

First of All: Milton Friedman was right.

And no, I'm certainly no fan of Friedman, nor am I a supply-sider. I'm a Keynsian, and unlike 99% of people of commenter who start out admitting they know nothing about economics, I have a graduate degree in Business, and three Graduate Level classes from the University of Michigan, which I solidly aced on my to graduating with honors. So i DO know a little bit about economics.  And it's very simple: Keynes was right, Krugman is right, and their detractors range between liars, thieves and morons.

But... Every thing Friedman said in this clip? It's 100% correct.

And Phil Donahue is an idiot.

No, not in general. Generally I have no problem with Donahue.  But here's the thing: ANYONE who is talking about "socialism" in this day and age is a FUCKING MORON.  Hear me out...

If you are a Liberal, Progressive, Democrat, etc... talking about it? I'll clue you in: IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!  OK?  As a designed system it looks great, on paper anyway. But you're trusting humans to run things, and humans are, at best, short-sighted and fallible. At worst they're greedy, money-grubbing, evil and corrupt.  And even if you could get past THAT part of human nature, the laws of supply and demand were not invented by Partisan Republicans. They're based on observations of COLLECTIVE HUMAN BEHAVIOR and you simply cannot fight them for very long. They're like gravity: You can go against them for a while (climb a ladder, fly a plane) but eventually you are going to pulled back to market equilibrium (the ground.) It's inevitable.

Now... To be honest, I'll be somewhat disappointed if I really have to argue that point with that many Liberals. I really said all that so that there's some chance that Conservative readers will drop their idiotic assumption that anyone not actively  pining for the glory days of George W. Bush (with a McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan sticker on their bumper) must be some kind of wild-eyed Socialist. I'm guessing there really aren't that many people out there who REALLY believe Socialism is the way to go, especially if they actually understand history and/or economics.

Which brings me to the reason that anyone who is Conservative, Libertarian, Republicans, Tea-Bagger, etc... and is talking about Socialism is also a fucking moron:

NOBODY ON THE LEFT (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) IN THIS COUNTRY IS PROPOSING ANYTHING SOCIALIST OR TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM!!!

Show me the Socialism! Show where Obama, or Pelosi, or ANY Democrat has proposed that the State take control of, and run, private companies! SHOW ME! It's not fucking happening!  And far from the e-mails claims that Obama "ran on" this [socialism? redistribution?] and "pushes [it] almost daily;" back in the real world, the only legislation Obama has ever signed regarding taxes LOWERED THEM (for everyone) and that remains unchanged going forward. (More on that in a moment.) And his big health care system? "Obamacare"? Hardly a Socialized, government takeover: It owes it origin to the Right-Wing Heritage Foundation, it was pushed by Republicans during the Clinton years, and implemented by Governor Romney, the Republican candidate for President last year! And as much as I've heard the Rigth talk about Obama's plans for "redistribution," you know who I NEVER heard speak of it? Even ONCE?

Barack Obama.
See... What the idiot Right in this country doesn't understand (and/or doesn't want the voting public to understand) is the argument is not one of Capitalism vs. Socialism. It isn't. And if you think it is, you're an idiot. The Republican are no more the great defenders of Capitalism, anymore than the Democrats are it's Detractors.  The argument is simply on of laissez-faire Capitalism versus regulated Capitalism.

Obama has done NOTHING to stop or curtail "free enterprise,"  "capitalism," "entrepreneurialism" or anything else. Nothing. Zip. Nada.  And as for Keynes? How could Keynes possibly be a socialist? Aside from the fact that he was himself an avowed critic of Socialism, his economic models are based ENTIRELY on a Capitalist Free-Market economy!  Being a "Keynesian" MEANS you're a Capitalist!  Only, you one that wants the Government to do what it can to help out, and you're one that realizes that both the supply side AND the demand side are needed for a society to grow economically!  See, while you're two choices here (being Democrat or Republican) are in fact "Keynesianism" or "Supply-Side," Keynesianism is NOT the opposite of Supply-side.  Supply-side simply looks at only ONE-HALF of the Keynes model.

Kind of like building a baseball team on Pitching alone, only to have to face another team that ha equally good pitching, AND phenomenal hitting as well. And reasonably intelligent person knows you need BOTH.  Consider the 1940's-1960's, those "good old days" of the "greatest generation" and the "baby boom."  You had FDR-D, Truman-D, Eisenhower-Rino, JFK-D, LBJ-D and 1 Year of Nixon-r. You had strong labor unions, a top tier tax rate ranging from 70%-90%, and each President had, among his greatest accomplishments, things that are considered Liberal by today's standards!
Now ironically, that video was shot in 1979, one year before the Election of Ronald W. Regan. And what has happened in the 34 years since then?  Unions have been broken, tariffs have been lifted, Top-tier tax rates has fallen, deficits has skyrocketed, and middle class wages have stagnated, at best, and for the majority of Americans, haven't even kept up with the cost of living! And while the country, in total, has done "better" almost all of that benefit has accumulated at the top!

And that's exactly what you'd expect from supply-side economics.

(Historically, it's also what generally becomes of Socialist States as well - our old "Corporate Masters" merely move into their new Government Roles, now having official, codified, legal power, insteadof just the power that comes unofficially with great wealth.)

Again: It's not about Capitalism versus Socialism. It's about common-sense regulations, based on sound science, and taxation and spending based on sound economical principles, matched the needs of the country, or letting the old, fat, rich, white, men (think Roger Ailes) take and keep all the money!

And if you think that's an exaggeration, I defy you to show me that it's anywhere close to the ones calling Obama, Krugman or Keynes, "Socialists."

