Posts
For over two hours, House Republicans were behind closed doors discussing the bailout bill. I just caught the press conference when they came out.
It looks like this is still a hard sell. Maybe its the insurance issue that the House Republicans want - this is basically an FDIC like system for these "bad assets", instead of just buying up the assets in exchange for stock and cutting CEO "golden parachutes".
But more than anything else, I think the #1 question was: what do I tell the people in my districts? When they hear that we spent $700 billion to bail out Wall Street while family farms fail, while Republicans fight S-CHIP and health care, while we told people "cut taxes for the wealthy, and they'll spread it around" - and now people make less than they did 8 years ago, home values are falling, college is harder to afford.
That's the big issue facing House Republicans when they go home. How do I give them a reason to vote for me, after what a Republican Senate, Republican House, Republican President, and conservative Supreme Court gave the nation: a big empty wallet.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Chicken Little to the rescue
By now, you may have heard that McCain wants to "postpone the debates" because of the "9-11 economic crisis hitting the economy."
Just to give you an idea of how much they're hyping this up, I actually heard on the Chris Matthews show just now a McCain campaign spokesperson explaining something akin to "this is big, because we're talking about people's paychecks not being cut, fire and brimestone from the sky! Run for terror!"
And - introduce the Republican playbook since 9-11: fear. Run for the hills. Unless McCain goes to Washington, the *you won't get paid*. Unless we stop the campaign right now - because heaven knows a President can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, and McCain evidently can't use a phone - then we're all going to plummit into depression.
Allow me to say: bullshit.
Bull-shit.
This is McCain realizing he's down in the polls, and he has to look like he's doing "something". Congress might have a solution on Friday, so he's going to fly in just when its time to vote, take credit, then rush off while we pay $700 billion to Wall Street - and of course we have to HURRY AND RUN OH MY GOD BEFORE IT ALL FALLS APART DON'T LOOK AT THE BILL JUST SIGN IT SIGN IT!
So again - bullshit on you, McCain. You're not President. You're just a Senator right now, and for you to run away from the debate shows you to be a coward as well.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Fast track Treasury plan? Put on the breaks
The mantra of the morning is "put partisan politics aside while the markets are melting. We have to save the economy before it all crashes apart!"
I'm looking at the financial deals, folks - and we need to put the breaks on this, and fast.
"Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein puts forth the idea that there is a sector of the market that waits for emergency situations - like this one. Once the crisis hits, these groups with pre-made plans come in and do the "shock", which is usually:
* Less regulation on markets
* Decreased labor powers
* Government tax dollars used to finance private industry without any payback (ie: private industry getting paid the job that government agencies did, only now without any oversight)
Folks, we're seeing the Shock Doctrine *right fucking now* in place.
This is part of the Treasury bailout plan that's being floated about, and it's got this line:
What. The. FUCK.
Bernanke and Paulson will be given complete and utter control *without any oversight allowed at all*. What if he wants to buy up some bad debt for $300 million when it's worth $100, then turn around and sell it back from the same people he bought it from for $100, then turn around and buy it again for $300 million?
Nobody could say boo.
And it's clear that the Treasury is planning on buying assets "above current market value". While the real estate market is still falling - and expected to fall another 10-15% over the next two years (something I planned on accepting when I bought my new house) - the Treasury gets to buy these assets *now* before they hit rock bottom.
Unlike the moves in the 1930's, which bought up bad assets at the bottom of the market, this would allow financial institutions to make a 10-15% profit off of their bad decisions. They sell it off now for "above market value", wait 2 years for the final lower value to kick in, then buy it back from the government - boom, instant profit, taxpayers just paid for them to make money after they screwed it all up.
No. No way. This bill needs to have the breaks put off on it. We need a bill that:
1. Enforces regulation on the credit market and financial markets
2. Bail out institutions to ensure the accounts are solvent (checking, savings, CD's).
3. Preferred stock for any institution that is bailed out becomes worthless - this means that the stock board and upper echelons are the losers, while the common stock (which is usually owned by other banks) don't get blown away.
4. Bailed out companies get no dividends - I don't want to see people getting richer off of a bailout.
5. All bailed out companies get canceled golden parachutes - board members don't get millions for being fired. They get their last paycheck, and they're gone.
6. Something that Jim Cramer said that I agree with: let the government buy up "bad" mortgages for $0.20 on the dollar - ie, the ones that are being foreclosed upon right now. This at least gives banks something for their bad loan, it prevents millions from being homeless (should be offered only to those with 1 home - 2nd and up don't get rescued). Hold those mortgages for 2 years, give resident current value mortgage slightly increased rates, if they don't accept, then it's on the market.
I want to talk about #6 the most. This I believe is the best solution to the real estate issue. Instead of millions of homes being on the market without buyers, and millions of people being kicked out of their homes, #6 gives a chance to everyone.
Banks get *some* money. Not much, but they get some pain for their bad loan. People get a home, but this isn't a freebe - government is coming back in 2 years to make them pay, and if they don't, then they lose the house permanently this time. Government actually gets to make a profit - remember, they bought the mortgages at 20% of the value, then sell back at current market value.
Here's the money breakdown:
If a house has a mortgage of $200,000 and is being foreclosed, the government buys it for $40,000. Foreclosure delayed for 2 years. 2 years later, the house may be actually worth $150,000. Original owner is now saddled with a lower debt - they don't get to walk away from it. But at least they get a shot. If they don't take it, they're out, place is sold.
There may need to be other clauses, like "if resident causes harm to residence while living in it the government can take it out of their paycheck or something". But this gives pain to everybody - especially the banks to screwed up in the first place.
Either way, the current Treasury bill can't be allowed to pass in its current form. Its a Shock Doctrine bill - and the taxpayers will be stuck with the tab.
I'm looking at the financial deals, folks - and we need to put the breaks on this, and fast.
"Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein puts forth the idea that there is a sector of the market that waits for emergency situations - like this one. Once the crisis hits, these groups with pre-made plans come in and do the "shock", which is usually:
* Less regulation on markets
* Decreased labor powers
* Government tax dollars used to finance private industry without any payback (ie: private industry getting paid the job that government agencies did, only now without any oversight)
Folks, we're seeing the Shock Doctrine *right fucking now* in place.
This is part of the Treasury bailout plan that's being floated about, and it's got this line:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
What. The. FUCK.
Bernanke and Paulson will be given complete and utter control *without any oversight allowed at all*. What if he wants to buy up some bad debt for $300 million when it's worth $100, then turn around and sell it back from the same people he bought it from for $100, then turn around and buy it again for $300 million?
Nobody could say boo.
And it's clear that the Treasury is planning on buying assets "above current market value". While the real estate market is still falling - and expected to fall another 10-15% over the next two years (something I planned on accepting when I bought my new house) - the Treasury gets to buy these assets *now* before they hit rock bottom.
Unlike the moves in the 1930's, which bought up bad assets at the bottom of the market, this would allow financial institutions to make a 10-15% profit off of their bad decisions. They sell it off now for "above market value", wait 2 years for the final lower value to kick in, then buy it back from the government - boom, instant profit, taxpayers just paid for them to make money after they screwed it all up.
No. No way. This bill needs to have the breaks put off on it. We need a bill that:
1. Enforces regulation on the credit market and financial markets
2. Bail out institutions to ensure the accounts are solvent (checking, savings, CD's).
3. Preferred stock for any institution that is bailed out becomes worthless - this means that the stock board and upper echelons are the losers, while the common stock (which is usually owned by other banks) don't get blown away.
4. Bailed out companies get no dividends - I don't want to see people getting richer off of a bailout.
5. All bailed out companies get canceled golden parachutes - board members don't get millions for being fired. They get their last paycheck, and they're gone.
6. Something that Jim Cramer said that I agree with: let the government buy up "bad" mortgages for $0.20 on the dollar - ie, the ones that are being foreclosed upon right now. This at least gives banks something for their bad loan, it prevents millions from being homeless (should be offered only to those with 1 home - 2nd and up don't get rescued). Hold those mortgages for 2 years, give resident current value mortgage slightly increased rates, if they don't accept, then it's on the market.
I want to talk about #6 the most. This I believe is the best solution to the real estate issue. Instead of millions of homes being on the market without buyers, and millions of people being kicked out of their homes, #6 gives a chance to everyone.
Banks get *some* money. Not much, but they get some pain for their bad loan. People get a home, but this isn't a freebe - government is coming back in 2 years to make them pay, and if they don't, then they lose the house permanently this time. Government actually gets to make a profit - remember, they bought the mortgages at 20% of the value, then sell back at current market value.
Here's the money breakdown:
If a house has a mortgage of $200,000 and is being foreclosed, the government buys it for $40,000. Foreclosure delayed for 2 years. 2 years later, the house may be actually worth $150,000. Original owner is now saddled with a lower debt - they don't get to walk away from it. But at least they get a shot. If they don't take it, they're out, place is sold.
There may need to be other clauses, like "if resident causes harm to residence while living in it the government can take it out of their paycheck or something". But this gives pain to everybody - especially the banks to screwed up in the first place.
Either way, the current Treasury bill can't be allowed to pass in its current form. Its a Shock Doctrine bill - and the taxpayers will be stuck with the tab.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Kindergarteners, Sex, and Dispelling Stupid
I keep seeing "Obama totally wanted to teach sex ed to 5 and 6 year olds - read the bill yourself and see its true, libtards!"
So I did. The bill can be seen here:
Full Text of SB0099.
Let's look at the bill:
Now, let's be very specific - "each class *in comprehensive sex education* shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases".
In other words: "if the class is on comprehensive sex education", then "it shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases."
It's an if-then system. If you teach *comprehensive* sex education in a class, then you must include how to prevent HIV/AIDS. The other sets in the beginning of the bill read the same way: if you teach sex education, then you must say that abstinence is an effective method of preventing the above.
Look at Section 2: "All sex education courses THAT" (emphasis added), then it goes on to say what they will do. And what's under section 2, line 12?
So now we continue our "if-then" clause. *If* you teach a sex education class, *then* it must be age and developmentally appropriate. *If* the class is decided to teach comprehensive sex education, *then* you will include HIV prevention and other things.
If you decide *not* to do "comprehensive sex education", there are other things that are covered - including teaching students not to exploit each other or how to avoid a predator.
So I'm sorry - but to anyone who makes laws, or is a lawyer, this bill is pretty clear. There are age appropriate things that are up to the districts to decide what that means. If they teach sex ed, then these are the rules they must follow in their teaching.
Your claim that "OMG this bill totally instructs teacher to teach sex to 5 year olds" falls apart. This bill gives a list of things that can be taught to children, including:
* HIV prevention
* sexual harrassment prevention
* abstinence is best
* how to avoid predators
* how to not be a predator
Any teacher would go down the list and go "OK, I'm a 1st grade teacher. Well, I don't need to worry about HIV prevention. Or abstinence. Hm - how to avoid predators, that's *age appropriate*."
Hopefully I've broken this down enough so people won't make that inaccurate claim again.
So I did. The bill can be seen here:
Full Text of SB0099.
Let's look at the bill:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.
Now, let's be very specific - "each class *in comprehensive sex education* shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases".
In other words: "if the class is on comprehensive sex education", then "it shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases."
It's an if-then system. If you teach *comprehensive* sex education in a class, then you must include how to prevent HIV/AIDS. The other sets in the beginning of the bill read the same way: if you teach sex education, then you must say that abstinence is an effective method of preventing the above.
Look at Section 2: "All sex education courses THAT" (emphasis added), then it goes on to say what they will do. And what's under section 2, line 12?
(2) All (1) course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
So now we continue our "if-then" clause. *If* you teach a sex education class, *then* it must be age and developmentally appropriate. *If* the class is decided to teach comprehensive sex education, *then* you will include HIV prevention and other things.
If you decide *not* to do "comprehensive sex education", there are other things that are covered - including teaching students not to exploit each other or how to avoid a predator.
So I'm sorry - but to anyone who makes laws, or is a lawyer, this bill is pretty clear. There are age appropriate things that are up to the districts to decide what that means. If they teach sex ed, then these are the rules they must follow in their teaching.
Your claim that "OMG this bill totally instructs teacher to teach sex to 5 year olds" falls apart. This bill gives a list of things that can be taught to children, including:
* HIV prevention
* sexual harrassment prevention
* abstinence is best
* how to avoid predators
* how to not be a predator
Any teacher would go down the list and go "OK, I'm a 1st grade teacher. Well, I don't need to worry about HIV prevention. Or abstinence. Hm - how to avoid predators, that's *age appropriate*."
Hopefully I've broken this down enough so people won't make that inaccurate claim again.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Now we know why Palin opposed the rape kits
The question has been - why did Palin want to fire Police Chief Monegan. According to the Palin campaign, it wasn't because he wouldn't fire Trooper Wooten - but because of this:
The McCain campaign says it can prove Monegan was fired in July because of insubordination on budget issues
...
The "last straw," the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned to Washington in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.
In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor's special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: the governor hadn't agreed the money should be sought, and the request "is out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens."
Wait - they fired Monegan because he requested an earmark for rape kits in Alaska? But why would they be so upset about it?
Evidently - because your standard rape kit contains not just swabs, and an STD detection kit but also - emergency contraception.
Remember, Palin opposes "abortion" (which, in the case of emergency contraception, prevents the egg from even being fertilized) - even in the case of rape and incest. Which is why she was willing to oppose the state paying rape kits - all because they contained emergency contraception.
