So I believe at this moment, two of America's biggest jail birds are duking it out to win a presidential pardon for their crimes most fowl.
And who you may ask are these two bird brained felons? why its cobbler and gobbler, this years thanksgiving turkeys.
That's right people, here in the good ol' US of A we pardon livestock simply for the "crime" of not being humans. Usually I believe bestowing rights/things usually only given to human's on animals is behavior reserved for the crazy cat lady who lives down the street (any street really, cause we all have one near by).
yet somehow once a year, the American Public decides the proper role for the President is to impersonate the crazy cat lady, and give presidential pardons to livestock.
Too be fair though, what do you expect with a totally invented holiday we made up to reflect american values?
Now what do I mean by an invented holiday?. Well the origins of Thanksgiving trace back to the early 16th century, or 1578, or 1607, or 1619, or 1621, or 1671, or 1777, or 1789, or 1817, or 1863, or 1939, or 1941, or 1956 depending on how you chose to define it.
"Thanksgivings" started as days of prayer that were held year round pretty much as needed, and possibly multiple times per year. The first of these thanksgivings in this hemisphere was likely held by the Spanish sometime in the 16th century. The first "thanksgiving" in the anglo-american world was likely held in Nunavu Canada, by an explorer named Martin Frobisher, looking for the fictional (but at the time believed to be real) Northwest Passage. He got lost, found an Island, went a shore and thanked God he wasnt dead, then promptly booked it back to England. The first thanksgiving held in (what is now) the united states was held by Jamestown settlers in 1607. From that the first formally decreed and annual held thanksgiving was held at the town of Berkeley Hundred, whos first setters had written into its charter that the anniversary of their arrival was to be "a day of thanksgiving" every year on December 4th.
1621 is the Thanksgiving most people know about, with the pilgrims and all that. But heres the odd part, by the standards of the time, it was not actually a "thanksgiving" which was a day of fasting prayer and meditation, but was in fact a "Harvest Feast" tradition that dated back at least several hundred years, in which the days after a successful harvest would be followed by days of feasting. In the case of the 1621 harvest feast, the eating lasted 3 days, and unlike modern thanksgivings was likely held in august or September. (and for the record was not called thanksgiving by the participants, and also no turkey.)
1671 was the first Thanksgiving annually proclaimed by any type of government (and not by charter), in this case the town of Charleston Massachusetts, who declared it to be June 29th. Like most thanksgivings up to this point, it was once again a day of fasting and prayer. The first "national" proclamation of thanksgiving occurred almost a century later when in 1777 the first Continental Congress issued a proclamation on December 18th, celebrating the new nations recently declared independence. The nations first president would later declare the first truly national thanksgiving in 1789. However the tradition was not followed by most of his successors or Washington himself for that matter, and when it was was almost never in the fall.
1817 would see the first official annual declaration of thanksgiving by a state (NY) and most other states soon followed suit.....although all on different days.
1863 would be the establishment of anything modern Americans would likely recognize as Thanksgiving. With the civil war raging, President Lincoln was looking for a way to unite the Union around a spirit of national identity. But unlike previous thanksgivings, Lincoln choose instead to make this one about reflecting on the national unity of the US and the gifts bestowed upon it by god, citing the 1621 "thanksgiving" as an example both of the gifts and of the power of working together (although Lincoln himself called only for a day of prayer). Since 1863 thanksgiving has been celebrated annually, usually on the last Thursday of November as Lincoln did, however as there was still no national identity for thanksgiving (no feast basically) the timing still varied in many states, as did the activities, although those would unofficially "normalize" and resemble the modern thanksgiving over the next 50 years, with feasting replacing prayers.
In 1939, then-President Roosevelt declared the second to last Thursday as thanksgiving (although he did declare the 4th Thursday, that year November had 5 Thursdays normally in that situation the 5th would have been declared), specifically because by that point the tradition of not offering christmas deals until after thanksgiving had emerged and he believed the extra week of Christmas shopping would help get the country out of the Great Depression, thereby creating Black Friday. The Following year, he once again declared the second to last, rather then the last Thursday as Thanksgiving, again for the same reason.
by 1941 congress had had enough of FDR's date swapping and passed the first ever law about thanksgiving, which (including an amendment in 1942) finally fixed the 4th Thursday of November as thanksgiving no matter how many Thursdays November had, and made it a holiday in the process. However some states continued to hold their own separate thanksgivings until 1956, the first fully national thanksgiving.
Now what about the Turkey Pardon itself? we've mentioned both prayer and feasting, and even Black Friday but so far no Turkey Pardon. That's because even by 1956, it didnt exist. In fact of all the thanksgiving "traditions" it is by far the newest, in fact its younger then I am.
Although their are rumors and misinformation about the Pardon dating back to Lincoln, the first "official pardon" was intended as a joke by President Reagan in 1987. it would be his successor George H.W. Bush who made it a yearly tradition in 1989. While its true President Kennedy did spare a turkey (responding to a sign around the turkey's neck) it was neither a pardon or even an annual event. In fact several presidents who followed Kennedy (notably Eisenhower) would eat the turkey's they were presented with.
So basically it's only since 1989 that we have expected our presidents to be Crazy Cat Lady's, and to be honest if all it was the pardoning ceremony it wouldn't be that bad, but the truth is, its getting a little out of hand.
See the current turkey's (and many of the predecessors) were raised from birth to be pardoned, and as a result have gotten special training and diets (to former to handle crowds the latter to look "impressive") since birth. They have also spent the last week living in a 5 star hotel (as is tradition), and after their pardon will be sent to Disney land/Disney world (although to be fair Obama has opted to send the last two pairs to Mt. Vernon) to live out the rest of their days.
To be fair, at least 1 of our founding fathers likely would have approved of this, Ben Franklin did want the Turkey and not the Bald Eagle to be the national bird (now think about how that would have changed the symbolism of thanksgiving :p ), but outside of him, I think most founders (and people who werent used to it) would just find it kinda weird
So basically yea, today we celebrate the newest tradition we invented for our invented holiday. Taking birds we raised from birth to be privileged, checking them into a 5-star hotel, pardoning them for being birds, and then send them to Disney.....you know what, now that I think about it, that actually IS a reflection of current american values so maybe my criticisms were too harsh.
So with that new insight in mind: Welcome to America, where this country really is for the birds, and we actually have flown the coup. And now I need to stop squawking cause I'm out of puns, and honestly it's lunch time so I need to gobble up some food.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Ceding state power in the name of states rights
I assume everyone knows what Obamacare is right? if somehow you dont it the new American healthcare system that President Obama passed 3 years ago that the Supreme Court upheld last year. Now despite that, Obamacare hasnt actually gone into effect yet. In fact the states were only supposed to submit the "blueprints" for setting up the new healthcare exchanges last week. I say supposed to because due to the intransigence of all but 4 Republican governors, not all states are even working on a plan.