------------------

*** Obama has lowered taxes. I said I'd get to that.  Remember that in 2001, President Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Part of this Bill became known as the "Bush Tax Cuts."  They lowered taxes, for everyone, from where they were under Clinton, but were heavily favored towards the rich, exploded the deficit and did little to stimulate the economy, relative to their cost.  (All facts - you can look 'em up.)  One key part of this legislation however, was that they were only suppose to go for TEN YEARS. Then, according to that very law, voted for by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, taxes would revert back to their previous levels - for EVERYONE - in 2011.

Then, one wrecked economy later, President Obama comes along. And he needs to get the economy going again, so as part of the Stimulus he does two things: (1) He extends the Bush Tax Cuts through 2012.  (NOTE: If he does nothing,PREEXISTING LAW has them at a higher rate. His actions therefore LOWERED them.) And (2) he temporarily lowers the payroll tax. Not that's not REALLY a "tax cut," since you'll still owe the same amount in the end, but it does put more money in your pocket in the meantime. In any case, President Obama only took action to LOWER taxes, relative to existing law.

And what about now?  What about the law he just signed RAISING taxes on the top 1%?!

Really?!

>Once again, let's go back to existing law: In 2013, without any action required from the President, tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton.  So what action did he take? He signed a law that LOWERED taxes.

For the bottom 99%? What about those at the top? Those poor, suffering 1%'ers?

Nope. For EVERYONE.

>EVERYONE is paying a lower tax rate than they would have been absent any action from the President, even those top 1%'ers who saw that top tier tax rate go up.

How's that, you ask?

It's called our progressive taxation system. (And it was first advocated by every Right Wingers second favorite economist, Adam Smith, I might add.)See... you know how all those "flat tax" advocates keep saying that we should all pay the same rate? Well, what they're hoping you don't know is that we ALREADY DO!

My first $8700 is taxed at 10%. So is Yankee Third Baseman Alex Rodriguez's.
My earned income between $8,700 and $35,350 is taxed at 15%. So is Donal Trump's.
My earned income between $35,350 to $85,650 is taxed at 25%. So is Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch's
(and so on...)
And so is all of yours.  EVERYONE'S is, in fact.

So, see... when you cut the bottom tier tax rate, EVERYONE benefits from it. When you cut the TOP rate, only the rich benefit.

Likewise, when you raise the bottom tier rate, you raise EVERYONE'S taxes. (Unless you do what Reagan did in 1987, having a top tier rate that was LOWER than the middle-tier, the great fellatiator!)  So even though that poor, suffering Billionaires will be paying a little more that they would have if Obama had extended ALL of the tax cuts, they are STILL paying less than they would have had no action been taken, on account of them keeping the same benefit we all got from those lower tier rates.

What do you know: Obama STILL hasn't raised income taxes!

Now, yes, we can talk about the taxes that are associated with "Obamacare" (again: a nae that Republicans gave to their own plan, once they realized how many even of their own people hated it) but that's a much more complicated discussion, as it involves an objective discussion of how broken our health care system was BEFORE.  And it remains to be seen, going forward, if the various taxes, benefits, regulations, restrictions and markets/exchanges will bring a net benefit or net harm.  And on a personal level, that depends largely on whether you currently have health insurance or not, if you can afford it, and if you can afford it down the road. A worthy discussion, to be fair, but not what we're talking about HERE.

One final note: I came out pretty big for Capitalism in this post, albeit the regulated Capitalism of 40's, 50's and 60's, not the laissez-faire Capitalism of the 20's (which didn't end well, you may recall) or the Reaganomics that continues pretty much to this day. (Until I see a top-tier rate over 50%, we haven't substantively left Reaganomics yet!) I'd still proudly describe myself as a "Free-Market Liberal" or "Progressive Capitalist" and see no contradiction in doing so, at all.

To SOME EXTENT, Gordon Gecko was right: Greed is (or can be) good. Greed WORKS. (or CAN.)

And I do believe that for many things, the free market and the profit motive, assuming there's good, fair, open competition and well-informed choice, will generally distribute goods, services and income in a fair and equitable way. (Or at least the best possible way over time.) And while there may be others, I really see only four areas in our society that should be kept completely isolated from the pursuit of profit. And while, sadly, so many seem to disagree with me on these, I really can't see how these are anything but universal:

1) Education. Education is neither a right, not a privilege: It's a OBLIGATION. Of both a society to educate, and the people within it to become educated. And it an obligation that should be fulfilled by passing on OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, not just the clap-trap that Corporations want to teach you in order to make you better voters and consumers (for them.) And make no mistake: The Right, and their 1% Corporate Masters, FEAR an educated populace. (And so does any Government in general.) Let's keep it that way!

2)  Medicine. This one's easy. Just ask yourself, Do you want your Doctor making medical decision based on what's best for the Hospital's shareholders, or YOU, the patient. I think all sane people will say, "To hell with the Hospital's shareholders!" if the alternative is that they receive sub-standard or mediocre medical treatment.  WELL... if you want that for yourself, you have to willing to grant it to everyone else. Otherwise, you're just a selfish little ass-wipe!

3) Justice. This one SHOULD be easy, but we actually HAVE a for-profit prison system. Oh, it "works," meaning it saves us money, provided that the jails remain FULL. Well, one "three strike and you're out" law signed by that great "Liberal" Bill Clinton, and we're now incarcerating a greater percentage of our population than CHINA does!  (What, did you think that bill had something to do with CRIME?! OH, HELLS' NO!: It was entirely created by ALEC to make the for-profit prison system "work!" Look it up!)  In any case, I don't think even the idiotic Conservatives who thought that "3-strikes" had something to do with being "tough on crime" would want to have a Judge making a decision that affected them based on economics rather that the evidence presented before the court.

and...