I seriously can't think of anything worse. Here's someone who's been victimized, and you don't want to pay for the rape kit because her egg might not be fertilized. What is wrong with these people?
The details are at Daily Kos.
The McCain campaign says it can prove Monegan was fired in July because of insubordination on budget issues
...
The "last straw," the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned to Washington in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.
In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor's special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: the governor hadn't agreed the money should be sought, and the request "is out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens."
Wait - they fired Monegan because he requested an earmark for rape kits in Alaska? But why would they be so upset about it?
Evidently - because your standard rape kit contains not just swabs, and an STD detection kit but also - emergency contraception.
Remember, Palin opposes "abortion" (which, in the case of emergency contraception, prevents the egg from even being fertilized) - even in the case of rape and incest. Which is why she was willing to oppose the state paying rape kits - all because they contained emergency contraception.
I seriously can't think of anything worse. Here's someone who's been victimized, and you don't want to pay for the rape kit because her egg might not be fertilized. What is wrong with these people?
The details are at Daily Kos.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The best post I've seen about what's happened in the economy
Lucid, educated, and spot on:
Commentary: How to prevent the next Wall Street crisis by Joseph Stiglitz
I may have to go get his book while I'm out today.
Commentary: How to prevent the next Wall Street crisis by Joseph Stiglitz
I may have to go get his book while I'm out today.
What should be done with AIG?
If you've been watching the news, you likely know that AIG has been bailed out - the US government now owns 80% of AIG in exchange for a loan for $85 billion.
My coworkers and I were discussing what to do. I originally thought it should be treated like an anti-trust case - break it up, make it smaller (whether by region or performance).
One coworker had an idea: health insurance.
And then it hit me.
Health insurance.
Start selling off all non health insurance divisions. Announce that AIG will now be the official health insurance provider for the United States citizens. No citizen can be turned away from coverage. Rates offered to the majority of the public, or banished if the person can prove they don't meet a minimum income.
You go to the emergency room, you visit the doctor - you're now covered under AIG. Granted, there will have to be changes, commitments of X amount of tax dollars going to pay for it.
But this could be the start of the US universal health care system. Everything's in place - and the American People now own 80% of this company.
Maybe it's time we told it what its new business is - serving *us*.
My coworkers and I were discussing what to do. I originally thought it should be treated like an anti-trust case - break it up, make it smaller (whether by region or performance).
One coworker had an idea: health insurance.
And then it hit me.
Health insurance.
Start selling off all non health insurance divisions. Announce that AIG will now be the official health insurance provider for the United States citizens. No citizen can be turned away from coverage. Rates offered to the majority of the public, or banished if the person can prove they don't meet a minimum income.
You go to the emergency room, you visit the doctor - you're now covered under AIG. Granted, there will have to be changes, commitments of X amount of tax dollars going to pay for it.
But this could be the start of the US universal health care system. Everything's in place - and the American People now own 80% of this company.
Maybe it's time we told it what its new business is - serving *us*.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Mortgage application bullshit meter rising
I was asked to submit a letter why we decided to rent out the house we're living in while we waited for our mortgage application on the same house to be completed.
I'm thinking about sending this in:
Does snark work with mortgage companies stupid questions?
I'm thinking about sending this in:
1.My family doesn't like living in a cardboard box while we were waiting for the mortgage approval to be completed. And since camping out in the front lawn chasing away other prospective buyers was ruled out, renting the location until the funds were approved seemed the best option.
Does snark work with mortgage companies stupid questions?
Saturday, September 06, 2008
When will Palin Meet the Press?
Probably as late as possible, but I guess it's time for a countdown clock.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
ObamaTaxCut.com
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
I'll save $2600 under the Obama Tax plan. Yay!
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Real conversations with my children
TV: BLARGH! BLARGH! BLARGH!
Kids: Dad! The TV's doing something!
Me: (run up the stairs) Is that the emergency broadcast message?
TV: THIS IS THE WEEKLY TEST OF THE EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM.
Me: Oh, good. They haven't realized that we're really aliens yet and I've replaced your father to take over the world.
Kids: Yeah, whatever. Look - Pikachu!
Me: Nothing? That's all I get?
Kids: Dad! The TV's doing something!
Me: (run up the stairs) Is that the emergency broadcast message?
TV: THIS IS THE WEEKLY TEST OF THE EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM.
Me: Oh, good. They haven't realized that we're really aliens yet and I've replaced your father to take over the world.
Kids: Yeah, whatever. Look - Pikachu!
Me: Nothing? That's all I get?
Real Conversations with my Wife
Me: You know, we're about to miss the special two hour church meeting.
My Lovely Wife (MLW): Hm.
Me: Does this mean we're going to go to Hell?
MLW: I thought that was sitting for two hours in church trying to keep the children quiet for TWO HOURS.
Me: I'm guessing not.
My Lovely Wife (MLW): Hm.
Me: Does this mean we're going to go to Hell?
MLW: I thought that was sitting for two hours in church trying to keep the children quiet for TWO HOURS.
Me: I'm guessing not.
Monday, August 25, 2008
God's Aim is Off
Remember how Focus on the Family was praying for rain to interrupt the Obama speech in Thursday in Denver?
Turns out, they got their wish - but their aim is off. The Fox News booth in the DNC got flooded. Whoops.
Turns out, they got their wish - but their aim is off. The Fox News booth in the DNC got flooded. Whoops.
Why does Fox News hate Freedom
First, the video:
Second. Why does Fox News hate freedom?
I'm not asking that question to be snarky or petty. But listen to this "reporter". He stands in the middle of a crowd saying "These people say they believe in the freedom of speech - but they refused to speak for me," he stands in the middle of a crowd and says "I guess they don't believe in freedom of speech", "Do you not believe in freedom?"
Here's a group of citizens exercising their freedom of speech, which includes the right not to speak to whomever they want. Freedom of the press doesn't mean that people are forced to answer your questions - sorry, bud.
Fox News has put themselves into this position. They have clearly been a mouthpiece for one political party, fanning their face with a handkerchief and acting "Shocked - shocked!" when people call them out for their pandering attitude towards the Republican party.
Like now. So sorry, but you don't get to stand in a crowded room and shout "Fire", and you don't get to ask questions - then complain about "free speech" when people exercise that right not to talk to you.
Second. Why does Fox News hate freedom?
I'm not asking that question to be snarky or petty. But listen to this "reporter". He stands in the middle of a crowd saying "These people say they believe in the freedom of speech - but they refused to speak for me," he stands in the middle of a crowd and says "I guess they don't believe in freedom of speech", "Do you not believe in freedom?"
Here's a group of citizens exercising their freedom of speech, which includes the right not to speak to whomever they want. Freedom of the press doesn't mean that people are forced to answer your questions - sorry, bud.
Fox News has put themselves into this position. They have clearly been a mouthpiece for one political party, fanning their face with a handkerchief and acting "Shocked - shocked!" when people call them out for their pandering attitude towards the Republican party.
Like now. So sorry, but you don't get to stand in a crowded room and shout "Fire", and you don't get to ask questions - then complain about "free speech" when people exercise that right not to talk to you.
Friday, August 15, 2008
And this is where the McCain campaign ends
Before it even begins:
John McCain: "My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression."
If you had someone who went into the first Gulf War to stop Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, well - that was not a serious international crisis.
The Serbian attacks on ethnic Albanians, the rapes and genocide there - that wasn't a serious international crisis.
Genocide in Sudan - well, that's not really serious, even though there's lots of oil in Sudan, which explains why places like China and Russia haven't been eager to get onto the "let's stop Sudanese government backed militias from killing people" train.
9-11? That wasn't a serious international crisis. 3,000 Americans dead, the launch of the biggest manhunt in the history of the world. If you had a loved one that died in that tragic event - guess what. John McCain doesn't think it was a serious international crisis.
The attack on Iraq to go after Osama bin Laden - well, not a serious international event, folks. All of those soldiers there were in for a lark, not to set a country free from religious radicals and hunt down the people responsible for killing 3,000 American civilians in cold blood.
The invasion of Iraq by the United States to stopweapons of mass destruction remove a dictator kill terrorists (that weren't there until after we invaded) - not a serious international crisis, for all of the "Coalition of the Willing" from nations such as Britain and Poland (don't forget Poland, damn it!).
But Russia responding to Georgia's dumb ass move - well, *that* is a *serious* crisis! Ramp up the bombers! Time to increase the size and power of the CIA again! This is *serious* stuff - ignore Osama bin Laden, forget Iran since it looks like we're not going to "bomb bomb bomb Iran" we have a new enemy to fear! Russia's back, and it'll be like old times again!
Or - we could run this clip on the news. Over and over again. Against our soldiers bravely fighting in Afghanistan. Against 9-11 victims. Against Albanian Muslims thankful that the US took action to save them. Of course, we'd have to be complete and utter dicks to do so.
But damn, it is tempting.
John McCain: "My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression."
If you had someone who went into the first Gulf War to stop Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, well - that was not a serious international crisis.
The Serbian attacks on ethnic Albanians, the rapes and genocide there - that wasn't a serious international crisis.
Genocide in Sudan - well, that's not really serious, even though there's lots of oil in Sudan, which explains why places like China and Russia haven't been eager to get onto the "let's stop Sudanese government backed militias from killing people" train.
9-11? That wasn't a serious international crisis. 3,000 Americans dead, the launch of the biggest manhunt in the history of the world. If you had a loved one that died in that tragic event - guess what. John McCain doesn't think it was a serious international crisis.
The attack on Iraq to go after Osama bin Laden - well, not a serious international event, folks. All of those soldiers there were in for a lark, not to set a country free from religious radicals and hunt down the people responsible for killing 3,000 American civilians in cold blood.
The invasion of Iraq by the United States to stop
But Russia responding to Georgia's dumb ass move - well, *that* is a *serious* crisis! Ramp up the bombers! Time to increase the size and power of the CIA again! This is *serious* stuff - ignore Osama bin Laden, forget Iran since it looks like we're not going to "bomb bomb bomb Iran" we have a new enemy to fear! Russia's back, and it'll be like old times again!
Or - we could run this clip on the news. Over and over again. Against our soldiers bravely fighting in Afghanistan. Against 9-11 victims. Against Albanian Muslims thankful that the US took action to save them. Of course, we'd have to be complete and utter dicks to do so.
But damn, it is tempting.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Worst Person in the World
Rush Limbaugh, yesterday:
Seriously - why does anyone listen to his show? I've never heard him say anything that was useful. Has he ever said anything that actually helped a human being? Or is it just constant mouth diarrhea like this statement?
Ladies and gentleman, my theory that I just explained to you about why -- you know, what could have John Edwards' motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk.
Seriously - why does anyone listen to his show? I've never heard him say anything that was useful. Has he ever said anything that actually helped a human being? Or is it just constant mouth diarrhea like this statement?
That's your comeback?
The McCain response to a new Obama ad that points out McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time:
Woah - Obama voted with Bush 50% of the time - so he must be as bad as McCain!
And - Obama's plan is a "job killing machine." Anyone else getting a mental image of the Terminator?
In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time, including the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which gave close to 3 billion dollars in new giveaways to Big Oil -- a terrible policy that John McCain opposed. The truth is Barack Obama’s plan is a job killing machine that ignores the struggling economy and raises taxes on family savings, social security and small businesses.
Woah - Obama voted with Bush 50% of the time - so he must be as bad as McCain!
And - Obama's plan is a "job killing machine." Anyone else getting a mental image of the Terminator?
I'm not a fan of Ms. Dowd, but-
This was choice:
Ouch.
“Besides the crashing egos and screeching factions working at cross purposes, Joshua Green writes in the magazine, Hillary’s ‘hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices ‘exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.’ It would have been better to put this language in the platform: ‘A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.’”
Ouch.
A response to why I'm pissed off at the McCain energy plan
As a response to a question someone asked me:
I think the problem is in the hypocrisy that McCain is engaging in.
"I will pursue every idea to save money on energy!" McCain proclaims. Nuclear, oil drilling, wind, solar, alternative. His commercials have pictures of wind farms. Try everything, he reminds us over and over again!
Only - his own record shows the lie. He has spent 26 years voting against alternative energy. He was against offshore drilling until 3 months ago - just before he started getting about $1.1 million in donations from oil company execs. He missed every vote on extending energy credits - even though he keeps telling us that we need to "do everything! Now!"
And his #1 item? Offshore drilling. Something that would make oil companies richer, would not ensure that the energy produced would be sold locally (right now, US produced oil is still sell something like 15-25% of their oil on the world market, while oil companies bemoan they don't have enough), the US government's own report says it will take at least 7 years before an offshore rig is really working (though amazingly, the McCain campaign went from "7 years but this will have psychological benefits on the markets now" to "I hear from oil companies they can have it running in 6 months!".
That is what people like myself are bitching about. If McCain was serious about energy independence and "trying all solutions", he wouldn't have waited until a month ago to start saying "Hey, I love off shore oil drilling and nuclear. Oh, yeah - and wind, while we're at it!" He would have been working with the Republican majority in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 to get Bush to approve offshore drilling (if he really thought it would help), or to fund those nuclear plants, or to do his "magic battery" prize he's been talking up.