And lets be honest, if your opposed to Obamacare, that's a pretty good plan...if you never do anything to allow the plan to happen it never will.....or at least that would be the assumption. And hell it could even let you score massive states rights points with comments like this:
“This is a federally-mandated exchange with rules dictated by Washington. It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written.” (Texas Governor Rick Perry)
or this: "[Obamacare] does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support and fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government.” (Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin)
See the Republicans are objecting because the last thing they want to do is force their states to pay for a another federal government program while disadvantaging the states. I suppose if your a huge believer in states rights they make a pretty good argument.
Except for one small problem, Obamacare includes a provision that says if the states wont set up the exchanges the federal government will come in and do it for them, likely at state expense, as opposed to if the states do it on their own they will get federal funding to help them out.
Think of it like this: Two different people ask you out on a date, one says they will take you anywhere you want to go and he'll pay for it all. The other says they've already picked the restaurant, wont tell you what it is and expects you to pick up the bill.
Assuming you have to say yes to one of them, I'm pretty sure everyone would pick the first person right? Unless your a Republican Governor, in essence they are picking the second. And more ironically they are doing so because of what would be the equivalent of standing on a principal that they should never have to pay for a date.
Now I admit, so far the Republican governors have gotten lucky, Obama's a nice enough (or weak enough/not confrontational enough depending on your point of view)guy that rather then call their bluff he gave them extra time to realize what a shitty deal the picked by going with "bachelor number 2" instead of that first choice. And again to be fair, I'm sure a lot of Obama's willingness comes from the fact, he and the federal government really dont want to be bothered to go into all these states and go though all the hassle of setting up these programs.
But his patience will run out eventually. And when it does the federal government will likely create a "one size fits all" plan as quickly, and as a result as inefficiently run, as they can and then force to states to pay for it from now until forever. AKA the very thing all these Republican governors actually claim they are against, they claim they can do it better themselves.
And they could, or at least they could make the attempt, right now. They could create the plan themselves, formed directly to the needs of their state, and according to the usually rhetoric, much cheaper and efficiently then the federal government, and then get some money from the fed's to help offset the cost. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt creating a small affordable plan that fits the needs of the state, the definition of states rights?
But see for the current crop of Republican's that would be too easy, and to be honest, they dont give a flying fuck about governance of any kind, or any traditionally conservative fiscal values. What they do care about is "scoring" political points against Obama, no matter what the issue or what the cost is for anyone.
See when your entire political platform is basically the opposition platform followed by the word "NOT!" this is what happens. You cry "states rights" as loud as you can....while ceding as much power as you can to the federal government.
Because otherwise you might actually have to admit the other guy occasionally does something right....and not having to do that is more important then any "principal" "fiscal belief" or "concern about the people"....
And lets be honest, if your opposed to Obamacare, that's a pretty good plan...if you never do anything to allow the plan to happen it never will.....or at least that would be the assumption. And hell it could even let you score massive states rights points with comments like this:
“This is a federally-mandated exchange with rules dictated by Washington. It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written.” (Texas Governor Rick Perry)
or this: "[Obamacare] does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support and fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government.” (Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin)
See the Republicans are objecting because the last thing they want to do is force their states to pay for a another federal government program while disadvantaging the states. I suppose if your a huge believer in states rights they make a pretty good argument.
Except for one small problem, Obamacare includes a provision that says if the states wont set up the exchanges the federal government will come in and do it for them, likely at state expense, as opposed to if the states do it on their own they will get federal funding to help them out.
Think of it like this: Two different people ask you out on a date, one says they will take you anywhere you want to go and he'll pay for it all. The other says they've already picked the restaurant, wont tell you what it is and expects you to pick up the bill.
Assuming you have to say yes to one of them, I'm pretty sure everyone would pick the first person right? Unless your a Republican Governor, in essence they are picking the second. And more ironically they are doing so because of what would be the equivalent of standing on a principal that they should never have to pay for a date.
Now I admit, so far the Republican governors have gotten lucky, Obama's a nice enough (or weak enough/not confrontational enough depending on your point of view)guy that rather then call their bluff he gave them extra time to realize what a shitty deal the picked by going with "bachelor number 2" instead of that first choice. And again to be fair, I'm sure a lot of Obama's willingness comes from the fact, he and the federal government really dont want to be bothered to go into all these states and go though all the hassle of setting up these programs.
But his patience will run out eventually. And when it does the federal government will likely create a "one size fits all" plan as quickly, and as a result as inefficiently run, as they can and then force to states to pay for it from now until forever. AKA the very thing all these Republican governors actually claim they are against, they claim they can do it better themselves.
And they could, or at least they could make the attempt, right now. They could create the plan themselves, formed directly to the needs of their state, and according to the usually rhetoric, much cheaper and efficiently then the federal government, and then get some money from the fed's to help offset the cost. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt creating a small affordable plan that fits the needs of the state, the definition of states rights?
But see for the current crop of Republican's that would be too easy, and to be honest, they dont give a flying fuck about governance of any kind, or any traditionally conservative fiscal values. What they do care about is "scoring" political points against Obama, no matter what the issue or what the cost is for anyone.
See when your entire political platform is basically the opposition platform followed by the word "NOT!" this is what happens. You cry "states rights" as loud as you can....while ceding as much power as you can to the federal government.
Because otherwise you might actually have to admit the other guy occasionally does something right....and not having to do that is more important then any "principal" "fiscal belief" or "concern about the people"....
Monday, November 19, 2012
Another great reason never to drive in Virginia
The upside about calling your blog "random rants" is it means I'm under no obligation to only rant on politics, I can rant on whatever I like, so with that in mind its time I diversify my subject material a little bit.
For those who dont know me I live the greater Washington DC metropolitan area (and to be honest if you dont know me, that's as specific as your gonna get :p ), so I spend a fair amount of time driving on I-495 AKA the capital beltway AKA congestion hell.
And it's because of that last part that building HOV(HOT in other places) lanes around Tyson's corner (one of the major causes of congestion hell) seemed like a good idea....on paper anyway. In practice not so much. The new HOV lanes just opened 2 days ago, and in the first 24 hours there were already 4 crashes related to the new lanes as people accidentally wind up headed towards them, especially since as it turns out, there are no road signs that direct you to the THRU lanes or on how to avoid the HOV lanes
Now I know what your thinking (at least those of you who live outside DC), how do HOV lanes make you crash...just drive 100-200 ft and move back into the regular lanes. And you know what, normally, in all the places that don't physically separate the HOV lanes from the regular lanes that might work. When you have a giant block of concrete between you not so much.
