In defense of republicans and illegals.

Ok I'm sure this will not surprise my regular readers (especially since I'm pretty sure my regular readers are all related to me :P) but I'm pretty liberal on most issues.

And not shockingly that includes immigration, I am totally in favor of the dream act, and think they entire system, including legal immigration needs to be reformed, it shouldn't take years or decades to get here legally. I'm also in favor of leaving any illegal immigrants who are already here and not a threat alone.

But there is one area in which I am totally on the republican side, and if you read the above paragraph carefully you probably already caught it, and thats on the issue of the word "illegal immigrant"

Since Immigration reform seems to be the big issue in Washington, what with President Obama touring the country to promote his plan, and since the GOP was basically obliterated in terms of the Hispanic vote (getting about 20%) in the last election, its kinda become a hot button issue. And not shockingly the GOP has decided they need to do major Hispanic outreach for the next election.

Now memos seem to be surfacing everywhere, and plenty of republicans are also saying publicly the GOP needs to drop a whole lot of their "anti Latino" rhetoric, specifically their use of the terms anchor baby and illegal immigrants.

Now the anchor baby one is a good idea, in part because, like death panels, sharia law being used in the US and in person voter fraud, its not real, doesn't happen and is used a made up boogeyman to try to scare people. . Pregnant women are not crossing the border en masse just in time to have babies here. Yes they have children, but usually after they have been here for a while and are settled, they arnt having the kids to avoid deportation, according to pretty much every study..  

Illegal Immigrant however is a different story. That's 100% accurate. One of the "rights: of a county or nation is to decide who gets to be a member of that country or nation. Think of it like a club membership, if you want in you gotta follow the clubs membership process. If you dont follow that process and therefore dont get real membership, arnt supposed to be allowed in, but if you do and pass yourself off as a member, its only because you cheated and lied to get in.

Its the same for countries, except that unlike a club our "membership rules" have the weight of law. So if you dont follow them, your breaking the law, which makes your actions illegal. Specifically your immigration actions. Therefore because you immigrated illegally (got in without permission) your an illegal immigrant.

Its the most accurate and descriptive term of who these people are and why their being here is problematic.

And lets be honest, the two usual liberal retorts to the label are bullshit.
1) "no human being is illegal" Your right, but the thing is, no one is saying they are.  Stop being a lazy shit and actually read far enough to get to the second word "immigrant" thats the problem, this person,. who we all agree is legally a person, did not immigrant legally, therefore they are an illegal immigrant.

2) "Being Illegal is no a crime". Actually yea it is. In fact being a crime is the definition of illegal. Now to be fair its only a misdemeanor, so its not a major crime. Its right up there with prostitution, public drunkenness, bad driving, and smoking a joint (in most states).  And generally speaking its about as dangerous as any of those (and much less dangerous then bad driving). But a crime is a crime, so its still illegal.

Its not even close to being equivalent to rape, murder, arson, assault, or all the other felony crimes. And that for the record is the real republican problem.

Its not that they call it, accurately, illegal immigration, its that they treat it as a national epidemic that is going to destroy the country, then excuse rapes as not being "legitimate" or "forced". Thats the issue. its treating the minor crime like a major problem, and the major crime like it doesnt really happen that's really the problem.

Or at least part of it. The rest of it is assuming, acting and basically claiming all illegals look like this:

GOP US Senator Marco Rubio. FYI he was born here.

Because they dont. Sure the majority of illegals likely are some variant of Latino, but Asians make up a pretty big chuck of illegals too. And last I checked their is no huge Asian population in Mexico, so that Fence anit gonna do shit.

Thats the other thing, a fair number of illegals actually enter this country from Canada, which makes if you can do it. I mean it is the longest border in the world, and mostly patrolled. you can literally cross it in many places just by walking across the street. Hell we even have 1 bar in Minnesota and a house in New York (and likely a couple other places I dont know of) that are bisected by the border. So enter from one end, leave from the other, and you just became an illegal immigrant, easy as that.

But no one talks about putting a fence up on that border, or tightening the border patrol or putting drones up there. You know why? Well it could be that most Canadians look something like this:

Boldly going where no Canadian has gone before

By the way, historically speaking, you know who the largest group of illegal immigrants are dont ya? white people. Back in the day we used to have pretty tight quotas on how many people of a specific country we would let in, especially on eastern European counties and Ireland. Yet both of those groups came here in far larger numbers then the quotas allowed....because they did so as illegal immigrants.

And heres the real kicker, while the numbers are not as high, white people still come to this country illegally all the time.

And again thats the real GOP problem. Its not that they are accurately using the term illegal Immigrant. Its that they use the term in such a way as to apply to only a specific group of people, brown skinned people from Latin America, and operate on the assumption that all illegals come from their and all brown skinned people might be illegal and all "yellow" and white skinned people cant be illegal and are all supposed to be here.

And they can use whatever term you want, "Illegal immigrant" "Undocumented immigrant" "border jumper" "darth vader" ect, until they fix THAT problem, it doesnt matter, and they wont make inroads with latinos, or anyone else for that matter.

So how about we keep the one actually fair, accurate and fully descriptive terms left in politics ("illegal immigrants") and actually fix the underlying problems in the GOP outreach to Latinos? 

Felony Stupid: Constitutional Amendment edition.

You know, I gotta be honest, I dont really expect to have a job where I have to swear an oath to something, but I know if I did, I'd be damn sure to read the thing I had to swear a oath too.

Sadly though, that doesnt appear to be a job requirement or even apparently a good idea to some people.

And it gets worse, because a lot of the time, those same people who never read the Constitution get elected, and then try to propose law and even amendments to the Constitution that they never read.

Such seems to be the case of US Congressman from  Alabama Mo Brooks, who has proposed an amendment that would make it possible to impeach the president for a budget deficit.

See under Brooks' plan, congress would need a 4/5th vote in both houses to raise the debt ceiling (which as I keep harping on, basically means "pay the bills" at this point), except in "war time" which would only require a simple majority.

BTW, nothing requries a 4/5ths majority, peace treaties, other treaties, constitutional amendments and even impeachment itself, only require 2/3rds. Just to give you an idea of where he is setting the bar.

Now the "trade off" for the high bar on the debt ceiling is that the president can do anything that is constitutional to keep the budget balanced (and therefore out of debt)................with one exception of course, "The President may not order any increase in taxes or other revenue measures to enforce the Amendment,"

I've mentioned before about how and why you actually would need to raise taxes to have the government we want, but the short version is, to have the government Americans want, we could cut everything they dont want to 0, and we still wouldnt have enough money coming in to pay for it, and this is still true (although slightly better) even after the fiscal cliff tax increases. And thats just taxes, not other things that would count as revenue increases (like cracking down on tax cheats and closing loopholes)

Ah, but their is one last step. See if the president CANT get the budget balanced for any given year, he can be impeached for failure to do his job.

Now a couple of things to keep in mind about the amendment itself:

Were it ever to pass (and it wont), impeaching the president, EVERY president, would actually be an easier thing to do then voting to increase the debt ceiling (2/3rds to impeach vs 4/5ths to raise), so their is actually an incentive to impeach rather then fix the problem. And second, because of the ban on anything having to deal with revenue, it comes with an incentive to basically not pay your taxes (since cracking down on tax cheats is politically defined as a "revenue raiser" by the republican party), thereby basically ensuring we will never have any money of any kind.....except from stupid people who dont realize they dont have to pay

So this basically boils down to a "impeach the president for free card" especially when you consider one final fact, and one that Congressman Brooks amendment doesnt deal with......the Constitution as currently written, which Mr. Brooks has never read.  

See think back to the "trade off" part, the president can do anything that's constitutional to balance the budget. Well see here's the problem, from Article 1 Section 8 AKA the enumerated powers clause that spells out exactly what congress can do:

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;..." (the list includes a bunch of things not relevant making war, passing treaties ect so I stopped the list here)

Basically, according to the Constitution the president's legal authority as it relates to the budget is exactly "nothing". He cant do a thing about the budget, except sign off on budget bills congress gives him, thats the total limit of his power.