He didn't. He spent that time telling people that the war in Iraq was a success, that it would be over in "another 6 months", that he was pleased with Bush's performance so far (until late 2007, when he saw the winds of change and decided to start bashing Bush to get votes). Maybe he thought that Iraq would start supplying oil on the cheap, so we wouldn't have to worry about it. Or he didn't see the upcoming financial collapse or how much money the US would borrow to fund the Iraq war, which lead to a lower value dollar, which lead to oil being more expensive for the US market. Maybe he just didn't care, since he has 8 houses and his wife has hundreds of millions (as he calls his opponent the elitist for working with inner city Chicago people for years) and he has no real idea what it's like to be a single income family with a 60 minute drive and doing everything you can to save money as groceries get more expensive and gas keeps going up.
Like me.
So yeah, I'm pissed at McCain for at the last minute finding "energy independence", while voting against (or ignoring) bills that would actually help to achieve it. I'm pissed at McCain for claiming to be for "all solutions", but 90% of his solutions are "more money to big oil" and "more money to big nuclear" instead of "democratize energy production to give more power to the individual - you know, the stuff that conservatives claim is so important while they support big business." I'm pissed at him lying about the others guy's position while lying about his own record and plan.
And I'm pissed at us, and myself, for a nation for being so incredibly stupid for so long.
I think the problem is in the hypocrisy that McCain is engaging in.
"I will pursue every idea to save money on energy!" McCain proclaims. Nuclear, oil drilling, wind, solar, alternative. His commercials have pictures of wind farms. Try everything, he reminds us over and over again!
Only - his own record shows the lie. He has spent 26 years voting against alternative energy. He was against offshore drilling until 3 months ago - just before he started getting about $1.1 million in donations from oil company execs. He missed every vote on extending energy credits - even though he keeps telling us that we need to "do everything! Now!"
And his #1 item? Offshore drilling. Something that would make oil companies richer, would not ensure that the energy produced would be sold locally (right now, US produced oil is still sell something like 15-25% of their oil on the world market, while oil companies bemoan they don't have enough), the US government's own report says it will take at least 7 years before an offshore rig is really working (though amazingly, the McCain campaign went from "7 years but this will have psychological benefits on the markets now" to "I hear from oil companies they can have it running in 6 months!".
That is what people like myself are bitching about. If McCain was serious about energy independence and "trying all solutions", he wouldn't have waited until a month ago to start saying "Hey, I love off shore oil drilling and nuclear. Oh, yeah - and wind, while we're at it!" He would have been working with the Republican majority in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 to get Bush to approve offshore drilling (if he really thought it would help), or to fund those nuclear plants, or to do his "magic battery" prize he's been talking up.
He didn't. He spent that time telling people that the war in Iraq was a success, that it would be over in "another 6 months", that he was pleased with Bush's performance so far (until late 2007, when he saw the winds of change and decided to start bashing Bush to get votes). Maybe he thought that Iraq would start supplying oil on the cheap, so we wouldn't have to worry about it. Or he didn't see the upcoming financial collapse or how much money the US would borrow to fund the Iraq war, which lead to a lower value dollar, which lead to oil being more expensive for the US market. Maybe he just didn't care, since he has 8 houses and his wife has hundreds of millions (as he calls his opponent the elitist for working with inner city Chicago people for years) and he has no real idea what it's like to be a single income family with a 60 minute drive and doing everything you can to save money as groceries get more expensive and gas keeps going up.
Like me.
So yeah, I'm pissed at McCain for at the last minute finding "energy independence", while voting against (or ignoring) bills that would actually help to achieve it. I'm pissed at McCain for claiming to be for "all solutions", but 90% of his solutions are "more money to big oil" and "more money to big nuclear" instead of "democratize energy production to give more power to the individual - you know, the stuff that conservatives claim is so important while they support big business." I'm pissed at him lying about the others guy's position while lying about his own record and plan.
And I'm pissed at us, and myself, for a nation for being so incredibly stupid for so long.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Why can't McCain have an honest ad?
McCain is out with a new advertisement, making the same claims: Obama is totally going to raise your taxes. That's all he wants to do. Doesn't matter how much you make, Obama is going to raise your taxes.
It's a claim that's been proven false, and Time has a huge rundown on how false this is. Here's my own take on this back and forth:
It seems that the McCain campaign, in their quest to win, doesn't want to really discuss the issues. They want to discuss what *they* say Obama says, rather than what *Obama* says. So they make up lies - yes, lies, pass them off as Obama quotes or policy, such as "His energy policy is tire inflation", or "Obama won't visit the troops", or "Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes", and no matter what Obama shows, demonstrates, or even proves his positions are - doesn't matter, McCain said what they are and that's it.
It's a claim that's been proven false, and Time has a huge rundown on how false this is. Here's my own take on this back and forth:
Obama: I want to let the Bush Tax cuts lapse -
McCain; So that means that you want to raise taxes on *all* Americans.
Obama: And as I was saying, I want to replace them with a tax cut that favors those making $250,000 or less.
McCain: He admitted that he wants to raise taxes on everyone!
Obama: No, just those making $250,000 or greater.
McCain: If you get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts, you'll be taking more taxes from people who make $41,000!
Obama: And then I'm replacing it with *a tax cut for those same groups*. So only those who make more - *more* than $250,000 pay more taxes. Everybody else should pay less.
McCain: I can't hear you! Tax raiser! Lalalalalalalalala!
It seems that the McCain campaign, in their quest to win, doesn't want to really discuss the issues. They want to discuss what *they* say Obama says, rather than what *Obama* says. So they make up lies - yes, lies, pass them off as Obama quotes or policy, such as "His energy policy is tire inflation", or "Obama won't visit the troops", or "Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes", and no matter what Obama shows, demonstrates, or even proves his positions are - doesn't matter, McCain said what they are and that's it.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
What is up with police lately?
It seems that cops - the Serve and Protect guys - are on a bad roll. There's the one who bull charged a guy on a bike - then wrote up a false police report saying the biker was swerving to hit *him*. Turns out the videotape doesn't lie.
There's been videos of beatings and other stuff. But this one is just - stupid.
Police raid a mayor's house, handcuff everyone, start interrogating them, shoot and kill the dogs. Why? Well, there was a shipment of drugs in the mail. That the family hadn't even opened up yet to figure out what was inside.
So if someone *mails* me a package of drugs, police can start busting in and shooting? Man, if I was a drug dealer, I'd start mailing drugs to the chief of police, the fire chief, local journalists - hey, how about the mayor? Wouldn't it be funny if the mayor got roughed up by the police and his dogs killed because the cops thought he had been mailed some weed?
Oh - yeah. Already happened. Right.
There's been videos of beatings and other stuff. But this one is just - stupid.
Police raid a mayor's house, handcuff everyone, start interrogating them, shoot and kill the dogs. Why? Well, there was a shipment of drugs in the mail. That the family hadn't even opened up yet to figure out what was inside.
So if someone *mails* me a package of drugs, police can start busting in and shooting? Man, if I was a drug dealer, I'd start mailing drugs to the chief of police, the fire chief, local journalists - hey, how about the mayor? Wouldn't it be funny if the mayor got roughed up by the police and his dogs killed because the cops thought he had been mailed some weed?
Oh - yeah. Already happened. Right.
Source: The house is home to Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo and his wife Trinity Tomsic, and their two black Labs (pictured left). Though the package containing more than 30 lbs. of marijuana was addressed to Tomsic, the couple may have had nothing to do with the drugs. In recent months there have been incidents in which large quantities of drugs were shipped to homes in the D.C. area, where they were then supposed to be intercepted by drug dealers — all without the package addressees’ knowledge or involvement. Calvo and Tomsic may have been caught up in just such a scheme.Cato-at-Liberty
Um - I think the sub is leaking
Not only leaking, but evidently leaking radioactive fluid:
Oh. Well. I'm sure the Japanese will understand.
A U.S. Navy submarine leaked trace amounts of radioactive water for two years as it made port calls in Japan and other Asian nations, the Navy said Thursday.
The USS Houston arrives in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for routine maintenance, during which the leak was found.
Last week, Navy officials told Japan that the USS Houston, a Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine, had only made one port call -- March 2008 -- while leaking the contaminated fluid.
Source: CNN
Oh. Well. I'm sure the Japanese will understand.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
And this is why Republican's off shore voting is being blocked
A decision by US Senate Republicans on Wednesday to block a bill that
would have extended tax credits for wind, solar and other renewable energy
production, will likely end talks between Senate Democrats and Republicans
aimed at allowing Republicans a vote on increasing US oil and gas production. Source: Platts
Again, you can't block votes for everybody else, then throw a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way. It's called politics. Give something up (opposition to alternative energy funding) if you want to get what you want (offshore drilling). The era of Tom Delay is over - it's time for grownups to sit down, accept other people's ideas, compromise so everybody gets something, and move on.
Cursing the dark rather than lighting a candle
So let me get this straight. House Republicans block voting on every issue for the last week. Alternative energy vote? Blocked. Increase gas mileage? Blocked. Continue alternative energy tax break? Blocked.
But offshore drilling? OMG call the presses - we *need* to have this vote on offshore drilling! *This* is important - even though its going to take 7 years to implement! Even though oil companies have millions of acres of leases - onshore and off - they aren't using now!
Sorry, kids. You don't get to block voting on every other issue, then turn around and squeal because your pet goal is left in the dust. Let the oil companies enjoy their massive, record profits - I guess we'll drive less, tune our engines, inflate our tires, and work to get other sources of energy.
But offshore drilling? OMG call the presses - we *need* to have this vote on offshore drilling! *This* is important - even though its going to take 7 years to implement! Even though oil companies have millions of acres of leases - onshore and off - they aren't using now!
Sorry, kids. You don't get to block voting on every other issue, then turn around and squeal because your pet goal is left in the dust. Let the oil companies enjoy their massive, record profits - I guess we'll drive less, tune our engines, inflate our tires, and work to get other sources of energy.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Only black reporter kicked out of McCain event?
Wow - talk about really going for that swing vote:
Oh, yeah - this is going to look good.
Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price on Friday was singled out and asked to leave a media area at the Panama City rally of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
Price was among at least three other reporters, and the only black reporter, surrounding McCain's campaign bus — Gov. Charlie Crist and his fiancee, Carole Rome, were already aboard — when a member of the Arizona senator's security detail asked the reporter to identify himself. Price had shown his media credentials to enter the area.
Price showed his employee identification as well as his credentials for the Friday event.
"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.
When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area. Other state reporters remained. Source: Florida Capital News
Oh, yeah - this is going to look good.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Did you hear that Obama hates the troops?
Oh, it must be true! This time, we have a Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter of Bagram Airbase who claims that Obama refused to meet with wounded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dude - that would make Obama a total douche!
Wait? What's that? Capt. Porter now admits that it was a total lie? Dude - that would make Porter the douche for sending it out in the first place! Woah!
Big salute to Capt. Porter of Utah currently stationed in Afghanistan - today's douche bag of the day!
Wait? What's that? Capt. Porter now admits that it was a total lie? Dude - that would make Porter the douche for sending it out in the first place! Woah!
Big salute to Capt. Porter of Utah currently stationed in Afghanistan - today's douche bag of the day!
Sunday, July 27, 2008
You stupid media reporter bitch
This morning, I didn't feel well, so I decided not to go to church. I turn on MSNBC, and they have people talking about the recent Obama trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain's whining about it.
Then, I see this:
No, you stupid dye job blond bitch. And yes, she's a bitch. If it had been a guy talking, I'd call him a shithead. Let's go over the last 6 months in politics, hm?
And this stupid, ignorant, blond moron can't tell the difference between them? This is the same shit that happened in 2000:
What bullshit is this. I don't know if the corporate media needs a horse race in politics for ratings, or if they're really composed of moronic shouting shitheads and stupid bitches too busy with their heads up their asses to come out and smell reality.
Then, I see this:
Stupid blond bitch: You know, now that Senator McCain has said that he supports the US leaving in 16 months as long as ground conditions agree, and Obama saying he supports the US troops leaving as long as ground conditions are good, it's like they're adopting the other's positions.
No, you stupid dye job blond bitch. And yes, she's a bitch. If it had been a guy talking, I'd call him a shithead. Let's go over the last 6 months in politics, hm?
Month 1:
Obama: The war in Iraq was a stupid, stupid mistake. It serves us no purpose. Instead, let's actually go fight the terrorists who reside in Afghanistan, and if necessary Pakistan.
McCain: We need to stay in Iraq for up to 100 years! We must win! If we leave without winning, then people will see we're not winners!
Month 2:
Obama: We will be careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. But mark my words: We're leaving Iraq. Oh, and if we had intelligence on where bin Laden is, and Pakistan didn't want to act on it, you bet we'd drop a bomb on him whether Pakistan liked it or not.
McCain: Obama is so naive! Threatening to bomb our allies!
(One week later.)
Bush administration: We bombed a location in Pakistan because we couldn't trust the Pakistan military, since every time we tell them where bin Laden's forces are, those same forces move as if someone told them.
Month 3:
Obama: I spoke out against the war in Iraq from the beginning. I voted to support the troops, but I don't want to give a blank check to Bush. And if I'm elected President, we're going to leave Iraq.
McCain: No way! We're totally staying in Iraq forever! Besides, what if the Iraqi's start making nice with the *real* enemy, Iran!
Iraq: Hey, we love Iran! Big kisses, iraqi leader!
Month 4:
Obama: Yes, as I've said before, I'd meet with leaders of any nation without conditions. That doesn't mean we agree to do anything, doesn't mean we'll accept their position. But we shouldn't be afraid to negotiate.
McCain: How stupid! Can you imagine what would happen if we negotiated with our enemies before they did what we wanted? It would be foolhardy!
North Korea: Hey, we're giving up the nukes. We had great negotiations with the US, and they gave us enough carrots and sticks to make it worthwhile.