But even then, things cant be that bad, I mean even the HOV has exits fairly frequently, ever other or every 3rd exit, usually by the standards of other HOV lanes in the area (395/270 ect). So you drive an exit, and get off as soon as you can, unless you have the uber bad luck of needed the one exit you passed in the HOV no harm no foul.
And again, normally you would be right, IF it cost you nothing to drive on the HOV lanes. Which in the case of these new lanes it doesn't. It costs money. How much money you ask? well that's where things get a little schemey (and I dont care thats not a real word), see the prices are kinda random, and their is no ceiling to how high the rate can go (although their is a floor of $3). And remember there are currently no signs that make it clear how you avoid these lanes, so that could be a very pricey mistake if your not intimately familiar with the area.
The company that is managing the new HOV toll roads promised traffic would move at 45 MPH minimum at all times. And lets be honest, thats kinda of an insane promise, I dont care if you live in NYC, or in fuck nowhere Wyoming, you've been caught in traffic at least once were it was moving well below the posted speed limit.
So how exactly does the company plan of enforcing its "45+ MPH guarantee"? well thats where the semi random pricing comes in. See the company is going to monitor the traffic flow and make second by second adjustments to the price. High traffic flow on either the HOV or main lanes will lead to prices to get on to the HOV to shoot up, essentially as a disincentive to keep you off of them unless you want to pay consistently inflating prices just for the privilege of driving.
Or to simply this and show why I think its kinda an evil scheme: You pay and for that you get promised 45 MPH traffic. However if the company can not deliver on their end of the bargain at that given moment the solution is to charge you MORE for a service they are all ready failing to provide. If they still cant deliver on their end of the bargain, they get to charge you even more, even if they have to share profits with the state of Virginia.
Essentially, the less service they provide, the more money they get to make.
Now yes I realize that at some point they don't get enough people using their lanes to actually make a profit, but their is a very long time when they will actually make more money with slightly less customers, and therefore an incentive not to deliver on their promise.
Just check the math: say they get 100 cars in an hour at $3 a car, they make $300 an hour. But say only get 95 cars at 3.50 an hour thats $332.50 an hour. 90 cars at $4 is 360. In fact you can use that same formula (-5 cars +50.cents) and they make more profit then the base line all they up to 30 cars in an hour charging $10 a car...which is where they break even with the base line.
So its in their best interests to fail at delivering on their promise as long as they can appear to be moving faster then the regular lanes, even if only at the point you have to choose to get on)
And what do the rest of us get in exchange for this? Well I'm sure traffic in Tyson's will get better, but as anyone who lives in DC knows, the lead ups to the first and last merges into and out of the 395/270 HOV's are some of the slowest parts of traffic in the DC area (outside the city itself). And thats true with HOV's that people know they can get into (since they are free). Now you have an HOV that no one can tell ahead of time if they want to be in our not. So likely your going to see a long backup of people hugging the lane that becomes the HOV lane, waiting to see what that second's price is going to be to decide if it's worth it or not to try to take the lanes. Which is going to result in ALOT of last second lane shifts, and of course contribute the illusion the HOV lanes are moving faster then the main lanes so people on the fence will opt to pay.
Especially when mixed in with the people who know they cant take the HOV as they dont have enough people in the car, but cant figure out how to avoid it because its not marked (see those people will both pay the HOV price AND get charged with a ticket (which goes 100% to the state), so even more profit for the state of Virginia, hence the reason I believe they didnt put up signs for the THRU/non HOV lanes) who will also be slowing down traffic at that point on the main lanes. So while the traffic in Tyson's will get better, my guess is the traffic near Rockville and Alexandra (on either side of Tyson's/ the HOV's) is about to get a lot worse.
And all for the goal of setting up a system where if the company lives up to its promise it (and the state of Virginia) makes money...and if they dont they make more money (up to a point), so all the parties with power actually have an incentive to make sure the system NEVER works as promised, and to make commutes worse in the stretches leading up to the money making part.
I really hope this doesnt become a model for the country or none of us are ever getting home from work again....unless we want to spend all our disposable income to do it.
EDIT: PS, the other scam part of this? its thanksgiving week...so they know they will get lots of traffic and therefore lots of confused drivers between out of towers and locals who haven't learned the UNMARKED way to avoid the HOV/Pay lanes.
So expect MASSIVE profits and horrible traffic.......
For those who dont know me I live the greater Washington DC metropolitan area (and to be honest if you dont know me, that's as specific as your gonna get :p ), so I spend a fair amount of time driving on I-495 AKA the capital beltway AKA congestion hell.
And it's because of that last part that building HOV(HOT in other places) lanes around Tyson's corner (one of the major causes of congestion hell) seemed like a good idea....on paper anyway. In practice not so much. The new HOV lanes just opened 2 days ago, and in the first 24 hours there were already 4 crashes related to the new lanes as people accidentally wind up headed towards them, especially since as it turns out, there are no road signs that direct you to the THRU lanes or on how to avoid the HOV lanes
Now I know what your thinking (at least those of you who live outside DC), how do HOV lanes make you crash...just drive 100-200 ft and move back into the regular lanes. And you know what, normally, in all the places that don't physically separate the HOV lanes from the regular lanes that might work. When you have a giant block of concrete between you not so much.
But even then, things cant be that bad, I mean even the HOV has exits fairly frequently, ever other or every 3rd exit, usually by the standards of other HOV lanes in the area (395/270 ect). So you drive an exit, and get off as soon as you can, unless you have the uber bad luck of needed the one exit you passed in the HOV no harm no foul.
And again, normally you would be right, IF it cost you nothing to drive on the HOV lanes. Which in the case of these new lanes it doesn't. It costs money. How much money you ask? well that's where things get a little schemey (and I dont care thats not a real word), see the prices are kinda random, and their is no ceiling to how high the rate can go (although their is a floor of $3). And remember there are currently no signs that make it clear how you avoid these lanes, so that could be a very pricey mistake if your not intimately familiar with the area.
The company that is managing the new HOV toll roads promised traffic would move at 45 MPH minimum at all times. And lets be honest, thats kinda of an insane promise, I dont care if you live in NYC, or in fuck nowhere Wyoming, you've been caught in traffic at least once were it was moving well below the posted speed limit.
So how exactly does the company plan of enforcing its "45+ MPH guarantee"? well thats where the semi random pricing comes in. See the company is going to monitor the traffic flow and make second by second adjustments to the price. High traffic flow on either the HOV or main lanes will lead to prices to get on to the HOV to shoot up, essentially as a disincentive to keep you off of them unless you want to pay consistently inflating prices just for the privilege of driving.