Oh and a further consideration: Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

And Congressman Brooks amendment does nothing to change the text of those two sections.

Now even though republicans don't like to publicly admit to it, EVERY budget raises some revenue, so basically all spending bills must start in the house. (you cant pay for anything without "rasing revenue" as its usually defined even if that payment is cutting another program as an "offset", the fact the money was moved into the new program is a "raise in revenue for that program")

So according to the Constitution, the House has 100% of the control over the budget, and should Mr. Brooks amendment become law, if the house cant pass a budget, or the senate refuses to pass the house budget, we impeach the president.....who is neither in the House or the Senate, and cant do anything about the issue in question. In other-words we could call this the "Dodging responsibility/blame the guy who didnt do it" amendment

Seriously, a senate filibuster (of the budget) would lead to a presidential impeachment. So would a bill intentionally so unpopular it couldnt pass the House.

Where's the logic in that?

Near as I can tell, it doesnt exist, so I can only see too options

The first is the easier one to believe personally, which is that despite being in his second term, Mr Brooks has never read the Constitution and therefore has no idea how stupid his amendment actually is, earning him the title of "Felony stupid" (although if you got a better term for trying to change something you never read, I'm open to suggestions)

Or option B. Mr. Brooks DOES know the Constitution, knows exactly what it says, and know exactly what his amendment would basically do (freebie to impeach the president simply by refusing to do his own job)....and just figures no one will catch on to the "scam" despite the way the bill is written. And since the "hole in the bills logic" isnt even remotely hidden or disguised, he clearly thinks the rest of us are too stupid to read. And if your trying to scam someone, leaving what is basically a giant flashing sign to what the scam is is also felony stupid.

A wise man one said something about getting the government you deserve.....for the people of northern Alabama who just reelected this guy, you might want to take note.

The fix is in for 2016.

I realize we just had a presidential election, and are less then 4 days from the inauguration of the winner of that election, so the last thing anyone really wants to talk about at the moment is president elections. Sadly, as the expression goes, time waits for no man.

Theres another expression that to be honest, I should use here as well. Keep your words soft and sweet just in case you have to eat them, See in my first blog ever I mentioned an idea Pennsylvania republicans had advanced to change the way their states votes counted in 2012 (that they later withdrew) that Ohio had picked up following the 2012 election. And I titled said blog "What do you do when a neighboring state has a bad idea? steal it....". Well it turns out, Republicans seem to have decided that the new way to vote was a good idea and more states planning on are using it.

See the way things currently work in most states (not Nebraska or Maine but the others) the winner of the popular vote, wins all the electoral votes of the state. And its the electoral votes that count for president, the candidate who gets more electoral votes wins the presidency.

Now admittedly the system isn't perfect. 4 times the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote  (1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000) and two of those required another branch of government to step in and pick the winner (1876 and 2000). Which opens the electoral college system up to the idea that its "not fair", which is totally true, its kinda not, if you vote for the candidate who loses the popular vote in your state, your vote basically doesnt matter. Which has lead to calls to reform or eliminate the electoral college to make it a fair election.

Now it is these calls the Republicans as seizing on for the impetus for their new system....the problem is the system in very state that's proposing it, would make things less fair.

I said before that in theory at least Nebraska and Maine use a different system, they award their votes based on the winner of the congressional districts, not the state as a whole, so its possible to "split" their vote in the electoral college, although  its never actually happened, due in large part to both states being rather small states.

But thats basically the proposal the GOP now wants to advance in other states as well. The problem is of course that congressional districts arnt any more fair then anything else. We cap the number of congressional districts by law in the country at 435 no matter what the actual population is. The federal government then basically divides them up among the states by population, so the more populated states get a bigger share but its the state governments themselves that get to draw the lines, and the populations of the districts actually dont have to be anywhere near equal. There's a minimum population a district has to have, but their isnt a maximum.

Perhaps your familiar with the concept of Gerrymandering? basically its drawing a district line solely to make it more likely for your parties candidates to win and basically impossible for the other sides to win.

Now to be fair, both parties do it, but as it turned out the GOP had control of the majority of the state governments in 2010 the last time we drew the lines. Which is probably the reason they favor this plan at the moment.

See he's a map of the new states that are considering this plan, plus the aforementioned Ohio by congressional districts. The districts in red had a majority of their district vote republican in 2012, the ones in blue democrats.

 Now if you just glance at the pictures the first thing you notice in every single state is that that is an awful lot of red. But looks at the bottom of each picture, Obama won the popular vote in all of those states, and in most of them (not FL or OH) by a pretty wide margin. Because again not all congressional districts are created equal.

But you notice the boxes under the states? thats the number of electoral votes each party would have won, although the winner of the state overall would received an additional 2 votes (representing the 2 senate electoral votes for winning the popular vote in the state)

Now lets take Michigan as the example here. What the GOP system would mean is that despite winning the state with almost a 10% margin (so roughly voter voted 60/40 for Obama) the democratic party would have only gotten 7 electoral votes (5 congressional districts + the 2 for winning the popular vote overall) and the Republicans who lost would get 9.

And thats true for every single one of those states, except Wisconsin, in which the electoral votes would be split 5/5, again despite a democratic win of nearly 7 points.

But heres the kicker, had this new system been in place in 2012 just in those 6 states, we would have sworn in president Mitt Romney monday, as he would have beaten Obama 271 to 268 in the electoral college. Keep in mind this wouldnt change the fact that he lost the popular vote to Obama nationwide by 4%

So we would have just sworn in the guy who basically the country didnt want. And heres the thing, that likely would become a regular event, since every time we did a Census the party in power in the most states would be able to draw all the district lines to ensure they would win the presidency, every single time.

Now sure sometime the party in power in a year that ends in 0 might be the popular party when we have a presidential election, and so their guy would win either way. But more often then not, thats probably not going to be true. (your already seeing this in the House, even though the GOP held the majority they got a ton less votes overall then the democrats, because of gerrymandering...and to be fair the opposite was true when the dems drew the lines, again its not a party thing, this is just a bad idea that at the moment the GOP is proposing for short term gain)

In other-words under this new republican plan (which by the way they are already drawing up legislation for in 4 of those states) we would actually make the electoral college even less fair.

Bonus by the way for the state of Virginia, on Monday one of the state senators, who happened to be a democrat, when to see the presidential inauguration. Now normally the VA senate is split right down the middle 20 Dem's 20 Republicans. Now with this senator gone the GOP had a 1 day advantage so held a unscheduled vote to scrap the states previously approved new district lines in favor of much much much more jury rigged ones (rigged of course to favor republicans) and got the new plan through 20-19 due to the single missing democrat (in the case of a tie the LT gov, who would cast the tie breaking vote had already said he was against the idea) as the first step in their plan to introduce the new way of counting votes.

Which I suppose is good if your in the minority of Virginia who lives in the 8 congressional districts the next republican will win (which actually will likely jump to 9 if the new plan is approved). Not so good if your in the majority of Virginia who live in the 3 (soon to be 2) districts who actually voted for the state wide winner.

But hey remember every vote counts......until they vote against you.....       

EDIT: Yea so I made a small mistake concerning VA. While its true (as far as I can tell) that in the other 5 states the two senatorial electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner, in Virginia the plan is actually to give them to the person who won the most congressional districts.

In otherwords under the Virginia plan Obama's 3 point win would have netted him 3 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 10. So yea the losing candidate in the popular vote would get more then 3 times the electoral vote.

When you werent looking, guess what congress did.......

So everyone's been a bit busy the last few days, holiday, inauguration, what have you. Well turns out while you were out the GOP "tapped out" on the debt ceiling.