Month 5:
Obama: Yes, I would listen to the generals on the ground and refine the plans for withdrawal as needed.
McCain: Flip flopper! Flip flopper! I said I'd always stay until we won! Obama said he'd leave no matter what, but now he's saying he might actually use logic and reason to make it successful! Flip floopppppeeeeerrrr!
Month 6:
Obama: Hey, I'm back in Iraq!
President of Iraq: Hi, Obama. Guess what - I love your plan to get all of the US troops out in 16 months. It's awesome!
McCain: He didn't really say that!
President of Iraq: Yeah I did.
McCain: Well, he's just being a politician. He's overestimated his forces before. He doesn't know what he really wants.
President of Iraq: We want you guys out.
McCain: Well, we'll get out - once we win! So it could be in 16 months, maybe later.
And this stupid, ignorant, blond moron can't tell the difference between them? This is the same shit that happened in 2000:
Media: Duhh, we can't tell the difference between Al Gore and George Bush. They're pretty much the same, right?
Public: Well, OK.
Vote comes down to 300 people in Florida.
What bullshit is this. I don't know if the corporate media needs a horse race in politics for ratings, or if they're really composed of moronic shouting shitheads and stupid bitches too busy with their heads up their asses to come out and smell reality.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
I support McCain's bid against genocide
Yesterday, Senator Obama visited Isreal, where he reminded people that "never again" should we allow genocide on such a huge level.
Which sparked the McCain campaign to issue a statement:
Now, anyone else would say that Goldfarb is being an asshole. After all, Obama was talking about a specific reason people were saying we couldn't leave Iraq for 100 years - the possible genocide. Obama was making a logical argument: if that reasoning is true, then why don't we have troops elsewhere? Proving that the genocide argument is ridiculous.
But I'm standing with the McCain campaign on this one. They obviously understand that we *should* be sending troops into Darfur and the Congo and other areas, like North Korea where mass starvation exists.
In fact, I fully expect Senator McCain, based on his campaign's obvious feelings regarding genocide, that the McCain campaign will announce that they fully support President Clinton's efforts in Bosnia to top the genocide of the Albanians. That, upon taking office in the White House, "President McCain" will order 300,000 troops to the Congo, another 200,000 to Darfur, and another 1,000,000 troops to North Korea in order to stop the killing there.
Obviously, since the McCain campaign believes so strongly in stopping genocide, this is the only logical thing for them to do.
Senator McCain? We're all waiting.
Which sparked the McCain campaign to issue a statement:
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."
The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:
"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"
Now, anyone else would say that Goldfarb is being an asshole. After all, Obama was talking about a specific reason people were saying we couldn't leave Iraq for 100 years - the possible genocide. Obama was making a logical argument: if that reasoning is true, then why don't we have troops elsewhere? Proving that the genocide argument is ridiculous.
But I'm standing with the McCain campaign on this one. They obviously understand that we *should* be sending troops into Darfur and the Congo and other areas, like North Korea where mass starvation exists.
In fact, I fully expect Senator McCain, based on his campaign's obvious feelings regarding genocide, that the McCain campaign will announce that they fully support President Clinton's efforts in Bosnia to top the genocide of the Albanians. That, upon taking office in the White House, "President McCain" will order 300,000 troops to the Congo, another 200,000 to Darfur, and another 1,000,000 troops to North Korea in order to stop the killing there.
Obviously, since the McCain campaign believes so strongly in stopping genocide, this is the only logical thing for them to do.
Senator McCain? We're all waiting.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Why does Morning Joe actually air?
I'm about to get dressed and leave for work, but I flipped to Morning Joe for a bit. 30 minutes ago, Scarborough was pounding on "The surge worked! The surge worked! Why can't Obama admit it!"
Now, Senator Obama's position is "extra troops helped, but between the Sunni Awakening (which started a year before the surge), the US paying off militia groups *not* to shoot at US troops, al Sadr's group having a cease fire with US troops (which has proven rather useful, sine al Sadr was able to get rid of terrorist groups in his territory)."
I turned back to Scarborough, and I hear this:
"Whether the Sunni Awakening started before or after the Surge, it's clear that the extra troops helped it happen, so therefore, it was a success."
No, Mr. Scarborough. I don't know why you have a 2 hour show where you get to pound people with your conservative viewpoint. Oh, I know - you profess that you don't have a dog in this race. And Bill O'Reilly claims to be a registered independent.
Then he asks one of the reporters touring with Senator Obama "Hey, what does the press core think of Obama's refusal to admit that the surge has worked?"
What does the press core think? I think the press core's job is to just report on what people say and do, not be commentators. Try it sometime, Mr. Scarborough. Might be useful.
You pounded the hell out of Reverend Wright for weeks, and now you're taking the McCain line and running with it. I flip to CNN - and they're reporting on the subprime lending crisis. You know - news.
Might want to try it some time.
Now, Senator Obama's position is "extra troops helped, but between the Sunni Awakening (which started a year before the surge), the US paying off militia groups *not* to shoot at US troops, al Sadr's group having a cease fire with US troops (which has proven rather useful, sine al Sadr was able to get rid of terrorist groups in his territory)."
I turned back to Scarborough, and I hear this:
"Whether the Sunni Awakening started before or after the Surge, it's clear that the extra troops helped it happen, so therefore, it was a success."
No, Mr. Scarborough. I don't know why you have a 2 hour show where you get to pound people with your conservative viewpoint. Oh, I know - you profess that you don't have a dog in this race. And Bill O'Reilly claims to be a registered independent.
Then he asks one of the reporters touring with Senator Obama "Hey, what does the press core think of Obama's refusal to admit that the surge has worked?"
What does the press core think? I think the press core's job is to just report on what people say and do, not be commentators. Try it sometime, Mr. Scarborough. Might be useful.
You pounded the hell out of Reverend Wright for weeks, and now you're taking the McCain line and running with it. I flip to CNN - and they're reporting on the subprime lending crisis. You know - news.
Might want to try it some time.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Can I ask a serious question about the news?
I just flipped on MSNBC. They could be talking about the volatile oil market. How McCain changed his position on Afghanistan three times in one day - first we didn't need more troops in Afghanistan, then we need more Nato troops, then we need more of *both* troops - all this after Obama rolled out the same plan he rolled out in three months (take troops from Iraq, which is *not* where Osama bin Laden and the folks that actually killed Americans on 9-11 are, and put them in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and the folks that killed Americans on 9-11 actually live).
What are they talking about this morning? The White House T-ball game, and how Obama goes to the gym 3 times in one day and "evidently, he never sweats. He must be doing evil at the gym instead of working out - his basketball teammates say he didn't sweat back in college! What's wrong with the man?"
The other day, when I turned on the TV, I saw Joe Scarborough say if his "Morning Joe" show acted like other cable news shows, he'd resign.
Please. Do so. And tell them to put on some fucking reporters on the show. I want to watch the news, I want to have real discussions about issues. Not some floofed up dandy haired assholes jibber jabbering while the country falls apart.
What are they talking about this morning? The White House T-ball game, and how Obama goes to the gym 3 times in one day and "evidently, he never sweats. He must be doing evil at the gym instead of working out - his basketball teammates say he didn't sweat back in college! What's wrong with the man?"
The other day, when I turned on the TV, I saw Joe Scarborough say if his "Morning Joe" show acted like other cable news shows, he'd resign.
Please. Do so. And tell them to put on some fucking reporters on the show. I want to watch the news, I want to have real discussions about issues. Not some floofed up dandy haired assholes jibber jabbering while the country falls apart.
Monday, July 07, 2008
My #1 request for political reporting changes
I'm sick and tired of seeing "Senator Obama said John McCain said X", or "Senator McCain said that Senator Obama said Y".
All media organizations: I don't care what the candidates say what the other candidate said. You know why? Because they make shit up that isn't true! They say things like "Obama said he is going to raise taxes on all Americans" (when he didn't), or "McCain said he wants to eat babies" - when he didn't.
So news folks - no reporting on what the candidates said the other candidate said. You just report what the candidates themselves say and do, and leave the rest to up.
All media organizations: I don't care what the candidates say what the other candidate said. You know why? Because they make shit up that isn't true! They say things like "Obama said he is going to raise taxes on all Americans" (when he didn't), or "McCain said he wants to eat babies" - when he didn't.
So news folks - no reporting on what the candidates said the other candidate said. You just report what the candidates themselves say and do, and leave the rest to up.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
I don't mind that he's not an expert
McCain denies he said he wasn't an expert on the economy - when he did.
You know, I don't mind a candidate who admits "I'm weak on X issue." Nobody expects even the President to be an expert on everything.
After all, that's what you have advisers for. What we elect a President to do is have the wisdom to know - even in general enough terms - what the right and wrong thing are. Lowering taxes during a war? Bad. Raising taxes on essential needs? Bad. Spending money infrastructure? Good!
So with this good general knowledge, a President can work with experts in the field, know when they are being lied to and when they're being told the right things. They can look at history, and even if we don't expect them to memorize the last P/E rations of the top 5 companies, they have to at least know what is important to spend money on or not.
So I don't mind that McCain says "I'm not an expert on economics." I don't expect Obama to claim to be an expert on military tactics.
But I do get annoyed when someone tries to claim to be everything, or denies that they ever said they were weak on something. McCain's blunder here is the "Oh, I didn't say I was bad at that", when he did. We all admit it - and it would be OK if he just cowboyed up to that and said "But I have advisers A, B, and C that *do* know a lot, and here's why you can trust them - and why I do."
Of course, having Black and Graham as economic policy advisers, especially after Graham's financial screw ups have now lead to the energy and housing credit crisis doesn't inspire confidence. But neither does McCain claiming he's not an expert, then claiming he never said he wasn't, either.
You know, I don't mind a candidate who admits "I'm weak on X issue." Nobody expects even the President to be an expert on everything.
After all, that's what you have advisers for. What we elect a President to do is have the wisdom to know - even in general enough terms - what the right and wrong thing are. Lowering taxes during a war? Bad. Raising taxes on essential needs? Bad. Spending money infrastructure? Good!
So with this good general knowledge, a President can work with experts in the field, know when they are being lied to and when they're being told the right things. They can look at history, and even if we don't expect them to memorize the last P/E rations of the top 5 companies, they have to at least know what is important to spend money on or not.
So I don't mind that McCain says "I'm not an expert on economics." I don't expect Obama to claim to be an expert on military tactics.
But I do get annoyed when someone tries to claim to be everything, or denies that they ever said they were weak on something. McCain's blunder here is the "Oh, I didn't say I was bad at that", when he did. We all admit it - and it would be OK if he just cowboyed up to that and said "But I have advisers A, B, and C that *do* know a lot, and here's why you can trust them - and why I do."
Of course, having Black and Graham as economic policy advisers, especially after Graham's financial screw ups have now lead to the energy and housing credit crisis doesn't inspire confidence. But neither does McCain claiming he's not an expert, then claiming he never said he wasn't, either.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
FISA immunity vote tomorrow - call your Representative!
If you want details, you can read them here, but the lowdown is the Democrats are caving to give retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretaps to the Bush administration and the telecom companies.
As Mr. Greenwald notes, this is crap. OK - he doesn't say it like that, but I will. It's bullshit. I just called up my representative Kathy Castor, and she's against it, so she stays in my Good book. I also called the Obama campaign, so hopefully if enough people word will get to him and he'll speak out against it.
Hopefully.
As Mr. Greenwald notes, this is crap. OK - he doesn't say it like that, but I will. It's bullshit. I just called up my representative Kathy Castor, and she's against it, so she stays in my Good book. I also called the Obama campaign, so hopefully if enough people word will get to him and he'll speak out against it.
Hopefully.
We're taking our ball and going home, gay boy!
When I lived in Utah, some kids decided to make a "Gay and Lesbian Alliance Club" or something like that. The idea - through my dim memory - was for gay teenagers to have a place to share common experiences, common problems with being a gay teen in a very conservative state. My personal bet is they didn't plan on just having crazy sex orgies all the time.
Based on the way the school distract acted, though, you'd think that was exactly what was going on. The club was banned from the school. The kids took the school to court - and won. Courts basically said "You can't not let these kids have a club just because you don't like the subject matter. As long as they don't violate decency policies - aka, have orgies or go into graphic descriptions of sexual stuff - you really can't stop them from having a club, if you offer students a chance to have their own clubs."
State of Utah's decision? Ban *all* clubs. Chess club, drama club, every single one of them. Gone. Their reasoning was "Well, if we have to offer equal rights to the gay kids, then we'll deny clubs to *all* kids, and then we're being equal!"
Yeah, a pretty childish (pun intended) decision, but that's how it goes. I'm not sure what ever happened - I've since moved, but I'd like to think that someplace, somewhere, some kid can get his buddies together at school to play some fracking chess.
It's funny how this seems to be the default response now to things homosexual by conservatives. Three counties in California, now faced with the knowledge that they have to issue marriage licenses to consenting adults even if they're the same gender, have opted to not offer marriage licenses at all.
Yeah, that'll show you, gay people! We're going to honor marriage by not allowing *anybody* to get married - so people will just have to either live together and have kids and families without getting married, or we'll die as a species because everyone knows if you have sex without getting married your kids turn into mutants - or worse, Democrats!
(Sigh.)
Based on the way the school distract acted, though, you'd think that was exactly what was going on. The club was banned from the school. The kids took the school to court - and won. Courts basically said "You can't not let these kids have a club just because you don't like the subject matter. As long as they don't violate decency policies - aka, have orgies or go into graphic descriptions of sexual stuff - you really can't stop them from having a club, if you offer students a chance to have their own clubs."