4) The Military. Duh. Private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, wasteful and (in some eyes) guilty of War Crimes. They cost more than our troops and do a worse job. Not to mention... All the top Republican brass all now admit that Iraq was all about OIL and MONEY in the first place!  What do you know? EISENHOWER WAS RIGHT. And the profit-motive makes for REALLY FUCKING TERRIBLE foreign policy decisions.

Aside from those four areas?

I'm 100% a Capitalist. Just like President Obama & company are.

-----------------------------

(One more thing... Something funny... every time I read about President Obama being described as a "Kenyan" I always read it, "Keynesian."  Which becomes REALLY wierd when he'd called a "SECRET Kenyan." Because I read it "Secret Keynesian" and think, "Shit, that's not a particularly well-kept secret, is it?!")

Alignment Meme's

As a one-time huge D&D nerd, one of my absolute favorite memes is the "alignment meme." That's the one where you take nine people or characters fitting a given theme and arrange them according to the twin spectrums of AD&D's character morality model: From Good to Evil and from Lawful to Chaotic.

Here's a particularly relevant one (for this blog) that I came across recently:

What I love about these is the possibility for interesting debate.  (Among HUGE NERDS, granted but still...)

For example, I didn't really see Truman as "Lawful Evil." Until I read his quote. Then I was was like... "Oh... Yeeeeah. Riiiiiight." (awkward)

Also... I REALLY can't see JFK as "Lawful." Don't get me wrong, I like Kennedy but if he belongs anywhere it definitely on the Chaotic spectrum. (But yeah... TR and Jackson? PERFECT choices already.  For Lawful Neutral, I'd have gone with either Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, both of whom supported the legal, yet morally reprehensible institution of slavery.  (And sure, one can argue that they belong in the 'Evil' category of that, but there actions were taken to AVOID a war, whilst Truman's were taken to WIN one, so I can see leaving it as it is as well.

Another brilliant one was this:

Now calling the media "True Neutral" is not suggesting, in the least, that they have been unbiased. On the contrary, the fact that they have even tried to maintain the appearance of neutrality here is proof-positive of the Systematic Conservative bias of our Corporate Press: THIS WHOLE MESS IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS.

PERIOD.

It's not even a question of who supported what during the debate, or whether one side of the other (or Obama) supported the sequester deal or not. If the Republicans did play bullshit politics with what should have been a routine piece of maintenance-level legislation, namely RAISING THE DEBT CEILING, then none of this would have happened.

And make no mistake: It WILL harm the economy. (Not our security though: We spend twice as much on defense as France, England, Russia and China COMBINED. So we'll be FINE, militarily. The problem of defense spending is entrierly an ECONOMIC one, just as all other spending questions are!) (What do you know? Eisenhower was RIGTH!)



(Too bad we didn't listen!)

And remember: The Debt Ceiling has NOTHING, at all, to do with either the national debt or the federal budget deficit.  Raising the debt ceiling only allows the US to pay the bills it has ALREADY RUN UP when Congress drew up the budget. It has NOTHING, at all, to do with "blank checks" or "new spending" or ANYTHING like that.

But hey: Just as Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) have contended form the beginning that Obama it "trying" to wreck the economy, in order to adopt some [straw-man argument that they keep harping about which has no basis in reality], I have also contended that the Republicans actually WANT to forestall economic recovery, and even force us back into recession.  The difference between me and Limbaugh?  I can demonstrate actual MOTIVE, and can point to ACTUAL ACTIONS, both taken and obstructed, by the Republicans to demonstrate MEANS and OPPORTUNITY.

Motive: Tank the economy on Obama's watch and the Dem's will get blamed for it.  Hey - it has some precedent. (George Bush Sr. in 1992, for example.) And it's also why you only hear about austerity and reducing the deficit when there's a Democrat in the White House: Because the ONLY possibly result of Government Austerity is a shittier economy! There is no other possible result! And when there's a Republican in the White House?

"I think Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

~Vice President Dick Cheney

As for means & opportunity?

- Obstructed the American Re-Investment and Recovery Act, and sought only to weaken it.
- Unprecedented use of the filibuster
- All this nonsense about the debt ceiling
- All the anonymous holds on Presidential Appointees, also unprecedented both in terms of number, and the positions in question
- All their talk about cutting spending. Where was that under Bush? Nonexistent, because they wouldn't want to tank the economy under Bush!

(Though they managed to anyway!)

(Now watch as anonymous forces us to rehash the debate over the CRA with the same, tired debunked talking points we already beat in to the ground! LOL)

Evil indeed. Without a doubt in my mind.

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!

TARP

TARP was never a popularly supported piece of legislation. And I've defended against attacks from both Liberals and Conservatives alike.  That's not to say that I ever LIKED the idea of what it stood for (from either a Liberal or a Conservative standpoint), but any understanding of what made the mortgage meltdown and subsequent Bush recession SO BAD, reveals the complete NECESSITY of something like TARP at the time.

And I no longer have any interest i discussing the details of this part of it or that part of it anymore.  There is no doubt that there was a lot of bullshit going on, and there always will be.  But to oppose it on any kind of PRINCIPLE? Like hating big corporate banks (Liberals), hating gov't spending (Conservatives) or hating the fact that we're Socializing (Conservatives) corporate losses (Liberals)... Well, all that's just foolishness. Because at the end of the day, this (or something like it) was necessary and, in a big picture sense, it WORKED, warts and all.

So while I have been defending from all sides as a necessary evil (and even "good" legislation in the sense of what it saved us from), I was only a little bit surprised just now too read that it may actually turn a profit, paying for itself and then some for taxpayers.  Now I couldn't care less if it ACTUALLY manages to one or not. Remember: That won't detract from my view that it was NECESSARY, for better or worse. But... (1) Who doesn't like a little gravy with their biscuits? and (2) It certainly goes to show how irrational the critics (regardless of ideology) are who are crying about how much it cost, and what a big waste it was.  Because not only did it save us from a far worse, longer lasting catastrophe (and thus remains as one of the few things George W. Bush did that DIDN'T turn into one!) but even if it fails to turn a profit as currenlty predicted? The loss will likely be minuscule in comparison to the amount of money originally outlaid, and the [largely phony] cost that people are assuming it ended up having.