Now for those not familiar with the phrase, "tapping out" is a pro wrestling turned Mixed Martial Arts term as one of the ways to end a match. Unlike being pinned however, you dont "get beaten" when you tap out, you give up in order to prevent possible future long term damage. Basically its a nice way of saying "I quit, you win"  if you need a visual example, keep your eye on the man in the speedo, he's tapping out, to avoid [what we pretend since its wrestling] getting his shoulder dislocated

Now of course in pro wresting, the whole thing, including the tap out is staged, and the idea is to tap out clearly enough that the guy in the cheap seats can see you do it. In politics however things are a little different.

See in Pro Wrestling and in MMA, there is supposed to a winner and a loser, and your either one or the other, its an all of nothing proposition, but politics isnt. In theory there really isnt ever going to a clear winner and clear loser, especially in a system like the one we have now, where both parties control some part of the government. Everything should end in some kind of compromise, although admittedly the party that controls more usually gets more, but no one gets everything they want.

Like I said, that's the theory. In practice that doesnt always happen. Sometimes one side or the other is forced to give 100% to the other side, usually because of how badly their are beaten politically, or in an election, or on messaging ect. In short they "tap out" its not worth the long term damage to the party to keep this fight going.

But the problem is, unlike pro wrestling, the losing side really doesnt want to get caught tapping out, so they try to make up some bullshit where they claim they kinda won a little. Which is basically what happened here.

For weeks, since the fiscal cliff was resolved (in a way they didnt like) the Republican party has been talking how, come the debt ceiling they will be holding all the cards, how if they didnt get massive historic spending cuts they would not only not raise the debt ceiling they would shut down the government, how they might insist on restoring bush tax cuts for the top 2% in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling ect.

Well earlier this week they voted on the debt ceiling bill. And is passed. And what did the GOP get in exchange? Nothing.

Now of course if you ask them they will tell you they got something called the "no budget no pay act" passed, but the thing is, thats just the smoke screen so you dont see them tapping out.

See the republicans will tell you that according to the "No Budget, No Pay" (NBNP)act, if congress doesnt pass a budget, they dont get paid. The problem is, NONE of that is true.

For starters their is the 27th amendment, which makes it unconstitutional for any congress to vote to change its own pay. They can raise or cut the pay of the next congress but they cant touch their own. So its not so much "no pay" as it is delayed pay (which still may not be legal), in that, if they dont pass the budget, congress WILL still receive their full pay, just not until the last day of the session (sometime in December 2014).

Now of course if the House passes something and the Senate doesnt, then according to the bill, the House gets paid on time the senate doesnt......the problem is the 27th amendment also makes it illegal to pay the House and Senate differently, so the NBNP still may not be constitutional.

But heres the funny thing, not a word of the last 2 paragraphs actually matter. Because it turns out that just like the "No Pay" part is misleading, so too is the "no budget".

See again according to the Constitution, budget bills MUST start in the House. Of course the problem is, this leaves the senate unable to pass a budget, until the House does. Now obviously that makes it a bit unfair when the Senate pay could be denied because the House cant get their shit together. So instead of making pay contingent on a budget, the NBNP makes pay contingent on passing a budget resolution, which despite the similar name, isnt the same thing.

See a budget has numbers and actually spends and directs money ect. A budget resolution doesnt.  At its simplest all a budget resolution is, is a broad goal for what you would like the budget to be. "I believe we should return to the 2008 budget" or "I believe we should continue with the 2012 budget" are both perfectly valid budget resolutions. That's all congress needs to pass to get paid, one simple, non binding, sentence.

So yea, thats what the GOP is claiming they "won" so that they are not the outright loser and not tapping out.

But lest that seem flimsy enough for you, there is more.

Remember that flimsy "act" is supposed to be what the GOP got in exchange for "voting to raise the debt ceiling" but it turns out they didnt do that part either.

They voted to [temporarily] eliminate the debt ceiling. Not make it a higher number, not raise it, totally get rid of it. Until the end of may the debt ceiling is like a unicorn, it doesnt exist. And in may, when it comes back it comes back at whatever amount we need it to come back at to pay the bills in May.

So yea they gave the Democrats MORE then they wanted, and got nothing in exchange. See why I'm calling it "tapping out" and not getting beat? this is basically a full and unquestionable surrender.

Now yes that still leaves a bit of a problem for June, when we will likely hit the debt ceiling again, but thats the nice part about tapping out, since you didnt get what ever piece of your body ripped off you can try to fight again another day, Having credibility while doing so/looking like you can win this time? Well thats a different story.

In fact thats where Pro Wrestling and Politics meet, people will loudly be screaming about you tapping out, and making sure you dont forget it until you actually manage to win. And sadly for the GOP thats easier to do in wrestling, since its all pre determined, in politics not so much. I promise you next time this comes out every Democrat out there will quite happily bring up that the GOP "raised" the debt ceiling last time without a single cut, so in politics tapping out may be forever.    

This week in stupid.

Ok so its been about a month since I did one of these (well except for the one dedicated to guns), what can I say, stupid people take holidays too, but now they are back, so lets get rolling.

1st up, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who in a FOX NEWS interview on monday was taking about the out of control executive branch, specifically the current President, Barack Obama but also offered up this gem:

"FDR had a little bit of this 'king complex' we had to limit FDR finally because he served so many terms that I think he would have ruled in perpetuity, and I'm very concerned about this President [Obama] garnering so much power and arrogance that he thinks he can do whatever he wants."

Now FDR died in office, which I think is kinda the kinda the definition of perpetuity, especially when its during your 4th term. Which means I'm not sure exactly what "limit" Rand Paul is taking about, since we clearly didnt limit the guy.

Now I can think of two options; First that he's kinda of idiot and didnt realize the Term Limit amendment (22nd) didnt go into effect until 1951, and wasnt in force for the current office holder anyways, so had FDR still been alive, couldnt have affected him.

The second option is that as a US senator and a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, specifically the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations he knows something I dont, like that Congress or the Republican party (depending on who he means by "we") had FDR killed, and that was the "limit" they placed on him.

Personally I'm hoping for the second, cause who doesnt like a good scandal?, but lets be honest, its the first, Rand Paul is just stupid.

Next up Florida Republican Congressman Ted Yoho [Yo Ho a pirates life for me] (sorry, but come on, who wasnt thinking it?) who said this:

"The militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government, It's more important today than ever that we uphold our Second Amendment."

Ok look I'm a fair man, Congressman Yoho is correct, except for cannon/artillery, cavalry, the navy, Bayonets and smooth-bore muskets. In other words pretty much everything except the bullets, which were hand made.

Now to be fair, the hunting rifles favored by the populace and owned by most of the militia, had some advantages to be sure over the military smooth-bore, namely range and accuracy (as opposed to the faster and easier reload, cheaper and easier manufacture and bayonet equipable abilities of the musket) and a fair number of Revolutionary war Generals (especially Nathaniel Green)  were able to turn the use of a force with mixed muskets and rifles to their advantage.

However as interesting as that is, none of that changes the fact that Congressman Yoho is wrong, and even if he wasnt, do you think people should be able to own a B2 stealth bomber or Nuclear submarine? I mean even the "governments out to get me" folks can see how those might be a bad idea.

Now for my next stop on the cavalcade of morons, the Governor of Mississippi

"There is no one who doesn’t have health care in America. No one.Now, they may end up going to the emergency room. There are better ways to deal with people that need health care than this massive new program."

Ok so your first (and second) sentence is no one needs healthcare. your 3rd sentence is to prove to the first two. Your 4th sentence is "for the people who need healthcare..." Um....Gov, do you, you know, listen to yourself talk? And I mean this assumes we agree the emergency room is a good idea for basic healthcare needs (its not, that's why its called the emergency room and not the basic healthcare room). But still wow, I mean forgetting what you said in the previous 3 sentences, while still making the same point....thats talent.

And now for the last in this weeks parade of the living mentally dead, Rush Limbaugh who after being confronted with a good point (that I disagree with, but I suppose if I was pro life would think is good) about a disconnect on public perception of Sandy Hook shootings and abortion (the idea being put forth is both are killing children and yet only one gets attention) said:

"Well, it’s a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun."