State of Utah's decision? Ban *all* clubs. Chess club, drama club, every single one of them. Gone. Their reasoning was "Well, if we have to offer equal rights to the gay kids, then we'll deny clubs to *all* kids, and then we're being equal!"
Yeah, a pretty childish (pun intended) decision, but that's how it goes. I'm not sure what ever happened - I've since moved, but I'd like to think that someplace, somewhere, some kid can get his buddies together at school to play some fracking chess.
It's funny how this seems to be the default response now to things homosexual by conservatives. Three counties in California, now faced with the knowledge that they have to issue marriage licenses to consenting adults even if they're the same gender, have opted to not offer marriage licenses at all.
Yeah, that'll show you, gay people! We're going to honor marriage by not allowing *anybody* to get married - so people will just have to either live together and have kids and families without getting married, or we'll die as a species because everyone knows if you have sex without getting married your kids turn into mutants - or worse, Democrats!
(Sigh.)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Can anybody explain McCain to me?
I'm still trying to get over the catch-22 nature of McCain's energy and environmental policies - well, over all of his policies, for that matter.
McCain: Global warming bad! I will fight global warming!
Voters: Yay, McCain!
McCain: And we're going to do that by allowing for drilling of more oil, so you have cheaper gas!
Voters: Uh - won't that increase greenhouse gases? And won't it take like 5-10 years before drilling offshore services benefits? And what about the fact that oil companies will usually leave off-shore platforms inert until the price of gas is high enough to warrant pumping the oil from beneath the sea - which doesn't reduce the cost of oil, just gives the oil companies a chance to make great profits later?
McCain: My opponent doesn't want to lower the cost of your gas by reducing the gas tax - but I do! It'll be good for the economy!
Voters: Wait a second. Now you're just talking crazy. If you reduce the gas tax, you have to either cancel infrastructure upgrades, or take out loans to pay for the tax we're not paying. And with levees breaking in Iowa and destroying 16% of the farmland there, that means out cost of food is going to go up. How about we keep paying the gas tax, spend the money on infrastructure that badly needs it so we don't spend more money another several years from the next disaster? You're not making any sense!
McCain: Hey, I'm opposed to torture - but I don't want to enforce the military code of justice on the people doing the torturing! And I support the constitution, but not habeas corpus. I want to stay in Iraq for 100 years once the fighting dies down, but I have no idea when the fighting will ever die down, so we have to stay in Iraq until it does, which may take 100 years. By 2013 there our troops will come home but don't you dare set a timeline!
Voters: Wait a second - are you the reincarnation of Zenos come to give us more paradoxes?
McCain: Most of you don't know who Zenos is - or else you'd be an elitist! And I support education - as long as its private!
Voters: Oi.
McCain: Global warming bad! I will fight global warming!
Voters: Yay, McCain!
McCain: And we're going to do that by allowing for drilling of more oil, so you have cheaper gas!
Voters: Uh - won't that increase greenhouse gases? And won't it take like 5-10 years before drilling offshore services benefits? And what about the fact that oil companies will usually leave off-shore platforms inert until the price of gas is high enough to warrant pumping the oil from beneath the sea - which doesn't reduce the cost of oil, just gives the oil companies a chance to make great profits later?
McCain: My opponent doesn't want to lower the cost of your gas by reducing the gas tax - but I do! It'll be good for the economy!
Voters: Wait a second. Now you're just talking crazy. If you reduce the gas tax, you have to either cancel infrastructure upgrades, or take out loans to pay for the tax we're not paying. And with levees breaking in Iowa and destroying 16% of the farmland there, that means out cost of food is going to go up. How about we keep paying the gas tax, spend the money on infrastructure that badly needs it so we don't spend more money another several years from the next disaster? You're not making any sense!
McCain: Hey, I'm opposed to torture - but I don't want to enforce the military code of justice on the people doing the torturing! And I support the constitution, but not habeas corpus. I want to stay in Iraq for 100 years once the fighting dies down, but I have no idea when the fighting will ever die down, so we have to stay in Iraq until it does, which may take 100 years. By 2013 there our troops will come home but don't you dare set a timeline!
Voters: Wait a second - are you the reincarnation of Zenos come to give us more paradoxes?
McCain: Most of you don't know who Zenos is - or else you'd be an elitist! And I support education - as long as its private!
Voters: Oi.
Monday, June 16, 2008
President Bush, where are you?
While Katrina drown New Orleans, President Bush was playing guitar with Senator McCain in San Diego.
Now, Iowa is drowning. 16% of the farmland in that state has been lost to the flood. And - where is the President? This is his chance to show people that he's relevant, that he's able to actually act in a crisis and do some good. Where is he?
Eating dinner with the Queen in Britain. Can I ask a real question? I know - I've been harsh on this guy for, well, about 5 years now.
But what the hell is wrong with this man? Why isn't he flying in, gathering up national guard resources and emergency crews from around the nation to save a city? To help with housing? Isn't this why we have presidents - do act in times of national crisis?
(sigh)
Now, Iowa is drowning. 16% of the farmland in that state has been lost to the flood. And - where is the President? This is his chance to show people that he's relevant, that he's able to actually act in a crisis and do some good. Where is he?
Eating dinner with the Queen in Britain. Can I ask a real question? I know - I've been harsh on this guy for, well, about 5 years now.
But what the hell is wrong with this man? Why isn't he flying in, gathering up national guard resources and emergency crews from around the nation to save a city? To help with housing? Isn't this why we have presidents - do act in times of national crisis?
(sigh)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Bluewashing: How to keep screwming the people
Right now, the Republican brand is in the toilet. Bush hasn't helped, neither has the war in Iraq, Katrina, the housing crisis, the gas crisis, the fact that he's out in Europe while there's massive flooding in the mid-states (heck of a job, Bushie!).
But how low can you go to switch parties from Republican to Democrat, but keep the same backers of big business just so you can get elected? "Bluewashing" is a new term springing up for Republicans who are running as Democrats, just in the hopes that people will ignore that little fact so it can be business as usual.
Keep an eye out - seems we'll have to keep on our toes even in the local primaries to make sure the person we're voting for is actually working for our needs.
But how low can you go to switch parties from Republican to Democrat, but keep the same backers of big business just so you can get elected? "Bluewashing" is a new term springing up for Republicans who are running as Democrats, just in the hopes that people will ignore that little fact so it can be business as usual.
Keep an eye out - seems we'll have to keep on our toes even in the local primaries to make sure the person we're voting for is actually working for our needs.
Michelle Obama is a "baby momma"?
First, a definition:
Then, the story:
Just to make sure I have this right: Fox news commentators are saying that Michelle Obama is not actually married to Barack Obama, and that they're children are born out of wedlock. Why on earth would you even think such a thing? Oh, that's right - they're black - isn't that what Fox believes "those people" do?
(sigh) Anyone want to start a betting pool until Fox just lays down the N word and is finally done with it?
the mother of a man's child when the parents are not married - Source: Urban Dictionary
Then, the story:
An alert reader wrote in just a little while ago to let us know about something he'd spotted on Fox News Wednesday afternoon. During a segment discussing conservative attacks against Michelle Obama, the wife of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the network described the former as "Obama's baby mama." - Source: Salon
Just to make sure I have this right: Fox news commentators are saying that Michelle Obama is not actually married to Barack Obama, and that they're children are born out of wedlock. Why on earth would you even think such a thing? Oh, that's right - they're black - isn't that what Fox believes "those people" do?
(sigh) Anyone want to start a betting pool until Fox just lays down the N word and is finally done with it?
Thursday, June 05, 2008
I'm really liking Jim Webb for VP
Especially after this interview, and this line:
Yeah. I like.
"John McCain's comment about Barack not having sat down recently with General Petreaus means nothing," Webb said. "If you know who to listen to, if you know how to make judgments, if you know how evaluate information, you can do that. I don't think Franklin Roosevelt was ever at the front in France during WWII in order to help end the war."
Yeah. I like.
And this is the change we've been waiting for
DRIVING THE DAY: On Day 2 as nominee, Senator Obama wants to show that he will change the nation’s politics. As the presumptive DemoObama already eager to show that he will change the nation’s politics, and Clinton plans departure from '08 race.cratic presidential nominee, he WILL ANNOUNCE TODAY that the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or PACs -- consistent with the policy of his campaign. His declaration makes it clear that he will try to make the influence of Washington insiders one of his key arguments against Senator McCain. Source: Politico.com Playbook
If you wanted to understand the change in Senator Obama's candidacy, this is it right here. Away with the special interests, the PACs (Political Action Committees that can represent everything from single mothers to oil rights) that can drive the Democratic party. No more money from telephone companies seeking immunity for breaking the law, or giving out grants to oil companies who just jack up the prices.
From now on, the DNC is going to be funded by the people. This is going to make it hard for the DNC at first. They're going to need help. They're going to need the same $25 donations by millions that brought Senator Obama the money he needed to run against the biggest Democratic establishment machine ever.
The question is - will people response?
I will. I get paid tomorrow, and $25 is going right to the DNC coffers. Anyone else who wants to join me, and make their political party answerable to *us* - not special interests or just those with the money, but *us*, I'd encourage you to do the same.
This is the change we've been waiting for - and it's gutsy, its risky, and it relies on people really wanting control of their political process again. The question is - do you want it too?
DNC web page
Turns out that giving a speech before a green screen is a bad idea
I shouldn't find this funny, but John McCain learns the dangers of talking before a green screen.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
It's an appeasement trap!
Evidently Syria wants the US to be a member of the Isreal/Syria peace talks.
Don't do it, Bush administration! Obviously talking to people we don't like is considered appeasement, and we certainly wouldn't want to do that!
Don't do it, Bush administration! Obviously talking to people we don't like is considered appeasement, and we certainly wouldn't want to do that!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The architect of financial disaster is McCain's economic advisor
I can't say any more than that. Phil Gramm, McCain co-chair in his run for the Presidency, helped to deregulate the markets that have now lead to the housing crisis.
And McCain has hinted that he'd want Gramm as his treasurer.
Stop the bus - I need to throw up.
And McCain has hinted that he'd want Gramm as his treasurer.
Stop the bus - I need to throw up.
Bush and McCain agree 100%
Or, at least they do if you go by McCain's voting record, where for 2008 McCain supported Bush in Senate voting 100% of the time, and 95% of the time in 2007.
But hey - you keep believing he's an "independent maverick" if you want to.
But hey - you keep believing he's an "independent maverick" if you want to.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Assassination. Hilary. Apology.
OK - by now, you likely know about Senator Clinton's horrible, stupid comment about why she's in the race because primaries have gone on past June before - and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.
If you don't know how angry this made people, here's Keith Olbermann's comment on it.
I wouldn't have minded if she made the stupid, stupid comment if she had really done one thing: apologize.
If she had said "You know what, I said something stupid. I'm sorry. I beg your forgiveness." Instead, she gives us "If you were offended, then I apologize." It's the Hagee school of apology - sorry I called Catholics the Great Whore and said that Hitler was sent by God to create the state of Israel. What, you're offended? Well, then I'm sorry you're offended.
All we've ever wanted from Senator Clinton is - an apology. A sincere "I'm sorry I voted for the war in Iraq. I'm sorry I didn't read the intelligence report before voting for it. I'm sorry for voting for the bankruptcy bill, though I hoped it would be overcome. I'm sorry for saying that I was qualified, that McCain was qualified, but Obama wasn't."
When the race started, I thought that every Democrat running - Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and yes, even Gravel - would make fine, honorable presidents. But then she started to lie about Obama's record in Iowa, after losing the Culinary Worker's union complaining that allowing them to caucus at their work place was somehow unfair, discounting caucus states - I lost it.
I really feel horrible about this. I can't imagine how hard she and her husband have worked for this day. The pride she felt at being the possible first woman President of the United States. I can't imagine how it would feel to have that taken away from you by some newcomer with vast resources of charisma.
But I've lost respect for her. If she would win, I'd try to support her - but damn, it would be very, very hard.
If you don't know how angry this made people, here's Keith Olbermann's comment on it.
I wouldn't have minded if she made the stupid, stupid comment if she had really done one thing: apologize.
If she had said "You know what, I said something stupid. I'm sorry. I beg your forgiveness." Instead, she gives us "If you were offended, then I apologize." It's the Hagee school of apology - sorry I called Catholics the Great Whore and said that Hitler was sent by God to create the state of Israel. What, you're offended? Well, then I'm sorry you're offended.
All we've ever wanted from Senator Clinton is - an apology. A sincere "I'm sorry I voted for the war in Iraq. I'm sorry I didn't read the intelligence report before voting for it. I'm sorry for voting for the bankruptcy bill, though I hoped it would be overcome. I'm sorry for saying that I was qualified, that McCain was qualified, but Obama wasn't."
When the race started, I thought that every Democrat running - Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and yes, even Gravel - would make fine, honorable presidents. But then she started to lie about Obama's record in Iowa, after losing the Culinary Worker's union complaining that allowing them to caucus at their work place was somehow unfair, discounting caucus states - I lost it.
I really feel horrible about this. I can't imagine how hard she and her husband have worked for this day. The pride she felt at being the possible first woman President of the United States. I can't imagine how it would feel to have that taken away from you by some newcomer with vast resources of charisma.
But I've lost respect for her. If she would win, I'd try to support her - but damn, it would be very, very hard.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Who's winning the popular vote - explained with Math!