Or to simply this and show why I think its kinda an evil scheme: You pay and for that you get promised 45 MPH traffic. However if the company can not deliver on their end of the bargain at that given moment the solution is to charge you MORE for a service they are all ready failing to provide. If they still cant deliver on their end of the bargain, they get to charge you even more, even if they have to share profits with the state of Virginia.
Essentially, the less service they provide, the more money they get to make.
Now yes I realize that at some point they don't get enough people using their lanes to actually make a profit, but their is a very long time when they will actually make more money with slightly less customers, and therefore an incentive not to deliver on their promise.
Just check the math: say they get 100 cars in an hour at $3 a car, they make $300 an hour. But say only get 95 cars at 3.50 an hour thats $332.50 an hour. 90 cars at $4 is 360. In fact you can use that same formula (-5 cars +50.cents) and they make more profit then the base line all they up to 30 cars in an hour charging $10 a car...which is where they break even with the base line.
So its in their best interests to fail at delivering on their promise as long as they can appear to be moving faster then the regular lanes, even if only at the point you have to choose to get on)
And what do the rest of us get in exchange for this? Well I'm sure traffic in Tyson's will get better, but as anyone who lives in DC knows, the lead ups to the first and last merges into and out of the 395/270 HOV's are some of the slowest parts of traffic in the DC area (outside the city itself). And thats true with HOV's that people know they can get into (since they are free). Now you have an HOV that no one can tell ahead of time if they want to be in our not. So likely your going to see a long backup of people hugging the lane that becomes the HOV lane, waiting to see what that second's price is going to be to decide if it's worth it or not to try to take the lanes. Which is going to result in ALOT of last second lane shifts, and of course contribute the illusion the HOV lanes are moving faster then the main lanes so people on the fence will opt to pay.
Especially when mixed in with the people who know they cant take the HOV as they dont have enough people in the car, but cant figure out how to avoid it because its not marked (see those people will both pay the HOV price AND get charged with a ticket (which goes 100% to the state), so even more profit for the state of Virginia, hence the reason I believe they didnt put up signs for the THRU/non HOV lanes) who will also be slowing down traffic at that point on the main lanes. So while the traffic in Tyson's will get better, my guess is the traffic near Rockville and Alexandra (on either side of Tyson's/ the HOV's) is about to get a lot worse.
And all for the goal of setting up a system where if the company lives up to its promise it (and the state of Virginia) makes money...and if they dont they make more money (up to a point), so all the parties with power actually have an incentive to make sure the system NEVER works as promised, and to make commutes worse in the stretches leading up to the money making part.
I really hope this doesnt become a model for the country or none of us are ever getting home from work again....unless we want to spend all our disposable income to do it.
EDIT: PS, the other scam part of this? its thanksgiving week...so they know they will get lots of traffic and therefore lots of confused drivers between out of towers and locals who haven't learned the UNMARKED way to avoid the HOV/Pay lanes.
So expect MASSIVE profits and horrible traffic.......
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Cranky Old Man/2 year old boy: The John McCain Story.
So I assume everyone knows who John McCain is, US senator from Arizona, failed presidential candidate, and now officially Cranky Old Man and or a 2 year old boy.
Now whats making John McCain cranky this week? Susan Rice, Benghazi, and the US Secretary of State.
Well before the presidential election current US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced her intention to leave her post at the end of the first Obama term. Since Obama's reelection, several names have come up to replace Mrs. Clinton, one of them being Susan Rice, the current US ambassador the UN. And since Mrs. Rice's name has come up John McCain has been opposed.
See after the Benghazi attacks Susan Rice went on TV and made reference to a spontaneous demonstration being the cause of the attacks. Once her name came up as possible pick McCain said that she was “not qualified” and she herself was “not very bright.” He went on to add that:
Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent...“She told the American people on every major newscast in America. If a select committee, if appointed, clears her of any wrongdoing — besides not being very bright, because it was obvious this was not a, quote ‘flash mob.’ There was no demonstration.”
Later in the day he added:
“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.”
Now it turns out that last set of comments are rather ironic. See the same day Mrs. Rice made her comments the CIA briefing said the following: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
Now in all fairness to McCain when he made the above comments the CIA briefing was still classified so he couldnt know that.
So no harm no foul right? Mrs. Rice went on the air and repeated the information she was given that she was told was accurate, rightly or wrongly, even if the information wasn't accurate her job has never been to gather intelligence, her job is relay the information she's handed to the public. So John McCain apologizes for insulting her intelligence and accusing her of knowingly lying and we move on, and actually try to figure out why the intelligence was wrong.
Well yea sure, if your a normal person. But this Cranky Old Man McCain.
See John McCain decided instead to insist Mrs. Rice's talking points "came from the White House, not from the DNI.” (director of national intelligence/part of the CIA) and then held a press conference calling for a "Watergate style Special Committee" to investigate who knew what when, needed he claimed by the lack of briefing currently about Benghazi, and of course implied he and the two co-authors of the idea should run the committee.
One minor awkward thing, at the time McCain was speaking the Senate Homeland Security committee was at that moment in the middle of a briefing by the CIA to help determine who knew what when, including confirming the talking points were from the CIA and Mrs. Rice had followed them. Oh and I should probably mention one of the members of the Senate Homeland Security committee is John McCain.
Yea that's right, he missed the briefing to hold a press conference bitching about the lack of a briefings. And if that wasnt bad enough, what was McCain's excuse about missing the very briefing he was bitching wasnt happening? "I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," When pressed on the lack of comment McCain added "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”
In other words, how dare you point out my embarrassing moments to me and ask me about them.
Which brings us to today, when John McCain went on "Face the Nation" and was asked if he still had any objections to Mrs. Rice in light of the briefing that supported her[that he missed], to which he replied:
"Under the present circumstances, until we find out all the information as to what happened, I don’t think you would want to support any nominee right now. Because this is very very serious and it has even larger implications than the deaths of 4 Americans. It really goes to the heart of this whole light foot print policy that this administration is pursuing. " and then doubled down on the need for a Watergate like special committee.
So now not only does he not support Mrs. Rice, he actually no longer supports the idea of having a secretary of state, unless he gets to have his way and personally gets to investigate if Mrs. Rice was knowingly lying when she made mention of a spontaneous demonstration. (which literally EVERYONE Democrat, Republican and Independent not named John McCain (or Lindsey graham or Kelly Ayotte, the two cosponsors of the idea), agrees she didnt do)
So according to John McCain if he does this all of the following questions should have the same answer until he gets what he wants (which he already got) :
What is the US foreign policy? who are american allies? Who are our Trading partners? are we allowed send goods to any country at all? do we have diplomats? are we at war or peace? All those questions, and everything else the state department does the answer would be the same: "Not Applicable"
Now to be fair, McCain did offer one other alternative. Mrs. Rice could help her own case by going on national TV and admitting she was wrong on the facts and that she knew it at the time (which again she didnt, even if the facts were wrong).