Ok um what? I mean I think i get Limbaugh's intended point, that liberals want to take your guns away, so if we make guns required for abortion liberals will take them away, therefore ending abortion.  But to be honest even getting that far requires doing mental contortions and gymnastics a man of Rush' girth shouldn't be able to do.

But even that still begs the question, how exactly should guns be used in an abortion (so that liberals will take them away). I mean do we stick the thing up a woman's vagina and pull the trigger? or is it faster just to shoot her in the stomach? or perhaps Rush is part of the fringe but loud segment who somehow figure killing a pregnant woman who wants an abortion (and her fetus) is better then letting the fetus die, cause it turns out [what from their point of view is] two deaths are better then one? Or is he talking about the sadly less fringe and equally loud group, who think killing an abortion provider is cool?

Seriously. Did anyone else think anything different? I mean I realize by "thinking" I'm cheating since your not really supposed to think about Rush's statements just agree with them and repeat them. But still I mean even if I agreed with Rush on Abortion, what exactly was his point? hey look at the ways guns can be used to kill people (and arnt), hey look at how much more dangerous a gun could be? hey look at how fun it might to shoot people involved in abortions?

I mean I'm a smart guy, but even I cant figure out how in the world Rush intended to spin that one.

And now before we go, bonus "Irony statement". See it turns out the statement isnt dumb per say, its just ironic so I cant really include it in the million moron march.

Yesterday the NRA's Wayne LaPierre decided to go deliver the rebuttal from the NRA on Obama's repeated use of the words "gun control" in his inauguration (Obama actually never mentioned guns but that was the NRA stated reason....sadly not quite enough to get them on the stupid list), in his retort Mr. LaPierre was trying to point out being an absolutist isnt a bad thing and defending the idea of being an absolutist said:

“Obama wants to turn the idea of absolutism into a dirty word, Just another word for extremism. He wants you, all of you, and Americans throughout all of this country, to accept the idea of principles as he sees fit. It’s a way of redefining words so that common sense is turned upside down and that nobody knows the difference.”

Now maybe your like me and wondered just what absolutism actually mean? well I went and looked it up. The good news for the NRA is it doesnt mean extremism, though had that been the case they totally would have made the stupid list. (and to be honest, I actually figured the definition would be close to extreme or uncompromising, so I actually thought LaPierre was more or less right, and thats the true reason hes the "bonus" and not on the list itself)

The bad news is, the actual definition is "the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government."

In other words if you are an absolutist, like Wayne LaPierre is claiming he and the NRA are, you believe in the the totally unrestricted control of government, in which the government can do anything it wants, like take your guns away from you at a moments notice.

Which means Wayne LaPierre gave a speech and said in short, he fully supports the governments right to take your guns away from you. And I suppose as a self avoid absolutist fully supports his fiction Obama's attempt to "redefine" the word to mean what it actually means, because the government totally can do that in an absolutist system.

So yea he just came out in favor of the very thing he claims the other guy is doing. Oops.......

So until next time that is this weeks (give or take a few days)  March of the Mock-able Mental idgets (alliteration rules :P )

Abortion: Dont believe the hype, its still the same as it was

So I was reading news website headlines today when I came across this:  "NBC/WSJ poll: Majority, for first time, want abortion to be legal" and it seems to be getting some attention, and I expect it to get more.

Which I gotta say was a bit of a shock, you see 7 months ago I saw this headline over on Gallup "Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%" and it did get ALOT of attention.

Ok so we are talking about at least 10 point swing in favor of pro choice in about 7 months. No matter if your pro life or pro choice, you gotta admit that sounds a bit fishy. So what the hell happened?

Word games, plain and simple.

See in the gallop poll people were asked in the headline question to identify themselves as pro-life (41%)  or pro-choice (50%), in the NBC poll they were asked to pick a position on  abortion.

Now actually as it turns out, if you look at positions on abortion, things are basically unchanged (which Gallup also asked in later questions)

now to be fair its not quite a fair comparison (for a reason I get to in a second), but still here are the numbers:

Abortion should be legal in all circumstances Gallup said 25%, NBC said 31%
Abortion should be depends on circumstances Gallup said 52%, NBC said 58%
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances Gallup said 20%, NBC said 9%.

Now the reason its not quite a fair comparison is this, in the Gallup poll you were only given 3 options (the middle being "legal with exceptions"), in the NBC poll they split the middle option into legal in some circumstances (23%) and illegal with exceptions in some circumstances (35%) which I combined into the middle option, and my guess is that illegal with exception option pulled a few people out of "illegal side" on the NBC poll.

For the record though, NBC got their headline by combining the legal in all and legal in some numbers on one side, and the illegal in some illegal in all numbers on the other, so they dont have to worry about "pulling people across the line".

Now the thing is, if you note the combined numbers (with above disclaimer) in both polls, you see the same thing....the majority of the country basically agrees on abortion. In that most people running around (myself included) think its insane to allow a expecting mother who is 8 months 3 weeks and 6 days (and yes I realize its not exactly 9 months still for examples sake) to get an abortion, for any reason.

On the flipside an even fewer people running around think its a great idea to do nothing and allow a woman to die just because something is wrong with her fetus and killing the fetus is the only way to save her.

All we are fighting over are a handful of minor exceptions and the right legal wording (legal with exceptions or illegal with exceptions)/do we allow for contingencies we didnt put in the law, once thats been ironed out.

The reason that abortion is still the grade A number 1 issue in this country, is because that answer doesnt fit the binary system we like to pretend exists for issues.

Allowing abortion in some cases and not others is not a pro life position, cause in some cases its ok to end life. So pro lifers are hypocrites

Allowing abortions in some cases and not in others is not a pro choice position, cause sometimes you dont have the right to make a choice.  So pro choicers are hypocrites

So it doesnt fit with either side, and for what ever reason the fact that when offered a choice between black and white picks gray, continues to confuse the political and media world, and also allows them to set up dueling headlines such as I started with.

But the fact remains that even with an arguable shift towards 100% pro choice between the polls (5%) once factored into the margin of error (3%) its not significant [yet]. So the american people are exactly where they were on abortion last year, and likely were they are going to stay.

But that cant be spun into a story. it may be closer to true, and a whole lot less word gamey, but wheres the fun in that?

its much more fun shoe-horning most americans into a side they dont actually belong on, rather then actually develop the 3rd side of the issue the "lets talk about this reasonably, cause we are only about this far apart" side

Things you might not know about the presidential inauguration.

So you all know what's happening on Sunday right? and Monday for that matter.  We are inaugurating our next US president Barack Obama.

Now why are we doing it twice? well tradition really. See the date of the inauguration is mandated by the Constitution as January 20th (previously march 4th prior to the passage of the 20th amendment) no matter what.

The problem is that occasionally January 20th (and march 4th) wind up on a Sunday, and apparently a good christian cant take the oath on the Sabbeth and even if he does, we as a country cant celebrate it.

And yes I know it sounds insane. But I'm not kidding. The first time it came up, the incoming president refused flat out to take the oath, leading us to arguably have a President for the Day being the highest ranking official who could in theory take the oath. Every other time thats come up though the president sucks it up and takes the oath on Sunday in private, then does it again on Monday with the usual trappings.

Heres the funny thing about the oath, even with the things that arnt of the "usual trappings", and are assumed to happen at the private ceremony not a one of them is actually ever required.

See everyone assumes that the oaths are always the Chief Justice swearing in the new president on at least one bible (HW Bush, Nixon, Carter, Eisenhower, Truman, and next Monday, Obama, will have all used two).

But thats not actually a requirement, in part because doing so would be a violation of the 1st amendment. (think a Jew is gonna want to take the oath on a bible? how about a Buddhist or an atheist?) In fact at least 3 presidents have been sworn in at least once without any bible present. Both Teddy Roosevelt and LBJ did not use a bible when they were first sworn in to office. Granted both of them inherited the office upon the assassinations of their predecessors (McKinley and Kennedy) so those were not planned, which might be seen as the "excuse" by some.