I crunched my own numbers on the Democratic primary, and Senator Clinton's claim that she's leading in the popular vote. All of my numbers came from CNN's Election Central, tabulated into a nice little spreadsheet I'll be happy to email to anyone with a question about the math.
Senator Clinton has been claiming that she's been leading in the popular vote lately - even though she's clearly behind in every other metric (states won, delegates won, superdelegates one, caucus states one, primary states won). So if Obama has been winning the majority of the delegates and the contests, how does her math that "Clinton has the popular vote" pan out?
If you only count primary states - including Florida and Michican *as
they are now* (aka - give Obama 0 for Michican), you get this:
Clinton: 16,752,577
Obama: 16,311,622
Caucus Votes:
Clinton: 188,065
Obama: 390,245
Oh, noes - he's losing in the primary vote! Somebody, fetch me a
white hanky and my smelling salts!
Except - this excludes the caucus states - you have to disenfranchise
13 states and 3 terrotories (Texas doesn't count). Now, I know that
Senator Clinton is very much against disenfranchisement - she tells us
this all the time.
So, if you add in the "raw" caucus votes - in other words, one caucus
state delegate equals one person voting, then you get this:
Primary Votes:
Clinton: 16,940,642
Obama: 16,701,867
Now, by this, he's still "losing the popular vote" at a much smaller
margin - but this raises an interesting issue. Does one state
delegate equal one person? We have no way of knowing, so we might as
well go home and -
Wait - we *do* know a way? Oh, wait - Texas!
Texas primary results went like this:
Clinton: 1,459,814
Obama: 1,358,785
Texas caucus results:
Clinton: 18620
Obama: 23918
Now we can do some math. If you add up the totals from the primaries,
and divide it by the totals from the caucus, you would get the average
ratio of a how many votes a state delegate represents.
Total Texas Primary Votes: 2,818,599
Total Texas Primary Votes: 42,538
State delegate to popular vote ratio: 66 (really, 66.26, but let's not quibble)
This means that for every *caucus* delegate, that equals 66 people.
Holy delegates, Batman!
So let's crunch those numbers again.
Primary Vote Total
Clinton: 16,752,577
Obama: 16,311,622
Caucus Votes plus delegate to popular vote multiplier:
Obama: 188,065 * 66 = 25,756,170
Clinton: 390,245 * 66 = 12,412,290
Primary Votes with multiplier added in:
Clinton: 29,164,867
Obama: 42,067,792
Woah - I know, that looks insane. And I wouldn't state that "every state delegate in every state equals 66 popular vote people." But, that's the math from Texas. Let's try
something way more conservative (in the good sense of the word, mind
you).
Let's assume a delegate to popular vote ratio in caucus states of only
3 to 1. This is obviously waaaaay low - but let's face it, if you
have 100 people show up at an event, 1 or 2 delegates might be picked.
So a "3 popular votes to every 1 caucus votes" is still giving Clinton
the best benefit she can. Just think of a high school gymnasium full of 100 people, and we're saying that 33 of them are going to become state delegates. Not likely - more like 10, or 5. But - let's just assume that one state delegate represents 3 people who voted in the caucus. Now the math goes to:
Clinton: 17,316,772
Obama: 17,482,357
Huh - and look at that. Even at the most *modest* caucus to popular
vote ratio possible, Obama - without a single vote in Michigan, a
state I actually believe he would have won had he not been honorable,
he still wins this asinine "popular vote" argument. By a slim margin
- but if you put that ratio up to the more realistic 10:1, then it's
not even a contest anymore.
Either way, my bet is that Michican will be split 60/40, Michigan and
Florida will be given half delegates (and no super delegates), and
this looooong race will truly begin against Senator McCain.
Sorry if this is too much math for the morning - pretend it's like
playing "Brain Age" on your DS, only with political leanings.
Senator Clinton has been claiming that she's been leading in the popular vote lately - even though she's clearly behind in every other metric (states won, delegates won, superdelegates one, caucus states one, primary states won). So if Obama has been winning the majority of the delegates and the contests, how does her math that "Clinton has the popular vote" pan out?
If you only count primary states - including Florida and Michican *as
they are now* (aka - give Obama 0 for Michican), you get this:
Clinton: 16,752,577
Obama: 16,311,622
Caucus Votes:
Clinton: 188,065
Obama: 390,245
Oh, noes - he's losing in the primary vote! Somebody, fetch me a
white hanky and my smelling salts!
Except - this excludes the caucus states - you have to disenfranchise
13 states and 3 terrotories (Texas doesn't count). Now, I know that
Senator Clinton is very much against disenfranchisement - she tells us
this all the time.
So, if you add in the "raw" caucus votes - in other words, one caucus
state delegate equals one person voting, then you get this:
Primary Votes:
Clinton: 16,940,642
Obama: 16,701,867
Now, by this, he's still "losing the popular vote" at a much smaller
margin - but this raises an interesting issue. Does one state
delegate equal one person? We have no way of knowing, so we might as
well go home and -
Wait - we *do* know a way? Oh, wait - Texas!
Texas primary results went like this:
Clinton: 1,459,814
Obama: 1,358,785
Texas caucus results:
Clinton: 18620
Obama: 23918
Now we can do some math. If you add up the totals from the primaries,
and divide it by the totals from the caucus, you would get the average
ratio of a how many votes a state delegate represents.
Total Texas Primary Votes: 2,818,599
Total Texas Primary Votes: 42,538
State delegate to popular vote ratio: 66 (really, 66.26, but let's not quibble)
This means that for every *caucus* delegate, that equals 66 people.
Holy delegates, Batman!
So let's crunch those numbers again.
Primary Vote Total
Clinton: 16,752,577
Obama: 16,311,622
Caucus Votes plus delegate to popular vote multiplier:
Obama: 188,065 * 66 = 25,756,170
Clinton: 390,245 * 66 = 12,412,290
Primary Votes with multiplier added in:
Clinton: 29,164,867
Obama: 42,067,792
Woah - I know, that looks insane. And I wouldn't state that "every state delegate in every state equals 66 popular vote people." But, that's the math from Texas. Let's try
something way more conservative (in the good sense of the word, mind
you).
Let's assume a delegate to popular vote ratio in caucus states of only
3 to 1. This is obviously waaaaay low - but let's face it, if you
have 100 people show up at an event, 1 or 2 delegates might be picked.
So a "3 popular votes to every 1 caucus votes" is still giving Clinton
the best benefit she can. Just think of a high school gymnasium full of 100 people, and we're saying that 33 of them are going to become state delegates. Not likely - more like 10, or 5. But - let's just assume that one state delegate represents 3 people who voted in the caucus. Now the math goes to:
Clinton: 17,316,772
Obama: 17,482,357
Huh - and look at that. Even at the most *modest* caucus to popular
vote ratio possible, Obama - without a single vote in Michigan, a
state I actually believe he would have won had he not been honorable,
he still wins this asinine "popular vote" argument. By a slim margin
- but if you put that ratio up to the more realistic 10:1, then it's
not even a contest anymore.
Either way, my bet is that Michican will be split 60/40, Michigan and
Florida will be given half delegates (and no super delegates), and
this looooong race will truly begin against Senator McCain.
Sorry if this is too much math for the morning - pretend it's like
playing "Brain Age" on your DS, only with political leanings.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Real conversations with my wife: Who's romantic
Me: Hey, that's out song!
My Lovely Wife (MLW): We have a song?
Me: Yes. You picked it out when we were dating for a year. "Forever with you." I think you got it from the "90210" soundtrack.
MLW: I don't have a 90210 soundtrack.
Me: You didn't. You had it on a cassette. It's black and white.
MLW: Uh - I don't remember that.
Me: You notice who's the more romantic of the two of us? Who remembers all of these events from our lives?
MLW: I lost brain cells. I lost them pushing out three of your children.
Me: Oh, I forgot. The "I had babies" defense.
MLW: Exactly. Wait - is that our song playing?
Me: ....
My Lovely Wife (MLW): We have a song?
Me: Yes. You picked it out when we were dating for a year. "Forever with you." I think you got it from the "90210" soundtrack.
MLW: I don't have a 90210 soundtrack.
Me: You didn't. You had it on a cassette. It's black and white.
MLW: Uh - I don't remember that.
Me: You notice who's the more romantic of the two of us? Who remembers all of these events from our lives?
MLW: I lost brain cells. I lost them pushing out three of your children.
Me: Oh, I forgot. The "I had babies" defense.
MLW: Exactly. Wait - is that our song playing?
Me: ....
Friday, May 16, 2008
Matthews: Putting out the smackdown
I love how Republicans think that "Talking to nations we don't like == appeasement" is going to be an election year issue. Yes, the administration that brought us the worst foreign policy disasters since Vietnam think that saying "Well, if you talk to Iran, then you're with the terrorists" is going to be better than "Hey, give us those WMD's - or else we bomb you! Oh, you say you don't have WMD's - bombing time!"
The worst part is when people don't know that talking does not equal appeasement. I talk to my children all the time when they don't want to go to bed. Guess what - come 8:30, their little butts are in bed. No appeasement here - but talking doesn't hurt.
So, what happens when you meet someone so dumb they don't know the difference between appeasement and talking, or even know their basic history? Evidently, they get humiliated on public television with Chris Matthews. He doesn't always play a good game - but every so often, he plays it right.
The worst part is when people don't know that talking does not equal appeasement. I talk to my children all the time when they don't want to go to bed. Guess what - come 8:30, their little butts are in bed. No appeasement here - but talking doesn't hurt.
So, what happens when you meet someone so dumb they don't know the difference between appeasement and talking, or even know their basic history? Evidently, they get humiliated on public television with Chris Matthews. He doesn't always play a good game - but every so often, he plays it right.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
California Supreme Court: Gay Marriage A-OK
Prepare for drives in California for constitutional amendments to "defend marriage", because the CA Supreme Court says that a ban on gay marriage isn't constitutional.
I guess we'll have to go back to the old John Stuart Mill approach: whatever does not directly effect me should be legal. You know - that whole "liberty" thing.
I guess we'll have to go back to the old John Stuart Mill approach: whatever does not directly effect me should be legal. You know - that whole "liberty" thing.
Bush: Further proof I'm an idiot
Today, President Bush, while out in Israel celebrating its 60th anniversary as a country, gave these words:
And once again, we have to ask - whom are you speaking of, President Bush? Who do you know that says we should negotiate with terrorists? Now, I've heard people say we should have official talks with the leaders of countries (and yes, like Iran - last time I checked, they are a recognized nation). But nobody has said that we should be having "appeasement" talks with terrorists.
Of course, we all know whom he's speaking of. Obama has already come out with a statement:
Joe Biden, though, has the most accurate comment on Bush's statement:
And it is. We have Bush, who's administration decided that they didn't want to "reward" North Korea by being allowed to talk to them - and now North Korea has the nuclear bomb. They decided they didn't have to negotiate or talk with Iraq, or listen to the UN nuclear inspectors - nope, they knew better, and now years later, 4,000 American soldiers dead, many other Iraqi's dead, we still have no weapons of mass destruction.
But let's not end there. This is the same group that claimed that by ignoring sex and only teaching abstinence in schools, they could conquer teen pregnancy. Only problem? We have more kids getting pregnant than we did before Bush took office. OK - how about not actually looking at what's going on in the financial market? What's that - we're entering a recession and credit crisis? Well, color me shocked.
Nobody's talking appeasement to anybody (well, unless you're talking about immunity to telecoms for breaking wiretap laws) - but that maybe "If you're not with us, then you're against us" isn't a good starting point for negotiations.
But whatever you do - don't tell that to Defense Director Gates or Secretary of State Rice. As Mr. Biden says further:
....
You know, actually, that would be a good start....
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
And once again, we have to ask - whom are you speaking of, President Bush? Who do you know that says we should negotiate with terrorists? Now, I've heard people say we should have official talks with the leaders of countries (and yes, like Iran - last time I checked, they are a recognized nation). But nobody has said that we should be having "appeasement" talks with terrorists.
Of course, we all know whom he's speaking of. Obama has already come out with a statement:
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
Joe Biden, though, has the most accurate comment on Bush's statement:
This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.
And it is. We have Bush, who's administration decided that they didn't want to "reward" North Korea by being allowed to talk to them - and now North Korea has the nuclear bomb. They decided they didn't have to negotiate or talk with Iraq, or listen to the UN nuclear inspectors - nope, they knew better, and now years later, 4,000 American soldiers dead, many other Iraqi's dead, we still have no weapons of mass destruction.
But let's not end there. This is the same group that claimed that by ignoring sex and only teaching abstinence in schools, they could conquer teen pregnancy. Only problem? We have more kids getting pregnant than we did before Bush took office. OK - how about not actually looking at what's going on in the financial market? What's that - we're entering a recession and credit crisis? Well, color me shocked.
Nobody's talking appeasement to anybody (well, unless you're talking about immunity to telecoms for breaking wiretap laws) - but that maybe "If you're not with us, then you're against us" isn't a good starting point for negotiations.
But whatever you do - don't tell that to Defense Director Gates or Secretary of State Rice. As Mr. Biden says further:
If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?” Biden asked. “Is he going to fire Condi Rice?
....
You know, actually, that would be a good start....
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Do you need anti-depressants to vote Republican?
The new Republican campaign slogan: "The change you deserve." I like how they take the "change" mantra started up by the Obama campaign, and try to sell people that Republicans are the *real* change people. Let's see - McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts, keep the War in Iraq, keep the same posturing to Iran and the like - yup. Total change there.
