Childlike Delusions of a Smug Political Preacher

I wanted to follow-up on my previous post about hate-filled "preacher" Bradlee Dean, and his political prayer to Minnesota legislators, as Dean has now addressed this "prayer" on his radio show by saying that he wasn't attacking Obama.

Rather, he was addressing something Obama has done while insisting that our country has gone off the rails and is doomed to fail unless we embrace conservativism; yet because he didn't address Obama by name, it doesn't count as an attack on Obama, though he's still attacking Obama for the same reason.

As TPM reports:

At one point, a caller from Minneapolis challenged Dean to admit he was, in fact, referring to Obama. "That's splitting hairs," Dean responded.

"I didn't say we weren't a Christian nation, Obama did," Dean said. "If you want to point the finger at someone denying Christianity in our country, you might want to talk to Obama about it, because I didn't say it."

Of course.  It's our lying eyes that are the problem, and if we don't like the attack he gave on Obama, then we need to attack Obama for it.

Code Words for Dummies

And that's one of the funniest things about these bozos: They're so stupid that they somehow imagine we can't read between the lines when they're using their barely hidden code language to say outrageous things. It's like someone insulting us in Pig Latin, unaware that Pig Latin isn't complicated and we understood every word they said.  And so they act indignant that we called them out for what they said, because they refuse to believe we could possibly have comprehended what they did.

Racists do that all the time, and truly imagine we're wrong for calling them racist because we couldn't possibly have decoded their secret racist attacks.  So when they insist that they're "color blind" and don't notice race, and use that to justify attacks on people who are discriminated against; we're wrong for calling them racist and must be racist ourselves.  After all, they're "color blind," they insist.  And their attacks on black people they don't know are based entirely upon the unknown black person's ignorant laziness, and not the color of their skin.  I mean hey, some of their friends are black...not that they noticed or anything.

Similarly, their attacks on Mexicans are because they're lazy parasites stealing our jobs and getting free handouts which aren't available to us hardworking Americans.  Again, not that they noticed the color of the people doing this, but we all know what they look like and they're not like us.  All hail the mighty code words!

It's like a child insisting he didn't eat the missing pie, unaware that his face is covered with pie filling.  Sadly, some people are simply so stupid that they can't possibly fathom how much dumber they are than everyone else; and imagine they've gotten away with something even whilst we attack them for what they did.  As it turns out, cleverness isn't for everyone.

I Believe in One Party, the Republicans Almighty

Conservatives are simply tooooo funny.  When they're in the minority, they bitch and moan about being oppressed victims, and you're inundated with references to Big Brother, concentration camps, and totalitarianism.  Yet the moment you give them a little bit of power, they turn all crazy on you and over-reach so far that you're amazed their feet are still touching the ground while their egos soar into the heavens.  But as it turns out, hubris is a bitch and these fools do all the things they claimed they wouldn't do before the election, and then act surprised when they find themselves as "oppressed" minorities, yet again.

And so it was when Minnesota Republicans made the blunder of inviting hate-filled "preacher" Bradlee Dean to give the morning prayer.  And while I do think some of the reactions to it were a bit overstated, as it wasn't nearly as hate-filled as the standard rants you can read at any given conservative blog.  But still, as far as legislative prayers go, particularly in a moderate place like Minnesota, this one was a doozy.

In case you missed it, here it is.  And note, his seething undertones only make it clear how displeased he is that he has to be this moderate.  I'd hate to hear the prayer he wanted to give.

And here's the thing: For as much as I'm sorta against the idea of daily prayers before legislative sessions, as I fail to see why the government is endorsing religion like this; this didn't offend me for that reason at all.

Because the thing is, that wasn't a particularly religious speech.  In fact, for as much as he kept referencing the Father God repeatedly, that had to be one of the least religious prayers I've ever heard.  I guess it varies by denomination, but as someone raised Catholic and forced to recite the Rosary on occasion, that really wasn't much of a prayer at all.