Which might just end up being less than none.

So much stupidity, so little time...

...Or at least I've spent very little time lately pointing it out and having some fun at the Right's expense.

I read an interesting piece the other day on "Accuracy In Media" - arguably the most Orwellian named web-site in existence, BTW -  about Media Matters. (Or does it?)  It was full of enough Right Wing talking points and Conspiracy Theories to fill a Bingo Card: George Soros, Democratic Run, Obama Campaign Coordinated... You name it. Of course... there was one thing that was conspicuously absent form this hatchet job: Even a single example of ANYTHING that Media matters has ever gotten wrong.  Not one! Not a single example! And of course, I defy ANYONE (William?) to find even a single piece on MediaMatters in which they call out something as inaccurate and have nothing more to say about it than "these people are Conservative" or "this is all coordinated by Ruppert Murdoch." And even when, in that case, the accusation would have the benefit of actually being TRUE. Because Liberals are smart enough to realize that this kind of ad hominen attack? IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Why would I even give a fuck if George Soros IS funding them, if what they are saying IS TRUE?!

It just goes back to what I always say:

A Liberal will prove that you're wrong and a Conservative will prove that you're Liberal.

(BTW... ANOTHER THING you will never find in MediaMatters is this kind of EXAMPLE FREE hack-level hatchet-job. Just sayin'.)

--------------------------------------------------

In related news, I heard earlier today that Rush Limbaugh now does not have so much as a single corporate advertiser left on his program.  I haven't been able to substantiate that claim as stated, but o March Eighth they were forced to broadcast over five minutes of DEAD AIR due to the corporate boycott that he's brought upon himself.  And that's great.  I say: Five down, One Hundred Seventy Five to go!  And while the dream of his broadcasting demise remains elusive, the fact of the matter is that TODAY, not a single ad was aired from a corporate sponsor. NOT ONE! And he's had the nerve to say that he "won't forgive them" and "doesn't want them back."   And that's funny... because the guy's been in radio for over 25 years now, so you'd think he have some fucking idea how that media actually FUNCTIONS.

That's fine though. In the meantime, I'm sure that the United Negro College Fund is enjoying all of the free advertising it's getting on his program. Because apparently IRONY is a terrible thing to waste.

Oh.. and did you hear? Today he claimed that Sandra Fluke's appearance before the Senate and the subsequent action but his sponsors to bankrupt his program are all part of a coordinated conspiracy by the Obama Administration to get rid of him.  I'm not sure where calling a woman's advocate a "slut" figured in to all that... the Batman Gambit , I guess.  But at what point will these morons stop trying to conjure up fantasy conspiracy theories and just face the fact that they might... JUST MIGHT... have actually been WRONG?!

Isn't that the simpler explanation?

Note to Rush: This isn't what an Obama orchestrated conspiracy looks like. Obama couldn't organize a barbecue, and neither can the Democrats.  This is what it looks like when you get your ass kicked by the FREE MARKET and the people's FREEDOM OF SPEECH after you piss of LITERALLY EVERYONE.

But by all means, keep digging. You've got all the money you need, so there's no point in turning back now. Keep showing everyone what the Republican Party, the Right Wing and the Conservative movement REALLY stand for. Keep exposing the Faustian Bargain they made with you back in 1992 (despite the fact that they LOST that year!) and see if you can't take down Hannity, Fox News, and the Republican Party with you while you're at it.

Do some GOOD for a change with your short-ass, miserable existence.

A Sad State of Affairs

I haven't written much lately.  I don't know why.  In the past it's been for a lack of interest (on my part) or inspiration, but that definitely hasn't been the case lately.  With Republican's running head-long off a cliff in ways that continue to amaze and astound me, even after all these years, there has been no shortage of material to write about.  And I've been fairly active on Media Matters, intending to do some follow-up here, but lately it seems that sometime between my lunch-hour rants on MMFA and my after-dinner fray into the man-cave, it seems other things just keep crowd out those thoughts.

But one of DW's facebook-friends recently sent her a link to a Guardian article that I absolutely MUST share with you all.  There have been many of these articles written before - you may recall the piece a from 2008 that likened Conservatism to Mental Illness (here's another form 2004) - and they are usually met with the kind of response that proves one of my favorite personal adages:

Argue with a Liberal and they'll prove you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and they'll prove you're Liberal.

I'm curious, though not optimistic, to see if any *ahem* Conservative commenters here might do better than that.  We'll see. My favorite part might have been the quotes from Republican Strategist David Frum that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics."  In the column, that quote links to another great column by Paul Krugman where it is shown in its entirety:

Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality, the United States is a country dominated by a strong Christian religiosity. Within it, Christians are a persecuted minority. Outside the system, President Obama—whatever his policy ­errors—is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action ­phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Outside the system, social scientists worry that the U.S. is hardening into one of the most rigid class societies in the Western world, in which the children of the poor have less chance of escape than in France, Germany, or even England. Inside the system, the U.S. remains (to borrow the words of Senator Marco Rubio) “the only place in the world where it doesn’t matter who your parents were or where you came from.”