So those are the two options laid out by Cranky Old Man/2 year old McCain: Either lie and admit I'm right or let me personally investigate in an attempt to find facts already found that "I either doesn’t understand or I am not willing to accept evidence on its face." (to paraphrase a guy named McCain.).
Honestly I dont know if this one man crusade against the facts the prove he wasnt wrong on something he was wrong about, is more akin to a Cranky Old Man or a 2 year old, but in either case I think someone clearly needs to put the good Senator down for his nappy.
Now whats making John McCain cranky this week? Susan Rice, Benghazi, and the US Secretary of State.
Well before the presidential election current US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced her intention to leave her post at the end of the first Obama term. Since Obama's reelection, several names have come up to replace Mrs. Clinton, one of them being Susan Rice, the current US ambassador the UN. And since Mrs. Rice's name has come up John McCain has been opposed.
See after the Benghazi attacks Susan Rice went on TV and made reference to a spontaneous demonstration being the cause of the attacks. Once her name came up as possible pick McCain said that she was “not qualified” and she herself was “not very bright.” He went on to add that:
Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent...“She told the American people on every major newscast in America. If a select committee, if appointed, clears her of any wrongdoing — besides not being very bright, because it was obvious this was not a, quote ‘flash mob.’ There was no demonstration.”
Later in the day he added:
“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.”
Now it turns out that last set of comments are rather ironic. See the same day Mrs. Rice made her comments the CIA briefing said the following: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”
Now in all fairness to McCain when he made the above comments the CIA briefing was still classified so he couldnt know that.
So no harm no foul right? Mrs. Rice went on the air and repeated the information she was given that she was told was accurate, rightly or wrongly, even if the information wasn't accurate her job has never been to gather intelligence, her job is relay the information she's handed to the public. So John McCain apologizes for insulting her intelligence and accusing her of knowingly lying and we move on, and actually try to figure out why the intelligence was wrong.
Well yea sure, if your a normal person. But this Cranky Old Man McCain.
See John McCain decided instead to insist Mrs. Rice's talking points "came from the White House, not from the DNI.” (director of national intelligence/part of the CIA) and then held a press conference calling for a "Watergate style Special Committee" to investigate who knew what when, needed he claimed by the lack of briefing currently about Benghazi, and of course implied he and the two co-authors of the idea should run the committee.
One minor awkward thing, at the time McCain was speaking the Senate Homeland Security committee was at that moment in the middle of a briefing by the CIA to help determine who knew what when, including confirming the talking points were from the CIA and Mrs. Rice had followed them. Oh and I should probably mention one of the members of the Senate Homeland Security committee is John McCain.
Yea that's right, he missed the briefing to hold a press conference bitching about the lack of a briefings. And if that wasnt bad enough, what was McCain's excuse about missing the very briefing he was bitching wasnt happening? "I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," When pressed on the lack of comment McCain added "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”
In other words, how dare you point out my embarrassing moments to me and ask me about them.
Which brings us to today, when John McCain went on "Face the Nation" and was asked if he still had any objections to Mrs. Rice in light of the briefing that supported her[that he missed], to which he replied:
"Under the present circumstances, until we find out all the information as to what happened, I don’t think you would want to support any nominee right now. Because this is very very serious and it has even larger implications than the deaths of 4 Americans. It really goes to the heart of this whole light foot print policy that this administration is pursuing. " and then doubled down on the need for a Watergate like special committee.
So now not only does he not support Mrs. Rice, he actually no longer supports the idea of having a secretary of state, unless he gets to have his way and personally gets to investigate if Mrs. Rice was knowingly lying when she made mention of a spontaneous demonstration. (which literally EVERYONE Democrat, Republican and Independent not named John McCain (or Lindsey graham or Kelly Ayotte, the two cosponsors of the idea), agrees she didnt do)
So according to John McCain if he does this all of the following questions should have the same answer until he gets what he wants (which he already got) :
What is the US foreign policy? who are american allies? Who are our Trading partners? are we allowed send goods to any country at all? do we have diplomats? are we at war or peace? All those questions, and everything else the state department does the answer would be the same: "Not Applicable"
Now to be fair, McCain did offer one other alternative. Mrs. Rice could help her own case by going on national TV and admitting she was wrong on the facts and that she knew it at the time (which again she didnt, even if the facts were wrong).
So those are the two options laid out by Cranky Old Man/2 year old McCain: Either lie and admit I'm right or let me personally investigate in an attempt to find facts already found that "I either doesn’t understand or I am not willing to accept evidence on its face." (to paraphrase a guy named McCain.).
Honestly I dont know if this one man crusade against the facts the prove he wasnt wrong on something he was wrong about, is more akin to a Cranky Old Man or a 2 year old, but in either case I think someone clearly needs to put the good Senator down for his nappy.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Why I love Dick..............Morris
For those of you who dont know me (which I'm assuming is none of you but go with me) you may not know this, but Dick Morris is one of my favorite political pundits ever. Not because he's right as much as no one works as hard as he does at being wrong, see for example his book published in 2006 about the then upcoming 2008 race "Condi vs Hilary" (which in case you were off planet or in a coma was wrong on both counts).
In fact while there are almost no "laws of politics" one of the few that does exist is that "what ever Dick Morris says the opposite will happen." For example according to the Anti-Einstein of politics, the 2012 the electoral college would be a Romney landslide 325-213. And what happened? well to use the bard of buffoonery's own words "I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker." Note by the way for those of you not fluent in speaking Dick, squeaker here is defined as "332-206" and last I checked thats a larger margin of victory then what he was predicting for Romney, so "squeaker" means "even bigger landslide".
And to be honest thats what makes Dick Morris so enjoyable, he's consistently wrong and therefore must spend most of his time climbing out of the holes he put himself in. And his excuses are awesome and usually contradictory.
For example in his day after election analysis Dick Morris said: "The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics."
In otherwords: "Who would have expected that 4 years later black/brown and young people would still EXIST? I mean come on, dont the summoning spells for these people expire at the end of 1D3 years?"
Now apparently even Dick Morris is aware of the "Dick Morris rule" that says he cant be right. Which may explain today's replacement explanation:
"As the popular vote counts emerge and we move out from under the shadow of the media spin, we are learning the real reason Romney lost. The mainstream media is pushing the story that a massive turnout among minorities and the young drowned the white male vote as America changes its demography.
But the real reason is that the whites who supported Romney didn’t turn out to vote. Just look at the fact, brought to my attention by National Review and Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, that Obama carried Ohio by 107,000 votes (some are still being counted) and that Romney got about 100,000 fewer votes than McCain! (2,677,820 for McCain v. 2,583,580 for Romney). Romney really lost by failing to turn out his base even as Obama was doing a very good job of getting his to the polls."