But then famously their is John Quincy Adams, who also refused to take the oath of office on a bible, and instead opted to take the oath on a law book. Now what people might find even more shocking though, is that its possible that wasnt actually as unusual as people assume. See the official inaugural records of a lot of the early presidents didnt make it/werent well recorded. So we dont actually know (with the execption of Washington's and Polk's first oath) what any president until Lincoln actually used. Now to be fair Lincoln was pretty clearly not the "1st" to use a bible or even the 3rd after Washington and Polk, based on how the events were documented it was a well held tradition by then.

The issue is thats also true for the documentation of the JQA oath. The only reason we know about it is because he happened to mention it in his memoirs. But not in such a way to suggest he was a rebel, more of a "for accuracy sake" and nothing in his writing suggests it was an unusual choice for that generation of presidents.

Pure speculation here, but given that Thomas Jefferson was attacked in all 3 of his presidential races (both the two he won and the one he lost to John Adams that made him VP) for being an Atheist, mixed with the fact that his time as president would have been the time he actually made his bible (by removing all the mystical parts with scissors) it would be beliable he also didn't use a bible at his inaugurations.

The other thing people take for granted, that isnt actually part of the requirements is the part about the chief justice. He actually doesn't have to administer the oath. Again we have Teddy Roosevelt and LBJ, one of whom was sworn in by US district court Judge John Hazel (TR) and the other, by US district court judge Sarah T. Hughes (only woman to administer the Oath) (LBJ). And we also have John Tyler and Millard Filmore (both by US circuit court Judge William Cranch) who like TR and LBJ came to power on the death (by natural causes) of their predecessors.

Similarly Chester A. Arthur was first sworn in NY Supreme Court Judge John R. Brady, after the assassination of James Garfield, but worries about the legitimacy of a non federal judge led to him being resworn 2 days later in DC by the Chief Justice. Legitimacy concerns also caused Calvin Coolidge to be sworn in twice, after the first oath administered by his father after the death of President Harding was rumored to be illigitamate. So he was sworn in again DC by Circuit Court Judge Adolph A. Hoehling, Jr. 3 weeks later.

Now whats worth noting is that its not clear either of the first oath's Arthur and Coolidge took were actually illegitimate. Much like Obama's decision to redo the oath in 2009 after it was botched they just wanted to play it safe. By the way the other 5 times the oath was botched  (Taft, Hoover, FDR's 3rd, Truman's 1st and LBJ's 2nd) it was not done over.

And the reason for both the confusion on who can give the oath of if a botch means a do over is the same, the Constitution doesn't say, so we dont know, even in the cases where the VP isnt being sworn in as president (as was the case in all the above) it doesn't have to be the chief justice.

That said only 1 president (other then Tyler Filmore and Arthur who never had terms in their own right) was never sworn in by any Chief Justice and the answer might be surprising since the justification for a lot of the pageantry/unwritten around the oath (and the presidency) is we are doing what George Washington did.

Now if you think about it, its not that shocking that the Chief Justice didnt administer Washington's first oath. The Chief Justice is appointed by the president, which makes having one a problem if you havnt sworn in a president yet. So Washington's first oath was administered by Robert R. Livingston, who was the Chancellor of New York (roughly the equivalent of state Supreme Court Chief Justice). But by Washington's Second term we had a Chief Justice, but he was still sworn in by Associate Justice William Crushing, instead of the Chief Justice John Jay (making Jay the only confirmed Chief Justice never to administer the oath)

And of course there is one last thing about the oath, that isnt actually required, that everyone assumes is: "so help me god". The oath is written directly into the Constitution and that line isnt in it, but Washington ad-libbed it during his first inauguration , or at least thats the usual claim.

Not much evidence supports that though, nor does it really seem any president until Lincoln actually said that . Usually the pre Lincoln presidents would end with "I so swear" or "I do", however Franklin Pierce actually ended his with "I affirm". Post Lincoln only TR is officially mentioned as having declined that specific line, opting for "and thus I swear" instead, however the national archives is only willing to confirm the line's inclusion in the Oath since FDR, however they may be referring to the Chief Justice prompting of the line and not the "spur of the moment" addition of the line.

So there you go, now you can watch the inauguration on Monday and show off to your friends.....at least until they force you to change the channel to NCIS reruns because your a nerd.

The GOP's quest to prove some people are just too damn stupid to own a gun

I know I know, another gun blog. Its not that I want to keep writing these, its that I have a general problem with felony stupid, and these days all the felony stupid people seem to be talking about guns.

Take Dick Army, former House Majority leader and former head of the financial arm of the Tea Party, and his claim that basically guns dont kill people, cars do.

"If in fact he had not been capable of acquiring the guns, he might just as well taken a car and driven it into a school bus, You can’t focus on the object by which a destruction was committed — be it a hammer, a gun, a truck, a car. Focus on the aberrance in the individuals that do this.”

Lets play a little game, its called Gun or Car, I will give you sentence, you tell me if I'm talking about a gun or a car:

Need to pass a proficiency test to use. Gun/Car?

Need to regularly renew your license. Gun/Car?

Have to pay an annual fee for mandatory insurance. Gun/Car?

Some kinds are restricted from being sold, or being taken to some places. Gun/Car?

Illegal to use while intoxicated, and cop fully within power to check. Gun/Car?

Mandatory safety regulations that must be followed or item will be taken away. Gun/Car?

All sales must be documented. Gun/Car?

Has a federal agency devoted specifically to increasing safety. Gun/Car?

Never once been used as the murder weapon in a mass murder. Gun/Car?

Oddly enough the answer to all of the above is Car.
I wonder if dick army would be in favor then of applying all those restrictions to guns. I mean if there really is no difference between the two, then why not right?Now I admit I'm proving nothing, not even correlation let alone causation. But at the same time, I'm not sure I would single cars out as my proof that regulation isnt needed. Just that last bit (no mass murders with a car) itself is bad enough. But given that cars ARE highly regulated and your using cars as your proof regulation objects doesn't work, that takes a special kind of stupid.

And now we move on the felony stupid person #2. (or persons to be fair) Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, and every other right wing moron saying Obama will be/can be impeached for issuing an executive order against guns.
I single Mr. Meese out for a reason though, the two pieces of Gun legislation Obama has passed so far, allowing guns in national parks and on amtrak undid rules Mr. Messes boss enacted. So Mr. Meese may have a personal grudge here resulting in his inability to do math. The rest of the republicans are just stupid.

See while its true that the house does have [in theory] enough to impeach the president, its honestly not likely, given that a good number of republicans have said they support [again in theory] the Obama position.

Plus to be honest, congress CAN overrule any Executive Order they choose, (hence why Gitmo is still open) , the fact that they arnt even attempting that speaks volumes about how much support they actually think they have (not enough)

But even if it happens you need 66 senators to convict, and again assuming everyone votes on party lines their are only 45 republicans. I dont see them picking up 21 defectors, nor honestly do I even see them getting the whole party, because once again a few senators on the GOP side have also said they in theory back gun control.

(and we wont even discuss how badly impeaching the last Dem president went for them or what the message of impeaching every dem president in 30 years would send)

So its not going to happen, and its a simple matter of math to figure it out. Not that that stops the felony stupid people on the right from pretending fantasy is reality.

And now finally our third and final felony stupid gun control moment. Republican state Representative Bob Lynn is introducing a bill to protect gun rights and allow teachers to carry guns in schools.

Specifically what the law does is specify that while guns will be banned for everyone else, teachers and other staff could, upon completing a training course, carry any gun they wished in the school with the permission of the school administrator.

Now remember for the next part, this bill openly states part of its objective is to loosen gun restrictions by arming teachers.

Now maybe in the other 49 states that might be true......but their is a small problem in Alaska. Under Alaska law anyone (including teachers) without a felony record can already carry a gun in school with the permission of the school administrator.