So... not only is Black White and White Black, but... Black is Black and White is White as well.  Which leads to another favorite adage of mine that sums up the Republican Party, the Right Wing,  and the Conservative Movement:

There two kinds of Conservatives: Evil and Stupid.
One lies and the other buys.
It really all comes down to two groups - Liberals and Conservative - that are both convinced they're right. The DIFFERENCE is that Liberals increasingly have the prevailing Scientific and Economic viewpoint, not to mention the evidence supporting those, on their side whilst Conservatives have increasingly chosen to propagandize for the demonstrably false knowing (as the article points out) that half the population won't knwo any better anyway.  And whether it's Global Warming, Evolution, the Keynesian Economic Model or the Constituton, the Right has grown increasingly separated from reality, and more defiant every day as they say and defend that which is not only  self-evident but, of infinitely more importance, is supported by empirical evidence as well.
Between Sean Hannity claiming that "you can't make the case that the economy is improving," (unless of course you look at, oh I don't know... the rising GDP, the falling unemployment rate, the rising DOW, S&P and Nasdaq, the number of new job's being created each month... you know, literaly EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC INDICIATOR) or Fox arguing that Government Spending hurts the economy (WTF?!) and Sarah Palin insisting that the unemployment numbers must not be acurate (Because, you know, the Right couldn't possibly be WRONG about... well, EVERYTHING, could they?!) the Conservative noise machine has grown increasing desperate with each passing day in their attemtps to get more and more people to ignore what it right in front of them, and to ignore the inevitable social progress that society makes, putting them in th perpetual state of losing the argument, generation after generation.  Adage number three:

Scientists aren't right because they agree with Liberals.
Liberals are right because they agree with Scientists.

Of course, the Right has never been shy about slandering pretty much ANY outfit that (1) Does good and (2) Leans Democratic or Liberal, but I wanted to re-post my repsonse here to CNN's (CNN'S!) Dana Loesch's claim that "It's a 'lie' to claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms," because I think it would be an apropriate way to close out this post:
It's a lie to claim there's a "liberal media."

It's a lie to deny that global warming is happening or that it is man-made.

It's a lie to say that one chooses to be homosexual or transgendered.

It's a lie to claim that "both sides do it" when it comes to broadcasting false infomration and distorted, out of context quotes.

It's a lie to claim that the economy has gotten worse under Obama.

It's a lie to put the responsibility for the mortgage crisis anywhere except with the deregulation (and greed) of the banks.

It's a lie to claim that keeping condoms out of schools will stop teenagers from having sex.

It's a lie to claim that "Bush kept us safe from terrorists."

It's a lie to claim that Obama is a Muslim, or a non-American Citizen by birth.

It's a lie to claim that anyone who supports wars and the death penalty is "pro-life."

It's a lie to claim that the war on terror is a war of Christianity vs. Islam, instead of a war of Secular Freedom vs. Religious Fundamentalism and Extremism.

It's a lie to claim that "Happy Holidays" represents a Liberal War on Christmas.

It's a lie to claim that Republicans care about the deficit.

It's a lie to claim that Government spending does harm to the economy.

It's a lit to claim that taxes are "too high."

It's a lie to cliam that Obama raised taxes.

And it's a lie to claim that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion mill.

Here's the thing... It may not have always been the case, but right now, and increasingly over the last 3+ years (and the last 12, and the last 20...) Conservatives have chosen to be wrong on literally EVERYTHING.  (Hey: Even the two issues that I'm most strongly Conservative on, I'll happily admit that my position is indefensible and based entirely on emotion rather than reason!)  And that being the case... knowing that... I'm forced to ask the question: WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE CONSERVATIVE?!

But then... that's already been answered, hasn't it?

Reply to Conchobhar's vanden Heuvel article

When I first read this I hard time separating vanden Heuvel's points and opinions from Chait's. I'm blaming that on the NyQuil, so hopefully I can keep them strait this time around. And I really only want to explore one aspect of the article - the idea of party loyalty, group-think, hero-worship and unconditional support. I'm not going to defend Obama's record, but I'd feel more than a little silly bashing it at this point, seeing as how this was in reposes to a post in which I honored a website dedicated to listing out his accomplishments. (But I probably will anyway.) My opinion on Obama is fairly simple: I supported him in the primary, happily voted for him (esp. w/ Sarah Palin in the #2 spot on the other ticket!) and felt very hopeful that we would get a strong, popular, MODERATELY LIBERAL candidate... which, after eight years of living with the hard-right, seeing our civil liberties eroded away and the Supreme Court pulled solidly to the Right, SHOULD have seemed like a breath of fresh air, and a step in the right (not Right) direction. Of course, I'm as disappointed and disgusted as anyone, and Obama's judgment as a failure over all is well earned, even if the Right-leaning voters haven't the slightest clue as to WHY. Done. I will say no more about it.

BUT... I've certainly leaned pretty heavily over the years on the trope that the Republicans band together whilst the Democrats mostly bicker amongst themselves. That the Right votes (and thinks) in lockstep whilst the diversity of opinion on the Left - while idealistic and admirable - often times sabotages their ability to govern. And that's BEFORE you get someone who's as allergic to hard negotiation as Obama is.

And this article really challenges that trope. I mean, sure, me and a few of my fellow bloggers might criticize Obama (and/or Clinton) but I'm an engineer - a man of SCIENCE. Can this really be quantified? What does it say about this that idea that there are many historic examples of the OPPOSITE being true: that the Right is all disjointed and the Left are the ones that close ranks?
Well... I ain't ready to buy that just yet, but some reconciliation is obviously in order.

So I'm going to go through the examples one by one, starting with Reagan. I think that's the best place to start, because any discussion of MODERN Conservatism and Liberalism, or for that matter Democrats and Republicans really can only be traced back as far as Reagan, maybe Carter. You go back much farther and the parties just look too different form what they are today for these comparisons to be relevant. (In Nixon's day, there were still Conservative Democrats - mostly Southerners - and still some Socially Liberal, Libertarian Republicans. And while that all started to change in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act (Johnson was right about losing the South, but he was being wildly optimistic that it would ONLY be 'for a generation!') it was finally beginning to cement itself during the Reagan Years. I would say the last nail in the coffin was 1994 and the Gingrich-led Congress, but they were certainly polishing the wood for it, so to speak, during the Reagan years.