See, it turns out the mainstream media (like Dick Morris) is pushing this big lie about how 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout wouldnt recede and these high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay and any one who thought otherwise was mistaken.
See it turns out the REAL reason Romney didnt win isnt that at all (remember the Dick Morris rule) its that white people didnt show up. And if white people had shown up Romney would have won. But see they didnt show up because to quotethe Emperor of Ineptitude:
"Why was the white vote so low? Why did so many anti-Obama voters stay home? The immediate cause was the total failure of the ORCA system for getting out the vote. This new hi tech gadgetry had never been beta tested and crashed repeatedly on Election Day. It was supposed to target the Romney supporters who had not yet voted and to give canvassers interactive maps of where to find them and to keep them appraised if they voted. But the volunteers who were to use the system to find the voters had not been adequately trained in their use and the system itself was flawed."
Basically we couldn't win because our people are idiots and cant figure out technology.
But of course being Dick Morris, The 1 True Explanation for Why We Lost [not counting the The 1 True Explanation for Why We Lost from last week] isnt good enough. No see Dick Morris needs "The Two 1 True Explanation for Why We Lost" as in that same column he also said:
"Finally, the storm Sandy had a great deal to do with Obama’s re-election. His presidency may be its most lasting damage to our nation and its inhabitants. One voter in six cited the storm as the key factor in their decision to back Obama according to exit polls, a last minute bump for the president that was not reflected in the polls. Why not? Because there were no polls. The polling firms could not reach the affected areas during the storm. We were all flying blind when Obama and Governor Chris Christie’s display of bi-partisanship garnered votes of the Democratic ticket."
Right see Sandy made it impossible to poll (except of course for everyone who polled) so there was no way to predict that the same polls that showed Obama leading BEFORE Sandy, still showed him leading AFTER Sandy. I mean really what science would ever suggest that without a negative stimuli things would continue in the same direction they were going?
or well that would be true for MOST of us, but you see this is Dick Morris. So of course Dick Morris had his own numbers and never saw it coming, as Dick Morris himself pointed out before Sandy hit:
"On Friday, I saw the real numbers. These state-by-state polls, taken by an organization I trust (after forty years of polling) show the real story. The tally is based on more than 600 likely voter interviews in each swing state within the past eight days.
Romney is currently leading in every state McCain carried plus: Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Colorado. If he carries these states, he’ll have 228 electoral votes of the 270 he needs to win.
To win the election, Romney would then have to carry Florida where he trails by two points, and either Virginia (behind by two) or Ohio where he’s down by only one.
If he carries all three of these states and also wins all the others where Obama is now at 50% or less – Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey — he will get 351 electoral votes, a landslide about equal to Obama’s 363 vote tally in 2008."
And how did Dick Morris' real numbers hold up? Well Romney did win Indiana and North Carolina. But New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Ohio Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey? not so much. In fact in about half of those Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, Romney not only didnt come close, NO ONE expected him to win those (except some republicans who bought in the myth of Pennsylvania being in reach for the 6th straight election).
So at least now we know why Dick Morris was wrong, its not his fault. it was due to black, Latino, and young voters showing up, and then not at all anything to do with black, Latino, and young voter but white voters not showing up due to technological problems so they didnt show up in the numbers the polls predicted. Except the polls werent predicting turnout correctly anyways due to Sandy, so you couldnt trust the polls saying there would be a large white turnout that failed to materialize due to technological failures in the first place since even before Sandy they werent the REAL numbers.
So see there you are the official "Three One True Explanation for Why We Lost"
Every one clear on that?
Good me either, but I do so love to see Dick Morris try to explain why Dick Morris is always wrong.
(all Dick Morris quotes from his own column on his website at DickMorris.com)
In fact while there are almost no "laws of politics" one of the few that does exist is that "what ever Dick Morris says the opposite will happen." For example according to the Anti-Einstein of politics, the 2012 the electoral college would be a Romney landslide 325-213. And what happened? well to use the bard of buffoonery's own words "I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker." Note by the way for those of you not fluent in speaking Dick, squeaker here is defined as "332-206" and last I checked thats a larger margin of victory then what he was predicting for Romney, so "squeaker" means "even bigger landslide".
And to be honest thats what makes Dick Morris so enjoyable, he's consistently wrong and therefore must spend most of his time climbing out of the holes he put himself in. And his excuses are awesome and usually contradictory.
For example in his day after election analysis Dick Morris said: "The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics."
In otherwords: "Who would have expected that 4 years later black/brown and young people would still EXIST? I mean come on, dont the summoning spells for these people expire at the end of 1D3 years?"
Now apparently even Dick Morris is aware of the "Dick Morris rule" that says he cant be right. Which may explain today's replacement explanation:
"As the popular vote counts emerge and we move out from under the shadow of the media spin, we are learning the real reason Romney lost. The mainstream media is pushing the story that a massive turnout among minorities and the young drowned the white male vote as America changes its demography.
But the real reason is that the whites who supported Romney didn’t turn out to vote. Just look at the fact, brought to my attention by National Review and Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, that Obama carried Ohio by 107,000 votes (some are still being counted) and that Romney got about 100,000 fewer votes than McCain! (2,677,820 for McCain v. 2,583,580 for Romney). Romney really lost by failing to turn out his base even as Obama was doing a very good job of getting his to the polls."
See, it turns out the mainstream media (like Dick Morris) is pushing this big lie about how 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout wouldnt recede and these high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay and any one who thought otherwise was mistaken.
See it turns out the REAL reason Romney didnt win isnt that at all (remember the Dick Morris rule) its that white people didnt show up. And if white people had shown up Romney would have won. But see they didnt show up because to quotethe Emperor of Ineptitude:
"Why was the white vote so low? Why did so many anti-Obama voters stay home? The immediate cause was the total failure of the ORCA system for getting out the vote. This new hi tech gadgetry had never been beta tested and crashed repeatedly on Election Day. It was supposed to target the Romney supporters who had not yet voted and to give canvassers interactive maps of where to find them and to keep them appraised if they voted. But the volunteers who were to use the system to find the voters had not been adequately trained in their use and the system itself was flawed."
Basically we couldn't win because our people are idiots and cant figure out technology.
But of course being Dick Morris, The 1 True Explanation for Why We Lost [not counting the The 1 True Explanation for Why We Lost from last week] isnt good enough. No see Dick Morris needs "The Two 1 True Explanation for Why We Lost" as in that same column he also said:
"Finally, the storm Sandy had a great deal to do with Obama’s re-election. His presidency may be its most lasting damage to our nation and its inhabitants. One voter in six cited the storm as the key factor in their decision to back Obama according to exit polls, a last minute bump for the president that was not reflected in the polls. Why not? Because there were no polls. The polling firms could not reach the affected areas during the storm. We were all flying blind when Obama and Governor Chris Christie’s display of bi-partisanship garnered votes of the Democratic ticket."