In other words,  the law that Lynn wants to pass to expand gun rights actually restricts gun rights in his state.

Yea I think when you accidentally restrict what you want to expand cause your too lazy to read the current law, that is felony stupid.

Rape AKA Republican Catnip

You know their are certain comments in life, that when someone else says it, you really just don't attempt to clarify for them.

"Hitler is a good guy" "Slavery would help get us out of the recession" ect ect.

It doesnt particularly matter if their is a tiny grain of truth or not in them. I mean look maybe Hitler really was super nice to kittens and saved thousands from being put to sleep. So yea it might be that Hitler was only 99.999999999999% evil. But thats the problem, that 99.9999999999 is clear enough reason to anyone with a functioning brain that the phrase "Hitler was a good guy" should NEVER be said even in the context of kitty rescuing.

This is a lesson apparently lost on Republican Representative Phil Gingrey, who decided basically totally out of the blue and some 6 months late to defend former Rep. Todd Akin's comments on legitimate rape while taking to the Chamber of Commerce this week.

"Part of the reason the Dems still control the Senate is because of comments made in Missouri by Todd Akin and Indiana by Mourdock were considered a little bit over the top, Mourdock basically said ‘Look, if there is conception in the aftermath of a rape, that’s still a child, and it’s a child of God, essentially.’ Now, in Indiana, that cost him the election.


And in Missouri, Todd Akin … was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’ — and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’ That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that. But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.”

He then mentioned he (Gingrey) is an OBGYN and added (also seriously women, your letting this guy look at your vagina? better judgement people, like a doctor who actually knows how it works, just saying)

“And I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things. It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right wasn’t he? But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. And yet the media took that and tore it apart.”

Now see heres the problem, this is Todd Akin's actual statement:

“It [pregnancy from rape] seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”:
So heres your first problem. Akin clearly WAS NOT referring to women who report consensual sex as rape after the fact. He said flat out "if its a legitimate rape you don't get pregnant."

Which leads to the second problem. Quoting Rep Gingrey "But the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you’re not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman’s body shutting anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak."

In other words theres Phil Gringrey saying flat out, "Todd Akin is wrong...(with the possible exception the very rare case you are supposed to be ovulating the exact second and we ignore the fact you can get pregnant 3 days or so after sex as well) which is why Todd Akin was right"

Hitler was nice to kittys. He used to shoot cats in the head. So Hitler was nice to cats.

Ok to review, 6 months after the fact some other republican has decided to defend Todd Akin's comments as correct, while admitting while doing so they are wrong.

But here's the bigger question, Why the hell would you even bother? I mean seriously all 12 of the guys in the last election who made rape comments lost, so what in god's name would convince any republican to even say the words "rape" and not follow them with the words "is a crime, always"?

And I think i figured it out.

I have two cats, and one of them LOVES catnip. As in we had a Christmas present (that we didnt know) had catnip in it. He tried to rip open the wrapping paper as soon as the thing hit the ground, and spend the rest of the day (once we removed the catnip) rubbing himself all over the toy or at the bottom of the bookshelf that we put the catnip on top of, or fighting with our other cat so he could do one or the other.

Because cats go fucking nuts for catnip.... they cant help it.

And I think its the same thing for Republicans and rape. I think its a reflex. I think a republican hears the word Rape and there is some deep unquenchable urge to defended it. I'm not even sure they are conscious of it. And to be honest, I think something it can be triggered if they heard a word LIKE rape (cape, nape, ape, drape, grape, crape, ect) or if they see a word that kinda looks like rape (rap, rake, ripe, race ect)

Because honestly I have no other explanation as to why 6 months later, for no reason at all, some republican would feel the need to defend a defeated former congressman's rape comments WHILE disproving and misrepresenting the comments, other then a deep seated involuntary reflex. Because NO ONE can possibly be that damn stupid.

(apologies to the family members of any republicans reading this, it just occured to me I should have put a warning at the top, so that your loved one wouldnt be reduced to a drooling quivering convulsing mass on the floor suffering from "rape overdose".)   

Here's your sign: GOP & Money edition

So yea for those who dont know him, for years Comedian Bill Engvall has been doing a bit, based on the idea stupid people should wear signs.

Now with all due respect to Mr. Engvall I think I'm gonna have to borrow his bit and award a few signs myself, starting with the Republican party

Turns out that for all their talk of being the fiscally responsible party, the GOP doesnt actually understand WHAT money is.

 See this is a picture that really did come from The National Republican Campaign Committee's twitter account

Any one see the problem? anyone?

Well let me help you out. This is not what 5 cents worth of nickel would actually look like or weight or how big it would be (assuming the picture was to scale):

 

We call it a nickel, but its actually 75% copper. Why? because it turns out we can make coins out of pretty much anything we want. Hell we can even make them any size we want.

Thats why in this picture the smallest coin is not worth least money:

Unless your a republican, they actually tend to throw dimes away cause something that small is useless, unlike the larger and more valuable penny.

And yes I know anyone over the age of two or three knows all this stuff. Well unless your a republican.

By the way I should probably mention at some point exactly what the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) is: Its a group run entirely by elected republican members of House of Representatives, to elect more republicans to the House. (the Democratic version would be the DCCC if anyone cares). In fact one of their leaders (fundrasing chairman) is defeated VP nominee Paul Ryan. As is the chairman of the United States House Committee on Financial Services, Jeb Hensirling (vice chairman for finance).

So you can see why its a bit distressing these guys have no freaking clue how money actually works.

See what makes the platinum "trillon dollar coin" worth a trillion dollars is because we say its worth a trillion dollars, not because its made from a trillion dollars worth of anything.  In fact the only reason its even made out of platinum is because it has to be to exploit the loop hole in the law that allows the Treasury to mint it. If it wasnt for that loop hole we could easily make that thing out of aluminum.

And by the same token we can make it as large as we want. We could make it half the size of a dime, or 20X the size of the Half-Dollar, there really are no rules on these things. Again hence why the dime, worth twice the nickle is half its size, and both are 75% copper 25% nickel.

We can easily take a 1/8th of an ounce of platinum (Which I assume might be worth say a dollar) mint that into a coin (and mix it with some copper to make it whatever size we want) print "in god we trust" and "Trillon Dollars" on the coin and boom its a trillon dollar coin, even though its only worth maybe 2 dollars.

Why because we say so. You give us the coin, we pledge to give you 1 trillion dollars (which are made on paper just FYI, so no value to them at all). Its basically just a "marker" for what you can get in exchange. And you would then take that paper money and trade it for goods and services (or use the trillion and hope they had enough change :P )

Cause thats how Fiat Currency has always worked all the way back to the days of the "colonial" the early paper currency of the New World Colonies of Great Britain (AKA the future US). Like today's money it was a piece of paper said to be worth something. Hell even back when we used the Gold Standard for our money we didnt make any money out of gold, that was what the money could be exchanged for (instead of paper), NOT what the money was made out of.

So this is not a recent or even hard development to grasp. Except for the party that shouts all the time about balancing the budget.

Maybe they actually think their is a giant stack of metal that reaches way up into the sky and is worth the entire value of the US debt and they want to balance it because if they dont, it might fall over and crush some body.....


Oh and btw the way lest people think stupid isnt contagious, FOX news just aired this : 

Here's Your Sign

Once again for those in "special class" (FOX) THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS!!!!!!

Now can we as a country all agree its time to stop listening to Republicans/fiscal conservatives about anything related to finances or money. I mean they dont even under stand what money IS, so I dont think we can honestly expect them to know how it works. 

In defense of old white men

So I dont know if your seen this or not, but it appears President Obama has a diversity problem. 

At least thats what the media would have you believe in his new cabinet appointments so far. Seriously there have been days of articles and television over the lack of diversity in the "new Obama cabinet appointments  and how that could prove the Democrats have a diversity problem, ect ect. There have even been protests by Democratic congresspeople about the new and total lack of diversity.