No, without a doubt, that was a political speech; through and through.  Sure, it was peppered with references to God and Jesus, but it was all about how liberals are ruining the country because they're not following the orders of the Founding Fathers, and how Obama is a big problem.  His "preface" to the prayer was really the meat of the thing, and then he blathered something about soldiers sacrificing themselves for America, before getting to his final point: That Obama wasn't Christian and was ruining America because he wasn't a conservative.

And for as underplayed as the whole thing was, it was the seething rage, underscored by his alcohol-ravaged voice that really set the tone.  And jesus, doesn't the man own a suit?  I wouldn't be seen anywhere in that outfit, let alone televised in front of important people.  I'm definitely of the opinion that a nice gray suit would have lessened the impact of his low-key rant.

And what's so ridiculous about these people is that they really can't seem to tell the difference between religion and politics.  It's all one to them, and anyone who disagrees with their politics must assuredly be on the wrong side of their god.  After all, he wasn't telling us that liberals were wrong for ignoring God, but for ignoring the Founding Fathers.  And while I'm sure he'd argue that the Founding Fathers were following God's commands, you'd think he would have just said that directly; rather than referencing a secular document like the Constitution.

In the future, I recommend to the Minnesota legislature that they not only insist that their daily prayer be non-denominational, but also non-partisan.  And to that, I prayer to the Lord God Darwin Almighty.  Amen.


Update: Here's a follow-up to this post, in which Hate Preacher Bradlee Dean is seen trying to deny the very thing he did.

Soft Wieners, Acne, & Angst: How Greed Can Be Good

I'd like to start this post with the caveat that I'm not Mr. Laissez Faire and completely and fully understand how greed can be bad.  There are no hidden messages of "Love the Rich" intended here and I haven't been secretly reading Ayn Rand on the sly (my supply of Hefty Barf Bags would run out before finishing the first chapter, I'm sure).  If anything, I find money to be a huge inconvenience and would prefer a world that didn't require it to get shit done.

Thus said, money gets shit done.  I'm sorry, that's just a fact.  Money is a materialized form of power, and if the rich were satisfied with their wealth and decided to live happily on what they've got, we'd all be a lot worse off than we are.  Trust me, I'm a ridiculously gifted person, yet I haven't produced jackshit.  Why?  Because I'm already satisfied with my life and don't really care about money.  It's the people with issues who get shit done, not the happy people.

Just as the Internet would have likely never been created without the helping hand of Big Daddy Government, were it not for the greed of a thousand Richie Riches, you wouldn't be reading this right now.  Argue with that all you want, but you'll look silly and most definitely lose the argument.  Even the open source cultists would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs every night, were it not for the greed of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and whoever started IBM.

Sorry, but the rich aren't keeping you down.  That's all you, pal.

Blaming Modern Science

And the same goes with drug companies.  Yes, they're greedy.  Very greedy.  And they do some outrageous things that cause me physical pain when I think too much about it.  But...were it not for their greed, they'd have no incentive to use their money to invent new drugs and we'd all be a lot worse off right now because of it.  That's simply undeniable.

Because the reality is that researching new drugs and testing them is incredibly expensive.  That's why they're doing it and you're not.  No one's preventing you from curing cancer.  It just costs lots of money and they're the only ones putting up enough of it to do it.  And if they spend all their money investing in drugs that can't earn profits, then they'll soon be out of money and won't discover new drugs. There's just no other way about it.

And again, that's not a defense of drug companies.  That's simply a statement of fact.  I'd like it if drugs didn't cost millions upon millions to make, but unless you're willing to throw away all your income on discovering new drugs, then you have ABSOLUTELY no right to complain.

After all, nobody's stopping you and your buddies from inventing new drugs.  Yet you don't.  Why?  Is it because you're too greedy?  No, it's because you're not stupid.  Well, neither are the greedheads who invest in these companies.  No one expects you to volunteer all your time and money discovering new drugs, nor should we expect it of them.

Believe it or not, Big Pharma is people, too; and while some of them are despicable people who really deserve a special circle of Hell; the problem isn't greed or capitalism.  Those are the solutions to the problem, not the cause.  And were it not for the greed of Big Pharma, we'd all be stuck with soft weiners, acne, and angst.  Call me crazy, but I prefer things as they are.