Right see Sandy made it impossible to poll (except of course for everyone who polled) so there was no way to predict that the same polls that showed Obama leading BEFORE Sandy, still showed him leading AFTER Sandy. I mean really what science would ever suggest that without a negative stimuli things would continue in the same direction they were going?
or well that would be true for MOST of us, but you see this is Dick Morris. So of course Dick Morris had his own numbers and never saw it coming, as Dick Morris himself pointed out before Sandy hit:
"On Friday, I saw the real numbers. These state-by-state polls, taken by an organization I trust (after forty years of polling) show the real story. The tally is based on more than 600 likely voter interviews in each swing state within the past eight days.
Romney is currently leading in every state McCain carried plus: Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Colorado. If he carries these states, he’ll have 228 electoral votes of the 270 he needs to win.
To win the election, Romney would then have to carry Florida where he trails by two points, and either Virginia (behind by two) or Ohio where he’s down by only one.
If he carries all three of these states and also wins all the others where Obama is now at 50% or less – Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey — he will get 351 electoral votes, a landslide about equal to Obama’s 363 vote tally in 2008."
And how did Dick Morris' real numbers hold up? Well Romney did win Indiana and North Carolina. But New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia, Ohio Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey? not so much. In fact in about half of those Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, Romney not only didnt come close, NO ONE expected him to win those (except some republicans who bought in the myth of Pennsylvania being in reach for the 6th straight election).
So at least now we know why Dick Morris was wrong, its not his fault. it was due to black, Latino, and young voters showing up, and then not at all anything to do with black, Latino, and young voter but white voters not showing up due to technological problems so they didnt show up in the numbers the polls predicted. Except the polls werent predicting turnout correctly anyways due to Sandy, so you couldnt trust the polls saying there would be a large white turnout that failed to materialize due to technological failures in the first place since even before Sandy they werent the REAL numbers.
So see there you are the official "Three One True Explanation for Why We Lost"
Every one clear on that?
Good me either, but I do so love to see Dick Morris try to explain why Dick Morris is always wrong.
(all Dick Morris quotes from his own column on his website at DickMorris.com)
Thursday, November 15, 2012
And the nominees for the dumbest excuse of the week are......
....Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Marco Rubio and Charlie Webster, head the RNC in Maine.
First Paul Ryan on his losing his hometown in both his congressional and vice presidential elections
"“Well, as you know, Janesville is a very Democratic town, but I’m a Republican, But I’ve always done well here because more people saw me not as a Republican but just as a Janesville guy. When you join the national ticket for a party, you become more seen as a Republican guy than necessarily a Janesville guy. And so, I think my image, or the thought most people had in their mind of me once I joined the Republican ticket was more ‘Paul Ryan, Republican’ than ‘Paul Ryan, Janesville guy.’”
So if I understand Mr. Ryan correctly Janesville is populated by a special kind of idiot. Specifically the kind of idiot that has been voting for this guy for years without knowing what party he was in....and then when they found out being too stupid to realize he's always been part of that party and assuming that must mean he sucks now.
I mean I suppose implying your voters are morons is easier then admitting to yourself your constituents just don't like your positions on issues.
And now our second nominee Charlie Webster on how Obama won Maine:
"In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day. Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in town knows anyone who’s black. How did that happen? I don’t know. We’re going to find out." He then added later (after people got annoyed about the racism): “I’m not talking about 15 or 20. I’m talking hundreds. I’m not politically correct and maybe I shouldn’t have said these voters were black, but anyone who suggests I have a bias toward any race or group, frankly, that’s sleazy.”
2 things of note here: according to the secretary of state of Maine (who manages the election and is himself a republican) there have been exactly 0 complaints of "unknown" black people showing up to vote. Second: Obama won Maine with 56% of the vote to Romney's 41% (and 3% independent)....so thats ALOT of magic black people mysteriously showing up.
That said Mr. Webster you do win the award for outstanding racism.
And now our winner (in my esteemed opinion) Sen. Marco Rubio on why we shouldnt raise taxes on the rich
"The billionaires and millionaires that are going to be impacted by higher rates, they can afford to hire the best lawyers, lobbyists and accountants in America to figure out how not to pay those higher rates, The people that are going to get stuck by that bill are the small businesses, the partnerships, the S Corporations, that cannot hire the lawyers to get them out of it." He then added that the president's proposal would raise only $80 billion per year in new revenue, 7.7 percent of the national deficit which he claimed was not enough to make a significant dent in the debt.
So yea, we cant raise taxes on the rich, because they would still be too rich to pay taxes (that is they could afford to pay people to tell them how to avoid them) and even if we did raise taxes on the rich its not enough to totally fix the problem.
And we all know if you can't 100% fix a problem you shouldnt even try, I mean trying to make the debt slightly smaller totally isnt worth it, its either "fix it all or fuck it". Making this slightly better is just unacceptable right? i mean who wants "improvement"? we insist on "perfection".
And maybe its just me, but it seems to me the snarky answer to Mr. Rubio is to raise taxes on the very rich even higher, see eventually we will hit a point where the rich cant afford lawyers to tell them how to avoid taxes. Sure it will likely be a sliding scale, where we just have to keep taxing each individual until they hit that point. And I'd guess if we did that we would have a lot more then just 80 billion in new revenue, so we might even be able to make a very significant dent in the deficit.
I mean that's clearly the only answer to Mr. Rubio's equally dumb excuse.
First Paul Ryan on his losing his hometown in both his congressional and vice presidential elections
"“Well, as you know, Janesville is a very Democratic town, but I’m a Republican, But I’ve always done well here because more people saw me not as a Republican but just as a Janesville guy. When you join the national ticket for a party, you become more seen as a Republican guy than necessarily a Janesville guy. And so, I think my image, or the thought most people had in their mind of me once I joined the Republican ticket was more ‘Paul Ryan, Republican’ than ‘Paul Ryan, Janesville guy.’”
So if I understand Mr. Ryan correctly Janesville is populated by a special kind of idiot. Specifically the kind of idiot that has been voting for this guy for years without knowing what party he was in....and then when they found out being too stupid to realize he's always been part of that party and assuming that must mean he sucks now.
I mean I suppose implying your voters are morons is easier then admitting to yourself your constituents just don't like your positions on issues.