Now Hoeft mentions how Reagan had his critics. He mentions the hard Right, because Reagan DID raise taxes several times. (Not something that's really associated with his legacy, but true all the same.) He also had his critics all over the map because of what was the first of what would eventually be twelve years of deficits that were insane in any time that wasn't a full blown World War. But in the end, as Dick Cheney so *ahem* eloquently put it: Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter. (Yeah, unless there's a Democrat in the White House, huh, Dick?) And whatever Right-Wing critics he had on tax policy, he pretty much silenced them in 1987, by lowering the top-tier tax rate to 28% - almost as low as what a median income earner was paying just the year before, while leaving the upper-middle class bracket at 33%. That's right - for three years we actually had a REGRESSIVE taxation system, for the only time in the history of the Federal Income Tax. And given Reagan's historic landslide in 1984, I would hardly say that these critics of the now iconic Republican were really all that significant. Or critical.

And besides... While Reagan might not have always enjoyed the full support of his party (though I question how often this really translated into "No" Votes) he was the one who STARTED the trend. What was his greatest legacy?

"Do not speak ill of your fellow Republican."

Party loyalty was the at very heart of the man's philosophy and is perhaps his most significant and lasting legacy. If the Right learned ANYTHING form the Reagan years (and given the Bush'43 years, I have my doubts) it was this.

So... Fast forward to 1992, and the Republican Primary and incumbent President George H.W. Bush (whom I consider to be the best or 2nd best Republican since Teddy Roosevelt) facing the music from the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Christian Coalition. Look... I don't mean to dismiss the destructive influence that this combination of bigotry and fanaticism has had on the Republican Party. Starting with Jerry Fallwell, then Pat Robertson and now James Dobson (and others) the Christian Right has been destroy the Republican Party for DECADES now. But if you are going to look at George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992, and try to figure out what happened, the elephant in the room can be summed up in two simple lines:

"It's the economy, stupid!" ~Bill Clinton

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" ~George H.W. Bush

That's it. That's all you need to know. George Bush was an INCUMBENT. Any nonsense from the likes of Buchanan or any others are inconsequential next to those two, simple lines. There was a recession. And while it's kind of stupid to blame a recession solely on the President, it's not as dumb if he just raised taxes (after basically saying he wouldn't.) As for the "read my lips" quote? Well, at least the Right is consistent, I'll give them that. Juts like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet* Bush'41 never said he wouldn't RAISE taxes. He just wouldn't create any NEW ONES. Well... I can certainly see how that could have been misinterpreted. Al Gore's statement... not so much.*

*it's off-topic, but read the end comment.

And at the end of the day, it's not like the Christian Coalition went and voted Democrat, nor did Buchanan really represent a serious primary challenge: Bush trounced him by over three to one in the popular voter and won every single State. Buchanan represented no more than a symbolic (and possibly egotistic) challenge. So... I'm sorry. It's pure and utter bullshit to say that a lack of PARTY LOYALTY cost Bush the '92 election. He went back on a "Read my lips" pledge, and was in a recession, running against a charismatic candidate who constantly reminded people of it.

Dan Quayle didn't help matters much either.

OK, now... Fast forward again to Bill Clinton, 1998.

After six years of compiling a largely Republican record: NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Steagal, and a 38.6% top-tier tax rate (remember, from 1982 to 1986, under Reagan no less, it was 50%!); one could certainly make the case that Liberals were fed up with him and his "new Democrat" paradigm. Aside from Bryer and Ginsberg? I can't think of a single, bona fide Liberal thing the man did. Of course, that's not why I hated him then. I was a Conservative then, and still at a "William" level of Right Wing brainwashing, thanks in equal parts to Rush Limbaugh and growing up in the family I did and the times that I did. What can I say? As a CHILD? Reagan was my hero. (I sent him a get-well card when he got shot. He sent me back a letter. That was a pretty deal to a then seven-year old!) (Even though I know he didn't actually write it himself!) But... I'm grown up now, and so I know better. Now? I hate Clinton for the right (not the Right's) reasons.

So how does one explain how we all "rallied" around Clinton during the impeachment proceedings? Where were all his Liberal Critics then? Why didn't we join with Newt Gingrich, in the hunt for justice... Sorry... I can't even type that with a strait face. Rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and EVERYTHING to do with NEWT GINGRICH! I mean, come on... So the guy was bullshit President. That doesn't mean we're going to sit back while some Right-Wing, jack-booted, cocksucker like Newt Gingrich REMOVES A POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE over something as inconsequential as a blow-job from an intern! (And before any doofuses out there tell me it was about lying about it, let me ask you something: How do you feel about the fact that Gingrich him self was having an affair at the time? And did you feel the same about incoming speaker Bob Livingston? Who that mean old Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine "forced" to resign as incoming Speaker over HIS affair? It was a bullshit impeachment, and you know it, so don't waste our time!) What was on display in 1998 was not support for Bill Clinton so much as a backlash against Gingrich and his hyper-partisan, Republican-led witch hunt of Clinton. It wasn't a defense of the DEMOCRATS so much as it was a defense of DEMOCRACY. The Republicans couldn't win fairly in '96, so they were going to ruin him.

Funny how history repeats itself, huh? You'd think Barry would have known the types of people he was dealing before he took the job. Shame that.