See so far Obama has nominated  John Kerry Chuck Hagel and Jack Lew (or is expected to) to fill spots at the State, Defense, and Treasury departments. And a lot of people are having fits because of what thes nominee's look like.

John Kerry

Chuck Hagel

Jack Lew

As you may notice they are all white men. And thats the problem. Because that makes the cabinet a lot less diverse then the people they are replacing.

Hilary Clinton

Leon Panetta

Tim Geithner

Cant you see how much less diverse the cabinet just got? I mean cant you see going from 3 white people to white people is clearly a national problem and a major story? 

I mean yea ok I get it, John Kerry has a penis as Hilary Clinton doesnt. But really is that enough to make a national story out of?

I mean I realize its been a long time since we had a white man as Secretary of state, since Warren Christopher resigned on January 17th 1997, but I'm pretty sure white men can actually be competent secretaries of state.  I'm just saying, Kerry may be an affirmative action hire, but I'm pretty sure he can do it.

And by the way to the media and all the Dem's bitching about how Obama will only be surrounded by white men who arnt representative of america, or the ones making jokes that maybe he should borrow Mitt Romney's binders full of women

I mean look how white and male the rest of the Cabinet is......

Veterans Affairs
Eric Shinseki

Health and Human Services
Kathleen Sebelius

Energy Secretary
Steven Chu 

Attorney General
Eric Holder

Commerce Secretary
Rebecca Blank

Homeland Security
Janet Napalitano 

(apologies for the crookedness of the above 3 rows. In my window its a nice 3 by 3, but for whatever reason when I publish it turns into this and I dont care anymore.) 

Cant you see the white maleness? I mean look at that total lack of diversity. Ok to be fair I didnt picture Secretaries of the Interior Ken Salazar, Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, Transportations Ray LaHood, or Educations Arnie Duncan, who are all white men, and like the 6 pictured are all going to keep their jobs

Still though we are not talking about a massive change here. The only real change so far is one qualified white woman switched out for a qualified white man. Thats not a crisis or anything that need to be examined by anyone as a "lack of diversity" or as a message about diversity, ect ect. That is just what happens on occasion.

Yes the other two white men who left are being replaced by other white men, that can also happen too. White men are occasionally qualified. Now I know the left and the media are putting massive pressure on President Obama to replace Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who resigned today (and is a latina) with a minority woman, and thats part of the reason they are pushing this story.

But thats basically all it is, lies and BS politics because they got to fill 24 hour of news.

The way I see it is this, if the most qualified person to run Labor is an old white man, appoint him. If the most qualified person is a bisexual half asian half black female midget, appoint her.

I mean if people want true equality in this country, there is a time out that NO minorities have been hired, and thats fair. But there is also a time to recognize that when  an institution appears to be race and gender blind (which I'd claim this cabinet clearly is) that that may lead to an increase of old white guys (by 1) when it turns out said out white guy IS the most qualified.

Thats just the way life works sometimes. So to anyone who thinks theirs a diversity problem in the cabinet I have a suggestion....go do your job and find a REAL news story.

"America's Toughest Sheriff" proves the NRA is full of shit.

Ok so I dont know how many of you have heard of self proclaimed "America's Toughest Sheriff" Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

IF you havnt let me help you out. Sheriff Joe has been in the news recently for being slapped with so many racial profiling lawsuits and abuse of latino's he has actually had his ability to arrest suspected illegal immigrants revoked. And that doesnt even talk about the 100+ accusations of sexual abuse of latino children that he refused to investigate, or the latino he framed for trying to assassinate him (a plot that he invented to arrest the guy)

Sheriff Joe has also been in the news because he used tax payer money to send one of his deputies to hawaii for the last year find the "real birth certificate" of President Obama, and has held multiple press conferences to announce his [lack of] finding.

But it turns out FINALLY Sheriff Joe is doing something useful. He's proving that the latest idea by the NRA  to reduce school shootings is a fraud and a scam.

Now how is he doing that? Simple he's implementing the NRA's idea and putting armed guards in every school in the country.

See according to Sheriff Joe "I support arming cops in the schools If you have a cop that's armed you don't need a teacher that's armed."

Well except not really. See when I say guard/cop, what I really mean is a 3,000 person Sheriff's posse of untrained civilians. Some of whom have criminal records.

And by the way correct me if I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me if we believe Wayne LaPierre, that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", why exactly do we now have a system where to cops are arming the criminals under the guise of making them surrogate cops?

I mean if the "good guys" start arming the "bad guys" I think your argument is irrelevant, but maybe thats just me.  

Anyways where was I? Oh yea, when I say armed, I mean with any guy they so desire, not just a pistol or police issue weaposn. The  Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) isnt providing weapons you bring your own. full auto weapon? thats cool. Shotgun? hey whatever.

Nothing to worry about, I mean they may be untrained uneducated (in terms of guns anyways) criminals “But if our lives were threatened or a child's life was threatened, a teacher’s life was threatened and we see that while on patrol, we would be prepared to take some kind of action.”

Speaking of "action" this might be the time to point out the MCSO is covering one expense.....insurance. Both for the armed posse member and anything that might result from his actions. And of course the MCSO is tax payer funded.

Which means lets say one of the members of the posse has bad aim and accidentally shoots your child when trying to stop a school shooting. Well your taxpayer dollars will go to the legal defense fund to get him off/charges reduced to accidental homicide. 

So I have to congratulate Mr. Arpiao on his ingenuity. He devised a system where an untrained criminal can take his gun to school, shoot a few people "by accident" and have the victims family pay for his defense.

Now I know what your thinking, "yea but how does any of that prove the NRA is full of shit"?

Well simple, Sheriff Joe is saying directly this is his implementing the NRA suggestion without having to wait for the slow legal process.

Now let me ask this; I have plenty of friends who own guns, several who are NRA members, (and who knows about non friends who are reading this), do any of you, even those who support putting armed POLICE officers in schools, actually think sending untrained civilians into schools is a good idea? ANY BODY? bueller?  Anyone?

I'm guessing not to many of you said yes. In fact I'd guess its next to zero.

And I'd also assume if I slapped your name on it and said "I'm implementing the Jack Daniels (or whatever your name is) school saftery plan"  Jack/you would come right out and go "Yea no. fuck no. I'm not cool with sending untrained criminals into my kids schools in the role of a cop with a gun"

Seriously who wouldnt be like "dont even fucking associate this thing with my name"?

I'm pretty sure we all would. Well except for the NRA.

See Sheriff Joe announced this brain fart last Thursday. They started implementation of the plan this Monday, and when into "full rollout" yesterday morning. And the NRA hasnt said a peep.

Not even a "yea when we said we wanted more guns in schools we assumed it would be real police.....like we suggested in our speech. And this is NOT what we want, because we do think trained police in schools will keep kids safe, not random shumks with a gun"

And its not like they dont know. If I, a 26 year old man with a bit of free time know, a multi million dollar lobbying group devoted to just this issue know.  And its not like the NRA is super popular, a poll released today shows that for the first time ever they have a net negative approval rating. So clearly they should really want to avoid bad press.

They have just clearly chosen not to give a fuck. See its possible some of those new posse members didnt have a gun and might need to buy one. Who gives a fuck that they are criminals an/or have no freaking idea to use the thing. I mean if one of them shoots a kid that just gives the NRA another excuse to call for more guns, which means more people will buy a gun (or a second gun) so its great for sales.

Because hey, really if they gave a damn about gun safety in the slightest (even if you dont agree with how they want to ensure it) you'd think they'd be a bit worried about untrained people and guns around children making them look even worse next time.

But if they care about profit and profit alone well then it all makes sense.

Double Oh 69: License to Strip.

And in this week's "your f@cking kidding me with this law right?" we have a newly proposed law by Republican Texas state Rep. Bill Zedler. Mr. Zedlers new law would require that all strippers be licensed AND have it  “conspicuously displayed” (IE worn) while preforming. And this is separate from the license the club has to have in order to employ strippers

Oh and did we mention its has to have your real name on the license?