Only problem is - the slogan is already taken by an anti-depressant medication.
Hmmmm.
Only problem is - the slogan is already taken by an anti-depressant medication.
Hmmmm.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Wait - a Republican sex scandal -
- that's not about gay sex!
That's right - we finally found a straight Republican! We really really found one!
That's right - we finally found a straight Republican! We really really found one!
Want to know more about the Capital Gains tax?
About a month ago, I had a guy from church telling me that the Democrats were stupid, because whenever you lower the capital gains tax, then there's more government revenue.
Not knowing anything about this, I went "Oh. I'll have to look that up. Doesn't sound logical that lowering taxes increases revenue, but maybe there's something there."
I looked it up. Turns out, yeah, revenue goes up for the first year while people take advantage of lower tax revenues and cash out their stocks - then tax revenue falls from there.
Well. Now I know.
Not knowing anything about this, I went "Oh. I'll have to look that up. Doesn't sound logical that lowering taxes increases revenue, but maybe there's something there."
I looked it up. Turns out, yeah, revenue goes up for the first year while people take advantage of lower tax revenues and cash out their stocks - then tax revenue falls from there.
Well. Now I know.
Wah! I'm rich - do what I say Democrats - or else!
Didn't we see this one last month? Harvey Weinstein threatening Nancy Pelosi for - expressing her opinion that maybe whoever has the most pledged delegates should win.
If you don't know, Mr. Weinstein has been supporting Senator Clinton. And once again, you have wealthy donors saying if they're way isn't followed, well, then the Democrats might not get funding. What do you think of that Dems, huh? What are you going to do?
Oh, yeah - that Obama guy got 1,000,000 people to donate. And he raised a lot of money. Like, enough to swim in. Uh - wait a second, regular people might have more money than one loudmouth? When did this happen?
If you don't know, Mr. Weinstein has been supporting Senator Clinton. And once again, you have wealthy donors saying if they're way isn't followed, well, then the Democrats might not get funding. What do you think of that Dems, huh? What are you going to do?
Oh, yeah - that Obama guy got 1,000,000 people to donate. And he raised a lot of money. Like, enough to swim in. Uh - wait a second, regular people might have more money than one loudmouth? When did this happen?
OMG - Obama saves money like - a person should!
Some of the nit picking in the article is silly, but - hey, if I had a ton of money dropped into my lap, I'd save my money in conservatives ways too.
But that's me, because right now the meager money I *have* saved is all in very conservative savings accounts. Low risk. Figure let it sit.
But that's me, because right now the meager money I *have* saved is all in very conservative savings accounts. Low risk. Figure let it sit.
Another sign of the end?
Senator Clinton has been dropping the negative comments about Obama in recent speeches, focusing instead on party unity. Light at the end of the tunnel?
Obama visits Congress - and they seem to like him.
This story on Politico struck me as cute. Evidently Obama walked over to the House from an invitation, and celebritism ensued. To the point that:
I can imagine the discussion beforehand. "Uh, kids, don't you want to see President Bush?"
"My Daddy says Bush sucks!"
"Sigh."
Even Republicans were star-struck. Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said she was escorting a group of young elementary school students onto the House floor when Obama made his entrance.
Ros-Lehtinen said the children noticed the presidential hopeful and screamed, “It’s Barack Obama!” in unison. The congresswoman then led the students across the aisle and over to Obama, who chatted briefly with the three students.
“The kids were very excited,” said Ros-Lehtinen. “Like rock star excited.”
I can imagine the discussion beforehand. "Uh, kids, don't you want to see President Bush?"
"My Daddy says Bush sucks!"
"Sigh."
Going after al Sadr II: Xtreme. The Revenge.
I seem to recall a time when the Iraqi government decided they wanted to go after al-Sadr, the cleric living in Sadr City in Iraq. Turns out it didn't go so well, and finally the Iraqi government decided to offer a "cease fire" to keep Sadr from kicking their asses in exchange for leaving him alone.
I also recall the US government doing a cease fire with his group as well, which helped lead to the "OMG the surge is totally working", because Sadr decided to lay off fighting off the US occupation.
Evidently, the US and Iraqi government figure Eh - second's time the charm. But not to worry - it just proves the Surge is working when lots of people start dying again.
And why does the Iraqi government and the US government have such a hard on for al-Sadr? Isn't because he opposes 30 year oil contracts with US businesses that he feels should be owned by Iraqi's instead of foreign nationals. I mean, we wouldn't go to war as something as silly as war and money, right?
Oh. Well, we wouldn't go to war over oil *again*. That's different.
I also recall the US government doing a cease fire with his group as well, which helped lead to the "OMG the surge is totally working", because Sadr decided to lay off fighting off the US occupation.
Evidently, the US and Iraqi government figure Eh - second's time the charm. But not to worry - it just proves the Surge is working when lots of people start dying again.
And why does the Iraqi government and the US government have such a hard on for al-Sadr? Isn't because he opposes 30 year oil contracts with US businesses that he feels should be owned by Iraqi's instead of foreign nationals. I mean, we wouldn't go to war as something as silly as war and money, right?
“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.” - Source: Crooks and Liars
Oh. Well, we wouldn't go to war over oil *again*. That's different.
You're actually saying it out loud?
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." - Source: USA Today
I - woah. I need to sit down. What - are non-hard working Americans not white? You're actually making the claim that white people (well, only those with just a high school education or below) won't vote for the other guy, and that's why you should get the nomination?
Oh, granted, the "other guy" wound up getting more popular votes, more states, more delegates - but somehow can't clench that "hard working white vote" - except, evidently, he got enough to become the front runner over Senator Clinton.
Huh. Funny how that works. The guy who wins the majority of votes across the entire spectrum is more likely to win. Maybe we should base our nomination process on that idea?
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The "Clinton was suppose to lose Indiana" myth
There's a myth right now being propagated by the Clinton campaign that says she was so far behind in Indiana, that her winning by even 1% shows she's gaining momentum.
Sadly, like much she's been saying lately, it's just kind of - a lie.
Let's look at Pollster's coverage of polls in Indiana. What we see is 17 polls that said that Senator Clinton should win, 8 polls saying Obama should win, and 1 saying a tie. And of those, nearly all of the polls within the last 2 weeks - save Zogby - show Clinton winning.
So just how did she make a "come from behind momentum proving" victory again?
Oh, right. She's lying.
Again.
Sadly, like much she's been saying lately, it's just kind of - a lie.
Let's look at Pollster's coverage of polls in Indiana. What we see is 17 polls that said that Senator Clinton should win, 8 polls saying Obama should win, and 1 saying a tie. And of those, nearly all of the polls within the last 2 weeks - save Zogby - show Clinton winning.
So just how did she make a "come from behind momentum proving" victory again?
Oh, right. She's lying.
Again.
Bush has the solution to our problems!
From Raw Story:
Wow - OK, President Bush! We're listening. What's the solution?
...
Oh, of course. Keep doing the same stuff that helped get us into this situation, and give telecoms retroactive immunity for breaking the law. And in return, the telecoms will turn *billions* over to a nation in sheer gratitude, while rich people will decide to fund affordable health care for everyone with their tax breaks! It's so stupid, it's brilliant!
President Bush on Wednesday criticized Democrats in Congress for their approach to dealing with the nation's housing crisis and soaring energy prices
Wow - OK, President Bush! We're listening. What's the solution?
and called anew for an extension of expiring tax cuts and government wiretapping authority.
...
Oh, of course. Keep doing the same stuff that helped get us into this situation, and give telecoms retroactive immunity for breaking the law. And in return, the telecoms will turn *billions* over to a nation in sheer gratitude, while rich people will decide to fund affordable health care for everyone with their tax breaks! It's so stupid, it's brilliant!
The Fed gets even dumber
Now they're accepting credit card debt as collateral.
The Federal Government wants to accept a banks owed money as collateral for - a loan. Not savings, or assets, or things that - should the bank go under for some reason (like, making a bunch of bad credit card loans), then the government will get to hold - bad credit card loans.
Head. Wall. Repeat.
The Federal Government wants to accept a banks owed money as collateral for - a loan. Not savings, or assets, or things that - should the bank go under for some reason (like, making a bunch of bad credit card loans), then the government will get to hold - bad credit card loans.
Head. Wall. Repeat.
Oh, Bushie won't be happy now....
Troop withdrawal added to funding bill.
And, accusations that Congress is trying to direct the war they have power of financing and approving starts in 3-2-1....
And, accusations that Congress is trying to direct the war they have power of financing and approving starts in 3-2-1....
Best quote of yesterday
There's a very large bru-haha between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala - both heavy Democratic commentors, Paul I believe worked with the Clinton administration and Ms. Brazile worked on getting Al Gore elected (for all the good it did).
They have a back and forth about which voters the Dems need (and I think that Ms. Brazile has the better argument). But at the very end, this part jumped at me:
That - is the most telling place. The same "Oh, he's an elitist, he's really a Muslim, he's really an American hater, he's a secret black racist" not only didn't work in one of the most Republican areas of the country - it blew up in their faces.
Maybe people are paying attention this time. Maybe the attacks just don't work on a guy who talks about Hope and Change. Either way, it looks like we've got a huge shot at not only the White House, but in taking back the country from people who feel it's been their personal checkbook for 8 years.
They have a back and forth about which voters the Dems need (and I think that Ms. Brazile has the better argument). But at the very end, this part jumped at me:
Begala: Yes, I'm sorry to intrude with a fact. But Alex is raising something that I think is going to be a loser for his party. His party believes that they think that they can beat Barack Obama by attacking his former pastor, or some guy he used to live in the neighborhood with 30 years ago. I think it is all nonsense.
We have some empirical proof. In the Louisiana House race, it was last week, this is a district that has been solidly Republican for 34 years, that voted 55 percent for George W. Bush. This is not a swing district. And they went in there, the Republicans did, and they ran ads attacking Barack Obama and attacking Reverend Wright.
And you know what the Republicans did?
They lost.
So as a Democrat, I don't even support Barack in the primaries, but I would gladly support him in the general election. And if Alex thinks they can win this by attacking people other than Barack Obama, somebody he used to know, somebody he used to listen to preach, I think that's a loser strategy for the Republicans.
That - is the most telling place. The same "Oh, he's an elitist, he's really a Muslim, he's really an American hater, he's a secret black racist" not only didn't work in one of the most Republican areas of the country - it blew up in their faces.
Maybe people are paying attention this time. Maybe the attacks just don't work on a guy who talks about Hope and Change. Either way, it looks like we've got a huge shot at not only the White House, but in taking back the country from people who feel it's been their personal checkbook for 8 years.
For all you gamers who like poliitcs...
Anyone else think that a video of Senator Clinton with the song "Still Alive" from the game "Portal" would be *very* appropriate?
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Hilary: It's over
I stole this from Daily Kos because it showed the issue so well.
Right there - 404 "pledged delegates" reamining. If Obama wins half of those - he's at 2025. Even if he gets half of the Super Delegates, *and* Florida and Michigan are thrown back in, Senator Clinton still looses.
This morning, Senator Clinton has canceled all of her morning show appearances.
I think she knows it too, now.
| Delegates: | Pledged | Super | Total | Needed |
| Obama | 1,586.5 | 255 | 1,841.5 | 183 |
| Clinton | 1,430.5 | 269.5 | 1,700 | 324.5 |
| Remaining | 404 | 270.5 | 674.5 | |
| (2,024.5 delegates needed for victory) | ||||
Right there - 404 "pledged delegates" reamining. If Obama wins half of those - he's at 2025. Even if he gets half of the Super Delegates, *and* Florida and Michigan are thrown back in, Senator Clinton still looses.
This morning, Senator Clinton has canceled all of her morning show appearances.
I think she knows it too, now.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Ever wonder what happens at a John Hagee bible retreat?
Evidently - vomiting. Vomiting into paper bags and speaking in tongues. An undercover investigation by Rolling Stone lets it all out into the open, and it's creepier than you can imagine.
Dispelling some economy bullshit
Every so often, I see or hear people say this about people's economics situation today:
"Well, they only have two incomes because they want that color TV."
"People are just lazy with credit - they need to buy less and not go into debt."
"If people just got by on less, they could make it on one income."
This is conventional wisdom - it feels right, so it must be right.
Only - it turns out that's not true at all. This video of a lecture by Elizabeth Warren goes over how the three big things - housing, health care, transportation - has increased 70% since the 1970's (adjusted for inflation). The cost of food/appliances/entertainment has *dropped* some 10% or greater. The result? Just to pay for the things you *need* (aka - a house, a doctor, a car) has nearly doubled, while the price of things that you don't *need* (well, except for food) is not only less, but cheaper. The result? Just to buy the first three necessities (house, transportation, health) you need - double the income. But once you do that, child care goes up 70%, and your tax rate goes up (why? Because now you've got more income.)
And then you get less health care for the same dollar (1 night stay in the hospital today used to be 5 nights 30 years ago, assisted nursing care was standard, now *you* are the at home nurse - oh, and if you need those two incomes to pay for your house/car/health insurance, now you just lost half of your income).
It's a horrible look at what's been going on in the middle class - and it's not looking any better.
"Well, they only have two incomes because they want that color TV."
"People are just lazy with credit - they need to buy less and not go into debt."
"If people just got by on less, they could make it on one income."
This is conventional wisdom - it feels right, so it must be right.