So fast forward again (over eight years of a President who WAS NOT popularly elected, and who the press - that's ALL of the press - cheer-led for as he exploded the deficits, startled illegal, unnecessary and unfunded wars and happily chipped away at our civil liberties) to our "savior" (the Right's words, not ours) Barack Obama. So... HOW do I explain why so many Liberals (including your's truly, for longer than most) stuck with him for SO long? Thought a health care bill that resembled Gingrich's c.1993 before the Republicans even took first crack at it. Through a stimulus bill that was trimmed down to a size that would satisfy the very people who's leader stated as his 'top ptriority' making [Obama] a one-term President. Through replacing two reliable Liberal votes on the Supreme Court with two moderates - thus moving the Court farther to the Right. WHY have we stuck with him? Why are there so many still do?

Well, I see two things, really. In the early days, say... early 2009 though about mid 2010? I think there was a lot of... confusion. Obama suddenly didn't sound a whole lot like the guy we had all voted for. That's not normally surprising, most candidates don't live up their rhetoric, but Obama was elected on a large part BECAUSE of that rhetoric! And give HUGE majorities! In BOTH HOUSES! And, pretty much just like Clinton, he took that Liberal mandate and ran right to the Center with, quite possibly overshooting the mark. And... well.. I figure a lot of people didn't even notice at first. And once they did, couldn't figure out what to make of it. And Obama had MUCH larger majorities than Clinton had. (And also squandered.)

And then there was the Right. See... I also think that a lot of the image people had of Obama as this extremely Liberal guy came from the Right. I pretty much knew I was voting for a moderate because I recognized the Right's blathering as pure horseshit and listened to what Obama had to say. The quintessential example of this was when Obama said, [PP] "If we have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, I would consider military incursions into Pakistan in order to capture him." Within a day this very rational position became "Obama wants to OVERTHROW Musharraf!" (That was our "great ally" Musharraf, BTW, who's country Bin laden WAS actually hiding in the entire time!) And within a day of THAT, I'm getting emails from my Conservative friends saying how Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan! Seriously! And they BELIEVED this! And even after PROVED to them that this was an idiotically absurd interpretation of the man's words, they're response was STILL be best summed up by my friend, Mike, who said, "Yeah, OK, but still... Strange dude."

*face palm*
*shakes head*

Now... What role does all this play? Well... Consider the average American voter. They get inspired by his lofty rhetoric, and here the Right demonize him with every epithet they can muster. He comes into office, seems to capitulate to the Right on just about every key issue, and they... KEEP ON demonizing him with every epithet they can muster. So let's go back to that relatively mild-mannered voter, and now woefully misinformed voter. Sure... there are those on the Left who say he's going too far to the Right, but... If that were true why does the Right seem madder than ever at him?

Well... simple answer: They're bat shit fucking insane, that's why!

And that's really been the trend since at least the Clinton years: As the Republicans have pulled farther and farther to the Right, the Democrats have responded by moving to the right. And as the Democrats have compromised by moving to the Right, the Republicans have responded by moving EVEN FARTHER to the Right!

And at this point? Any real Liberal who's still supporting Obama as a Candidate or the Democrats as a Party are doing so for any of the following reasons: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John Beohner, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... The list goes on, but I think the point is clear. It not so much as the lesser of two evils, so much as voting for the person or party who would compromise with the evil and voting for the actual evil. At this point the Republicans are so far gone, that NEWT GINGRICH, one of the least popular Speakers of the House in American History, is their LEADING CANDIDATE!
And no, I DO NOT hope he gets the nom, because as much as I believe he would getter utterly TROUNCED in the general, I remember 2000 and the Rehnquist Court appointing our next President, and I will not chance that.

I hope Romney gets the nom. He's the only who's not completely insane, completely moronic or both.
And I hope there is a Primary Challenger to Obama, even if it's just a symbolic one, like Pat Buchanan in '92. If there is? They already have my vote, right now, just to send Barry a message. But I'll still vote for Obama in '12 in the general and, if he loses, I will personally kick the ass of every Liberal who stayed home. Our next President will likely named Ginsburg's successor, and possibly (remote, but still...) Scalia's or Kennedy's. Do you really want that job to be done by Newt Gingrich?!
And THAT'S why I don;t think you can measure our "loyalty" in votes. Because the alternative REALLY IS that much worse.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that my take on the whole thing. And I'm keeping my stance that the Dem's remain the Big-Tent and the Pub's the group-thinkers.

-------------------------------------------

*OK... Al Gore. The Internet. Here's EXACTLY what he said, in his interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Couple of things...

First of all, Blitzer didn't challenge him on the point. At all. He didn't seem to think this claim was all that remarkable at the time. Liberal Bias? Hardly. More like: IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. How did Gore do this? Well, for a start, there was the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly known as the "Gore Bill." This laid the legislative groundwork for the the National Information Infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of what we now know as the Internet.

Was his statement even misleading or an exaggeration? Well, I think Snopes gives the best take on that question:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid 1960's that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway system, we would not have seen dozens of editorial lampooning him for claiming that he "invented" the concept of highways, or implying the he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept that Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

If you believe he said it, or doubt the veracity of what was actually said, then you simply do not have a basic understanding of the facts. Because all of the guys that YOU THINK "invented" the Internet? Like pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn? Note that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."

And making Al Gore's ACCURATE CLAIM into a joke? Makes you sound about as stupid as drawing a picture of Ike with a hard-hat and a shovel - and meaning it as mockery - would do. If you're reading this? You and I both owe a lot of that that to AL GORE. To believe anything else is to swallow the lies that Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told you because they KNEW that Bush would be trounced if the public ever came to grips with just how much Gore had accomplished - the FUCKING INTERNET for fuck's sake!!! - versus how little Bush had. (Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Marique?! What an idiot!!!) So clearly a different narrative had to be told. They're paid propagandists, who preach to the greedy and the gullible. Nothing more.

Gold Star Awards: November, 2011

Yep. A day late.  And I was doing so good, too. What can I say. Worst work-week I've had in TEN YEARS.

The year is 1969, and it saw two indictees from the BWAA andf two from the Veteran's Committee.