And now our second nominee Charlie Webster on how Obama won Maine:
"In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day. Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in town knows anyone who’s black. How did that happen? I don’t know. We’re going to find out." He then added later (after people got annoyed about the racism): “I’m not talking about 15 or 20. I’m talking hundreds. I’m not politically correct and maybe I shouldn’t have said these voters were black, but anyone who suggests I have a bias toward any race or group, frankly, that’s sleazy.”
2 things of note here: according to the secretary of state of Maine (who manages the election and is himself a republican) there have been exactly 0 complaints of "unknown" black people showing up to vote. Second: Obama won Maine with 56% of the vote to Romney's 41% (and 3% independent)....so thats ALOT of magic black people mysteriously showing up.
That said Mr. Webster you do win the award for outstanding racism.
And now our winner (in my esteemed opinion) Sen. Marco Rubio on why we shouldnt raise taxes on the rich
"The billionaires and millionaires that are going to be impacted by higher rates, they can afford to hire the best lawyers, lobbyists and accountants in America to figure out how not to pay those higher rates, The people that are going to get stuck by that bill are the small businesses, the partnerships, the S Corporations, that cannot hire the lawyers to get them out of it." He then added that the president's proposal would raise only $80 billion per year in new revenue, 7.7 percent of the national deficit which he claimed was not enough to make a significant dent in the debt.
So yea, we cant raise taxes on the rich, because they would still be too rich to pay taxes (that is they could afford to pay people to tell them how to avoid them) and even if we did raise taxes on the rich its not enough to totally fix the problem.
And we all know if you can't 100% fix a problem you shouldnt even try, I mean trying to make the debt slightly smaller totally isnt worth it, its either "fix it all or fuck it". Making this slightly better is just unacceptable right? i mean who wants "improvement"? we insist on "perfection".
And maybe its just me, but it seems to me the snarky answer to Mr. Rubio is to raise taxes on the very rich even higher, see eventually we will hit a point where the rich cant afford lawyers to tell them how to avoid taxes. Sure it will likely be a sliding scale, where we just have to keep taxing each individual until they hit that point. And I'd guess if we did that we would have a lot more then just 80 billion in new revenue, so we might even be able to make a very significant dent in the deficit.
I mean that's clearly the only answer to Mr. Rubio's equally dumb excuse.
Dick Romney rides again
So I gotta be honest, I though we had seen the last of Dick Romney after he had his campaign staffs campaign credit cards cut off during his concession speech, stranding many of them with no way to pay for cab fare to leave the building, let alone get themselves home. Cause you know the people who worked the hardest on the "Mitt Romney for President" campaign, fuck em.
Well it turns out that instead of going softly into that goodnight, Mitt Romney is doing a bit of a farewell interview tour, and of course anywhere Mitt Romney goes, his dickish side goes as well. So I guess I shouldnt be shocked that Dick Romney lives.
The most recent (and hopefully last) sighting of Dick Romney came during an interview explaining his loss. To use his words for it it was due to "the gifts" President Obama "gave away" to minority groups "especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.” “In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Now I admit as a white guy for all I know maybe president Obama actually did mail gifts and/or money to minorities and I just didnt get one, maybe i was just a hair too old? I mean that's possible right? I mean maybe that's all Mitt means.
Well except that Dick Romney continued and explained exactly what he meant by gifts:
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift, Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008. You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
So yea see it turns out making it easier for you to be healthy is a "gift and a giveaway" especially if your poor or brown. Trying to make sure you dont spend your life in debt, thats a "gift and a giveaway". Allowing you to have sex and not get knocked up is a "gift and a giveaway". Not punishing people for the sins of their parents and exiling them to a strange land they have never seen is a "gift and a giveaway".
In short, Life, Economic and Familial Stability, those are all things that you shouldnt really expect to have, and its totally due to a cheap "give away" and a dirty trick to win reelection by the president that you have them. In fact any expecation at all of getting the any kind of help getting the american dream is asking for an unreasonable "gift and giveaway".
And clearly if your white and male and 26+ these are things that of no benefit to you. See by virtue by being pale and having a rather small and unreliable organ between your legs, your basically barred from ever getting sick or poor, going into debt, or even being from another country. So I gotta say, as I just turned 26 I cant wait to be healthy for the rest of my life, and for the money to rain down upon me as well as having all my debt vanish. Cause I mean, since I'm not young/female/brown none of the things Obama's done could ever help me cause I never need it right Mitt?
Now luckily I think for the future of the GOP, some of them actually do realize that even if we disagree on how to do it, helping people achieve the american dream is a good idea. Allow me to quote GOP governor Bobby Jindal's response to Romney:
“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong. Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.
And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”
In all honesty I cant have said it any better myself. I can however put it much more succinctly: "Mitt Romney, What a Dick"
Well it turns out that instead of going softly into that goodnight, Mitt Romney is doing a bit of a farewell interview tour, and of course anywhere Mitt Romney goes, his dickish side goes as well. So I guess I shouldnt be shocked that Dick Romney lives.
The most recent (and hopefully last) sighting of Dick Romney came during an interview explaining his loss. To use his words for it it was due to "the gifts" President Obama "gave away" to minority groups "especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.” “In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Now I admit as a white guy for all I know maybe president Obama actually did mail gifts and/or money to minorities and I just didnt get one, maybe i was just a hair too old? I mean that's possible right? I mean maybe that's all Mitt means.
Well except that Dick Romney continued and explained exactly what he meant by gifts:
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift, Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008. You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
So yea see it turns out making it easier for you to be healthy is a "gift and a giveaway" especially if your poor or brown. Trying to make sure you dont spend your life in debt, thats a "gift and a giveaway". Allowing you to have sex and not get knocked up is a "gift and a giveaway". Not punishing people for the sins of their parents and exiling them to a strange land they have never seen is a "gift and a giveaway".
In short, Life, Economic and Familial Stability, those are all things that you shouldnt really expect to have, and its totally due to a cheap "give away" and a dirty trick to win reelection by the president that you have them. In fact any expecation at all of getting the any kind of help getting the american dream is asking for an unreasonable "gift and giveaway".
And clearly if your white and male and 26+ these are things that of no benefit to you. See by virtue by being pale and having a rather small and unreliable organ between your legs, your basically barred from ever getting sick or poor, going into debt, or even being from another country. So I gotta say, as I just turned 26 I cant wait to be healthy for the rest of my life, and for the money to rain down upon me as well as having all my debt vanish. Cause I mean, since I'm not young/female/brown none of the things Obama's done could ever help me cause I never need it right Mitt?
Now luckily I think for the future of the GOP, some of them actually do realize that even if we disagree on how to do it, helping people achieve the american dream is a good idea. Allow me to quote GOP governor Bobby Jindal's response to Romney:
“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong. Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.
And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”
In all honesty I cant have said it any better myself. I can however put it much more succinctly: "Mitt Romney, What a Dick"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)