Only - it turns out that's not true at all. This video of a lecture by Elizabeth Warren goes over how the three big things - housing, health care, transportation - has increased 70% since the 1970's (adjusted for inflation). The cost of food/appliances/entertainment has *dropped* some 10% or greater. The result? Just to pay for the things you *need* (aka - a house, a doctor, a car) has nearly doubled, while the price of things that you don't *need* (well, except for food) is not only less, but cheaper. The result? Just to buy the first three necessities (house, transportation, health) you need - double the income. But once you do that, child care goes up 70%, and your tax rate goes up (why? Because now you've got more income.)
And then you get less health care for the same dollar (1 night stay in the hospital today used to be 5 nights 30 years ago, assisted nursing care was standard, now *you* are the at home nurse - oh, and if you need those two incomes to pay for your house/car/health insurance, now you just lost half of your income).
It's a horrible look at what's been going on in the middle class - and it's not looking any better.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Shocking news - not getting vaccinated leads to more measles!
Imagine that - evidently, people who bought into the junk science claim that vaccines were causing autism so they didn't give it to their kids are now - getting kids with measles.
I'm sure the kids will thank them later in life.
I'm sure the kids will thank them later in life.
I want to help, Indiana. Now, anyway
Poor Magnequench, Indiana. The town used to have a factory that made important goods, until it was sold to China. Senator Clinton feels their pain. She understands that you need a president who won't just up and sell important US companies to China, especially when it's in their power to stop it for national security reasons.
Damn that horrible President that let it happen! Tell us about it, Senator Clinton! That horrible, horrible person who let this -
Oh, it was Bill Clinton?
Um -
Awk-ward.
Damn that horrible President that let it happen! Tell us about it, Senator Clinton! That horrible, horrible person who let this -
Oh, it was Bill Clinton?
Um -
Awk-ward.
Oh, no - Ethanol is going to make us all starve!
Somebody explain this one to me. We have a weakening dollar because of the housing/financial meltdown. We have a war in the Middle East (you know, the place that makes lots of oil). So who's to blame for rising food prices?
Well, obviously farmers trying to make ethanol. Forget that it's an initial market. That the corn grown for ethanol is not the kind you eat. Or that other countries (like Brazil) seem to have survived the move to ethanol without triggering mass starvation or death.
Nope - obviously (if you're a moron), what you have to do is stop this alternative fuel source from taking off and becoming viable so that when the next oil crisis hits, we can blame anything - save our dependance on oil.
Well, obviously farmers trying to make ethanol. Forget that it's an initial market. That the corn grown for ethanol is not the kind you eat. Or that other countries (like Brazil) seem to have survived the move to ethanol without triggering mass starvation or death.
Nope - obviously (if you're a moron), what you have to do is stop this alternative fuel source from taking off and becoming viable so that when the next oil crisis hits, we can blame anything - save our dependance on oil.
So what can be done about the price of gas?
There's been a lot of talk about what to do about the price of gas. If you're an idiot (aka - Clinton and McCain), you talk about removing the gas tax (which wouldn't do a heck of a lot).
Of - you could do the things on this list from Dan Froomkin, which boils down to this:
And then you look at the things Bush *will* do. Plan an end to the war? Uh - no. Regulate the markets? Yeah. Right.
Why won't Bush do these things? Well, then he'd ruin his run as one of the Worst Presidents Ever - and he can't have that, now can he?
Of - you could do the things on this list from Dan Froomkin, which boils down to this:
· Develop an exit strategy for Iraq. Fear of continued instability in the Middle East is widely seen as contributing to a 'risk premium' that's driving up crude oil prices.
· Tamp down speculation on the oil-trading exchanges, either by re-regulating the markets, raising interest rates, or both. There is some evidence that avaricious speculators have driven the price way above the levels justified simply by supply and demand conditions.
· Do something about the weak dollar. The dollar's dramatic drop against major currencies directly translates to higher gas prices for Americans. (But strengthening the dollar might require serious deficit reduction.)
· Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And then you look at the things Bush *will* do. Plan an end to the war? Uh - no. Regulate the markets? Yeah. Right.
Why won't Bush do these things? Well, then he'd ruin his run as one of the Worst Presidents Ever - and he can't have that, now can he?
500 scientists deny global warming! No, wait, 490! No, wait -
A list of 500 scientists who were trotted out by Sen. James Inhofe as global warming deniers might not be 500 strong. Turns out that so far, 45 of the scientists on the list said get me the hell of the list - I never signed up for it.
Wait - global warming deniers caught lying? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Wait - global warming deniers caught lying? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Hagee: God has cursed America. Media: Yawn
White preacher says that America is under a curse, and that we are being punished.
Black preacher says that the scriptures show how nations are damned for their sins, and God damn America unless it turns from its ways.
One gets two weeks of 24/7 coverage. The other is ignored. One is called an anti-American bigot, the other says that Catholics are the Great Whore - and it's "Well, they're offended - but did you hear what the black guy says?"
Black preacher says that the scriptures show how nations are damned for their sins, and God damn America unless it turns from its ways.
One gets two weeks of 24/7 coverage. The other is ignored. One is called an anti-American bigot, the other says that Catholics are the Great Whore - and it's "Well, they're offended - but did you hear what the black guy says?"
John McCain: Earmarks bad! Except - for this one I support
It seems a problem for Republican candidates. Get the government out of our lives - oh, but we *need* Department of Homeland Security to be able to have warrantless access to your phone calls and emails! And we totally think that government should get out of schools - except for changing the science curriculum to put religious teachings - oh, wait, it's called Intelligent Design, that's not religion, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
And then - there's earmarks. John McCain hates him those earmarks, wants to get rid of them. Well, except for the ones you like.
Some earmarks are bad. Some are good. But the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" McCain approach really is just the same Republican thinking - I'm against that, until I'm for it.
And then - there's earmarks. John McCain hates him those earmarks, wants to get rid of them. Well, except for the ones you like.
Some earmarks are bad. Some are good. But the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" McCain approach really is just the same Republican thinking - I'm against that, until I'm for it.
The economy's getting worse Part II
People are selling off their possessions to pay for gas and medical bills.
Something that having a real energy policy starting 8, 16, 20 years ago might have helped with.
Something that having universal health care that would have fixed, since those costs would have been spread to all citizens and we could have built our own government run hospitals to help people.
Nahhhhh - let's just let the market figure it out - I'm sure they'll find another engagement ring to sell somewhere.
Side note: I'm glad I saved my money for all of these years. Yeah, now I feel like a dick, but I'm going to check out Craigslist - I've been wanting to buy one of those Bowflex machines, and now I can pick one up used for a song.
Something that having a real energy policy starting 8, 16, 20 years ago might have helped with.
Something that having universal health care that would have fixed, since those costs would have been spread to all citizens and we could have built our own government run hospitals to help people.
Nahhhhh - let's just let the market figure it out - I'm sure they'll find another engagement ring to sell somewhere.
Side note: I'm glad I saved my money for all of these years. Yeah, now I feel like a dick, but I'm going to check out Craigslist - I've been wanting to buy one of those Bowflex machines, and now I can pick one up used for a song.
The Gas Tax conundrum
We need the gas tax. It provides money to keep the roads we drive on going, and in a small way, provides a disincentive to drive - which, to be honest, hasn't been that great of a disincentive.
Now, two potential Presidential candidates propose having a gas tax vacation - something that pretty much every expert agrees is a horrible, horrible idea - but it does have a certain appeal with the populace.
And the conundrum is - how do you tell people who are smarting from $3.50 a gallon for gas that removing $0.18 per gallon for six months isn't a good idea?
This is the true test of the "wisdom" of the American people. Sure - you could remove the gas tax for 4-6 months, remove the billions from the highway construction fun. Now we either have to borrow *more* money to pay for that, or tell 300,000 construction workers "Sorry - people need that $20 they'd save on gas over the summer more than you."
Oh, but wait - Senator Clinton has a great idea - just put a tax on the oil companies! That'll balance that out - and I'm sure with congress and the Senate as its composed will pass that idea, and President Bush totally *won't* veto it!
So - what can we do? Mainly - grit it out for the short term. If Bush wanted to release the oil reserves, that would help on prices - and maybe generate some income for the federal government.
The best thing is really a long term approach: invest heavily in public transportation, jack up fuel efficiency and promote plug-in hybrids, and put in transportation infrastructure like light rail so people in the suburbs can cheaply get to their work places (kind of like what Salt Lake City did). During this time, you put people at work (helping to stimulate the economy), and long term you have systems that will save gas and money. Throw in some alternative energy sources, or build nuclear plants, and by the time those are in, those plug-in hybrids will be the rage, and people can charge off of the public grid instead of the gas pump less often.
But a "gas tax holiday"? Like sending a cancer patient to Disney Land in place of giving them chemotherapy. Sure, they'll fell better - but after the rides are over, they're still dying of cancer.
Now, two potential Presidential candidates propose having a gas tax vacation - something that pretty much every expert agrees is a horrible, horrible idea - but it does have a certain appeal with the populace.
And the conundrum is - how do you tell people who are smarting from $3.50 a gallon for gas that removing $0.18 per gallon for six months isn't a good idea?
This is the true test of the "wisdom" of the American people. Sure - you could remove the gas tax for 4-6 months, remove the billions from the highway construction fun. Now we either have to borrow *more* money to pay for that, or tell 300,000 construction workers "Sorry - people need that $20 they'd save on gas over the summer more than you."
Oh, but wait - Senator Clinton has a great idea - just put a tax on the oil companies! That'll balance that out - and I'm sure with congress and the Senate as its composed will pass that idea, and President Bush totally *won't* veto it!
So - what can we do? Mainly - grit it out for the short term. If Bush wanted to release the oil reserves, that would help on prices - and maybe generate some income for the federal government.
The best thing is really a long term approach: invest heavily in public transportation, jack up fuel efficiency and promote plug-in hybrids, and put in transportation infrastructure like light rail so people in the suburbs can cheaply get to their work places (kind of like what Salt Lake City did). During this time, you put people at work (helping to stimulate the economy), and long term you have systems that will save gas and money. Throw in some alternative energy sources, or build nuclear plants, and by the time those are in, those plug-in hybrids will be the rage, and people can charge off of the public grid instead of the gas pump less often.
But a "gas tax holiday"? Like sending a cancer patient to Disney Land in place of giving them chemotherapy. Sure, they'll fell better - but after the rides are over, they're still dying of cancer.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Economy. Bad. Getting worse.
How much worse? 68% more layoffs from March to April. Yeah - that's bad.
Congratulations - Now get back to the kitchen
Congratulations to Pfc. Monica Brown, for earning the Silver Star, the second women to receive one.
And, right after getting it, she was told to go to the back of the line. Evidently, women aren't allowed to be in combat with the guys. Something about how they get all screamy and squeamish, and really - what guy wants a girl cramping up his style?
I mean - other than the ones that run out and save lives of their fellow soldiers, because who really gives a crap if a soldier has a penis or vagina, or likes the guys instead of the girls - as long as they do their job.
Oh, yeah. The military. Right.
And, right after getting it, she was told to go to the back of the line. Evidently, women aren't allowed to be in combat with the guys. Something about how they get all screamy and squeamish, and really - what guy wants a girl cramping up his style?
I mean - other than the ones that run out and save lives of their fellow soldiers, because who really gives a crap if a soldier has a penis or vagina, or likes the guys instead of the girls - as long as they do their job.
Oh, yeah. The military. Right.
Torture Time - Fun for the whole family!
It's the game that's sweeping the country - Torture Time! Remember, kids - torture isn't unconstitutional according to Scalia, because it's not punishment - it's just questioning!
The next sound you hear will be my head against the wall trying to get the pain to stop.
BANG. BANG. BANG.
The next sound you hear will be my head against the wall trying to get the pain to stop.
BANG. BANG. BANG.
Exit rotten Bush appointee #59
Another day, another bad Bush appointee leaves office in disgrace. This time, it was Lurita Alexis Doan, former head of the governments contracting agency. You know - the place that offered no bid contracts to Halliburton to rebuild New Orleans (hey, how's that going? Not so good? Oh.).
But her big claim to fame was calling in members of the government, on taxpayer money, and asking "Hey, how can we get Bush reelected?" Turns out - that's illegal under the Hatch act. Naturally, under the Bush administration, that doesn't matter - who's going to investigate that?
Oh, that's right - Nobody, best friend of Not Me.
But her big claim to fame was calling in members of the government, on taxpayer money, and asking "Hey, how can we get Bush reelected?" Turns out - that's illegal under the Hatch act. Naturally, under the Bush administration, that doesn't matter - who's going to investigate that?
Oh, that's right - Nobody, best friend of Not Me.
Why is McCain's health care plan so - stupid?
So think of this - a health care plan that says we'll provide for less than what health care costs, and removes incentives for employers to provide health care to their employees. That might be the worst health care plan I've heard of.
Well, other than the one that says if you get cancer, you get arsenic to remove your bad genes from the population. That one kind of sucked too.
Well, other than the one that says if you get cancer, you get arsenic to remove your bad genes from the population. That one kind of sucked too.
Financial markets reform themselves! Not.
Am I surprised? Evidently, with the mortgage market failing, billions of dollars being written off, government bailouts - you'd think the financial market would at least try to have some guide rails on their road so they don't go flaming off the track and smash into a tree.
Figuratively speaking.
Evidently - not so much. Once again we hear the clarion call "No, really - we can police ourselves - we promise this time! And if we can't - well, the taxpayers can bail us out again!"
Figuratively speaking.
Evidently - not so much. Once again we hear the clarion call "No, really - we can police ourselves - we promise this time! And if we can't - well, the taxpayers can bail us out again!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)