The Stan Musial Gold Star #41: The Representative Press and his YouTube Channel.

His YouTube Channel has an almost obssessive focus on issues relating to Israel but is, at it's heart, remains a Media Criticism channel, focusing on the failures on the mainstream media to tell the REAL story about such things as the motivation behind the 9/11 attacks (hint: It was our support of Israel) and the Police enforced media black out when the Occupy movement was evicted in New York. Ths guy has the the REAL SCOOP on what the Mainstream Media isn't telling you.

(Maybe William will look into  some of these items and then try to explain where that systematic Mainstream Liberal Media Bias comes in.)

The Roy Campanella Gold Star #42: What The Heck Has Obama Done So Far?

OK, I certainly hope that I don't now need to re-establish any of my cred as a CRITIC of the President, BUT... the next time some Right Wing Jackoff Rick Perry type comes talking smack about how "nothing's gotten done," send him to THIS site. Stuff's happened. Progress has been made. That may not make up for the missed opportunities and the progress that hasn't but that doesn't mean that the useless half of this country should be able to run there yaps scott-free without a rebuke.  Good resource.


The Stan Coveleski Silver Star #39: Modest  Medusa

This cute little web comic started out as little more than a guilty pleasure for me, but I'm always happy to recognize an artist that's willing to lend their talents to a good cause... so go buy this T-Shirt!:

And, in any case, it's a fun little take on mythology, monsters, family, friends, fitting in and sticking it to authority.  And, as I always recommend, read it from the beginning!


The Waite Hoyt Silver Star #40: The Bad Chemicals

For biting social, political and philisophical satire, I've only found one Comic that can hold it's own against Saturday Mornign Breakfast Cereal.  And THIS IS IT. Rather than say anythign more, just let me share a few gems:

and BEST of all...

OK, so more than just a few, but serioulsy... GOLD, right?  So check it out. They're mostly topical and always hilarious.

Good Speech

Heard the President's speech tonight, while working out at the gym.

Leaving out any of the accumulated baggage, and forgetting for the moment about the last two and half years?  It was a good speech. A damned good speech.  A GREAT speech, even. Diplomatic, yet pointed. Practical but passionate.  Statesmanlike, but also partisan the best possible way: He called out Republicans mainly by reminding them of the truly great things that they once stood for.  He made the case for eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the richest Americans, pointing out that it's not partisan, nor is it class warfare, but rather a case of simple math.  He pointed out that the proposals in his Jobs Plan are (again) things that Republicans and Democrats alike believe in. And yet, this time his calls for bi-partisan action came off not as him being weak, but rather as him shaming Republicans, and managing to do so without sounding preachy! Tonight he had strength. Tonight, he had spirit! THIS was the man I voted for!  (I don't know where he's been for th past two and ahlf years, but... I'll get to that.)

It came as no surprise that there were several moments where the Left Side of the chamber was brought to their feet.   What DID surprise me were the numerous times that two or three on the Right side of the chamber had the courage to stand up as well.  And one time (not including when he was finished (LOL)), he had the entire chamber on its feet.

Save for one man...

And that might have been the best part of the whole speech: Watching that great, bronzed cocksucker Speaker John Boehner twisting uncomfortably in his seat the entire time, looking like he had a bad case of hemorrhoids throughout the whole address, and KNOWING that Obama was winning with his audience...

...And I don't mean his audience in the chamber.

Remember that whole, stupid pissing match they got into over whether the speech was going to be last night or tonight?  Well... Obama looked weak (again) and Bohener looked like a dick (again) over the whole stupid thing. But they way it worked out? Most anyone who would have thought it was to the Coppertone Man's credit that he was sitting on his ass all night, looking like a fool?  WERE THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY OFF WATCHING FOOTBALL!!!  The people most likely to have seen John Boehner looking like he was sitting in a chair that someone had peed in beforehand were the ones most likely to hate him for it!

So top marks...

...for the speech.

We'll see (and more likely, we won't) if this translates into action. 

And once again, we are reminded of what ClassicLiberal so aptly refers to as "the tragedy of Obama."

Because, Mister Presdient, the time to put your boot-heel to the necks of the Conservative movement was just over two and a half years ago. The opportunity to suffocate the life out of the Right, turn this country around and start moving FOREWORD again was handed to you 32 months ago on a polished silver platter and you squandered it.  And perhaps the greatest example of why he has failed, and why this too will also likely fail was offered by Orrin Hatch beforehand:

“If (the payroll tax cut) is standing alone, I think that might have some success,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “If it's lumped in with a whole bunch of big spending programs that builds Washington at the expense of the rest of the economy he’s not going to have much support from me or any other Republican.”

In other words:

"We'll take whatever you're going to give us for free, but don't expect anything in return."

And that's the rub isn't it? That has been the issue fro day number one - though I've never heard any Republican say it quite this plainly...

...Oh wait, YES I HAVE!

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, October 25th, 2010

And AGAIN...

 “Well that is true, [making Obama a one-term President is] my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country."

Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, July 10th, 2011 

Mister Obama, they will NOT stop playing politics, for the simple reason that they want you to fail  more than they want the COUNTRY TO SUCCEED.  You will never have their support.  You will never see anything from these traitorous scumbags other than their best efforts to sabotage your Presdiency, and progressive politics by extension (even though you haven't actually ever USED any). They will never be honest. They will never do right.   They will never stop trying to make you fail, and no sacrifice is too great for them! 

And I don't think it's all about race.  In fact, I don't think it's about race at all.

Their behavior over the past two years is because they recognized the threat to their party's future and to their entire philosophy that you and your popularity represented.

The tragedy here is that YOU never recognized the threat that THEY represented to you, to your presidency and to your country!

Still...

I won't have it be said that I don't give credit where I think it's due.

It was a good speech.