So yea sorry to all the Krystal's Bambi's Starr's ect out there. Your now gonna have to preform under your real names of Katrina Sanders, Brooke Vanhousen and Irma McQueen. (BTW I just made those up so if your a stripper and thats your real name its a fluke I swear).

Now I suppose I should be fair and point out that Mr. Zedler did say he'd be ok with later legislation to allow covering up the real name with something, but until that passes your Shit out of luck.

Honestly though, I want to thank Mr. Zedler. I mean I know I speak for men everywhere when I say the thought most central in my mind when I have a woman taking her clothes off for me and/or giving me a lap dance is "does she actually KNOW what shes doing, or am I getting a sub par performance?"

I mean she might look great and I might get all kinds of turned on, but lets be honest. I'm no expert in the art of stripping and lap dancing. For all I know I could be getting conned and unfairly awarding boners for substandard products. And really isnt quality everything?

I'm also kinda trilled I now get to know your real name. Again I consider myself a classy guy. Honestly I dont think I should be giving you the ol "standing ovation while sitting" until I know a little something about you.  In fact I dont see why this bill stops at the name.

Maybe its just me, but I dont trust any ole girl to rub up on my dick. I want to make sure your responsible  have a long term plan for life, live in a nice neighborhood and your zodiac sign. I'm just saying I've had a few bad experiences with Leo's in my life and would like to make sure my next encounter goes well.

And look I mean you already know if I like your performance I'll be hanging out outside your bedroom at home and looking in your windows, hoping to get your attention so that I can get a repeat performance that's a bit more private. And really wouldnt it be easier just to print your address on the license and save me the trouble of looking you up on Facebook, Linkedin, Zavasearch and Google?

Although actually to be fair, while I sure Mr. Zedler is actually concerned about all those points *sarcasm* I actually havnt gotten to his real reason yet.

"They won't want to get a license as a stripper from the state of Texas. I think it would keep a lot of girls from getting involved in that lifestyle and basically wrecking their lives. This will force everyone to clean up their act. Overall, it will be a benefit to everyone concerned."

Because yea you know once a man sees you naked we know your life is over. No seriously, it turns out that when men see naked titties just our gaze causes your soul to be ripped out of you through your nipples. Also let me just say to all the naked women I've seen in my life, sorry, I know that's probably something I should have told you before hand, but you all had such nice boobs I didnt want to risk not seeing them. I'm sure you understand.

But yea seriously thats why you have sex with the lights out, so we dont accidentally see the boobs and rip out the soul.

Actually to be fair, I guess I have to give Mr. Zedler some credit. At least he's honest, he's basically doing this simply to make life harder for those doing something he doesnt like (possibly because he hasnt seen a naked woman in a while, but that's just a guess).

And of course their is the larger point here, and its an equally value one: all you hot as hell 20 somethings have no idea what to do with a body like that, lets just be honest about it.

And really who knows better what to do with the body of a hot female 20 year old, then an 69 year old man? Cause clearly he is around hot naked 20 somethings all the time, and all those extra years of experience help him know whats best, from his own days as a hot 20 something woman......

Oh and by the way,  it should be worth pointing out Mr. Zedler has a lifetime A rating from the NRA.

Basically he thinks you have the right to carry and use a gun without a permit, but not to carry and use a pussy without a permit.

Which makes sense when you think of the staggering number of vagina related deaths every year. In fact just 3 days ago a bunch of shopper at a mall were ambushed by something carrying a rogue vagina, and 4 people fell into it and havnt been seen alive since.

And people wonder why this country cant get anything done.......

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/07/4530435/lawmakers-bill-would-license-strippers.html#storylink=cpy

the law and unintended consequences: How the GOP just ok'ed the trillion dollar coin

So in my last post I made reference to what I called the "Platinum Plan" a admittedly kinda insane plan favored by a few democrats that would allow the president to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin and use it to pay off the deficit. This way with the deficit paid off we would no longer be near hitting/hitting the debt ceiling so there would be no need for a debt ceiling raise, thereby removing the upcoming debate the GOP seems to be hinging all their goals on (cause that worked out so well for them last year....just saying).

Now I admit its a crazy sounding and silly plan that I personally dont think would ever be taken seriously by anyone who could even possibly come close to being half serious about any finical issues at all. Course then Paul Krugman endorsed the idea over in the New York Times so what do I know?

The thing is, dealing with crazy sounding and silly threats that dont actually exist is what the GOP is best at (laws banning sharia law being used, voter id laws to stop non existence in person voter fraud, ect) so they are ALL OVER this thing like ban tanning lotion on Speaker Boehner.

Which brings us to congressman Greg Walden of Oregon, who is introducing a bill that would expressly make it illegal to mint platinum trillion dollar coins to pay down the debt.

Here's the catch.....you dont need to pass a bill outlawing something that is already illegal (hence the reason all the anti sharia laws tend to get tossed out it court, its already illegal). So by introducing the bill Congressman Walden has basically just admitted that he at least currently considers it perfectly legal to mint a trillion dollar coin otherwise there would be no need to ban something that is already illegal. The same will be true for any one else who co-sponsors or votes yes on this particular bill.

Now before I go any farther I want to point out, this isnt some crack pot idea or technical loophole I made up, my source for this is from Business Insider, so its not like its me pulling a gotcha.

Now see at the moment federal law grants the power to min gold silver copper and paper money exclusively to the Federal Reserve. But the various coinage acts passed over the years (especially in the times between central banks) gave to power to mint all money to the US treasury Secretary.

As it stands the US code of laws currently still includes this passage:

"(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time"

Now of course that still doesnt allow the printing of money to pay down to expressly pay down the debt, in fact in theory thats legally barred.

See article 1 section 8 of the Constitution says

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

So only congress can pay off the debt. Its one of their enumerated powers.

But when added to the 14th amendment which reads in part this:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Which means it is directly unconstitutional to not pay our debts (the end result of not raising the debt ceiling) and it is soley the jurisdiction of the executive branch to enforce the Constitution according to the balance of power.

Which means the president is legally obligated to pay the debt. The question becomes does the 14th amendment overwrite in that instance (congress being unwilling to pay to debt) Article 1 Section 8?

Now I'll be honest, who knows. Normally I suppose the president would do it and congress would sue and it would go to the supreme court and they would decide, as usually happens in these kinds of cases (the Constitution says two different things)

Of course the fact that the payment could be voided (on the claim the president never had the power to do it) after the fact, means it wouldnt likely be accepted as a payment by our debt holders as its not secure, thereby making a de facto ruling in favor of the idea congress alone can pay down the debt.

This presumably is the reason behind the reluctance of the Obama Administration to evoke the 14th amendment, they have at best a 50/50 chance of winning, which isnt enough for a secure payment.

But then we get to Rep Walden's bill. By admitted that minting platinum to pay down the debt should be made illegal, he is therefore agreeing that at the moment is is, and that, therefore at the moment the 14th amendment DOES supersede article 1 section 8.

And this is a key admission/problem. See Rep Walden's bill will not become law. The senate will kill it if nothing else. (although personally I dont think it will even pass the house). But everyone who votes FOR the bill accepts the framing of the bill, that is it is currently legal for the president to print platinum money to pay down the debt.

Which may make the president a lot more likely to actually do so, as during the inevitable court case the President could point to Walden's bill and the sizable minority or even majority of house republicans who supported it as proof that between those republicans and the democrats everyone agreed he HAD the power to do this at this moment.

Making it much more likely the president will either win, and keep the power for good, or that if he loses it will be "from that point forward" meaning it wont be allowed to happen NEXT time, but the ban on Ex Post Facto law would prohibit the ruling from being retroactive, as they is now agreement he at the moment HAD the power to do it. So any payment with platinum money would be secure and possibly accepted by our debt holders.

So to sum up, oddly by trying to stop a solution the president has currently refused to embrace the GOP may have just laid the groundwork to give cover to the president to use the very solution they are trying to prevent.

Consider it the law of unintended consequences.