Curing Cancer for Free

And I mention all this after reading an article about a potential cancer cure that isn't getting much funding because it's a common drug that isn't patentable and will lose money for anyone who researches it.  Why?  Because modern science is expensive and it costs about $500 million to get a drug approved.  But that's not Big Pharma's fault.  That's because we don't want to make people sick by giving them worthless or bad drugs.  That's our fault for wanting drug studies to be scientific and safe.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't have $500 million sitting in my couch cushions to pay for this.  Neither does Big Pharma.  And yeah, sure, maybe the government could fund this.  Or maybe the American Cancer Society should, or the Bill Gates Foundation; which many commenters on that story attacked because they haven't ponied up the millions it'll take to test the drug.  But should they fund EVERY potential cancer drug?

Sure, this one looks more promising than snake oil, but it'd be far from the first cancer drug that fell flat after looking this promising.  And unfortunately, we can't really know if it's worthy of funding unless we, duh, test it first.  And those tests costs lots of money.  It's a catch-22 and Big Pharma's in the same boat we are.  They also would like to know the results before paying for the tests, but it doesn't work like that and they really do risk all their money if they bet wrong.  That's why it's so profitable for them if they guess right.

And the main point here is that capitalism and greed didn't create the problem.  Rather, they grease the wheels and make people do things they wouldn't do otherwise.  And that's exactly why we need good government, too.  Greed makes people do good and evil, so we just need to make sure we get more of the former than the latter.

I'm a Big Government Capitalist who wants a strong free market to give us things we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, but with the government on our side to make sure we're not getting screwed.  And that's what works best for everyone; including the greedheads.

One-Sided Delusions of a Libertarian

One of the most annoying things about libertarians is when they decry laws they believe infringe upon our liberty and insist that we don't need them because the problems those laws fixed are no longer problems.  Like child labor laws.  Apparently, we don't need child labor laws because child labor laws fixed the problem of child labor.  And so these laws only serve to steal our liberty from us, because they worked.

And I'm like, huh?  What??  We don't need laws if they work?  And hey, I suppose for the sake of argument that I can see how we might not need these laws anymore, under the assumption that fixed problems never come back.  I find that ludicrous, as we still have people who violate labor laws and pollution laws and anti-discrimination laws when the laws are in place; and can only imagine this would get significantly worse without the laws.

Besides, how are labor laws an infringement of our liberty, unless people were wanting to do these things?  I mean, if the government threatens to punish me if I engage in Behavior X, my liberties haven't actually been infringed upon unless I was intending to engage in Behavior X.  And if no one is planning to engage in Behavior X, as libertarians claim is the case, then no one's rights have actually been infringed upon.

Sure, theoretically my right to employ ten year olds in my steel factory have been infringed upon by child labor laws.  But this isn't actually a problem unless I was planning to do so.  Call me crazy, but I'd rather have laws to prevent real problems than to repeal laws to preserve theoretical ones.  Either the government is infringing upon our liberties by preventing a problem that would occur without the laws, or we don't need the laws and our liberties aren't being infringed upon.  You can't have it both ways.

But still, on a theoretical basis, the idea that we've now fixed these problems and we're never going back is a point I can comprehend, even though it has no application in reality.

Ancient History

And then we've got Ron Paul, who doesn't just believe that we don't need the Civil Rights Act any longer, but that we didn't need it back in 1964 because those problems have now been solved.   No, seriously.  He said that.

Here's the transcript, from Hardball:

Matthews: I once knew a laundromat when I was in the Peace Corps training in Louisiana, in Baker, Louisiana. A laundromat had this sign on it in glaze, ‘whites only on the laundromat, just to use the laundromat machines. This was a local shop saying ‘no blacks allowed.’ You say that should be legal.

Paul: That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.

Matthews: Because it's been outlawed.

Paul: Segregation on buses was always done by law, so it was a culture.  That's over and done with.  Why do you want to go back to ancient days?

Matthews: Because you want it to come back.

Paul: It's past.

Ahh, of course.  And since we don't have these problems any more, Ron Paul wouldn't have supported the law that made the problems go away.  And it's dwelling on the past for us to believe that this law was necessary or good.

But of course, it's not Chris Matthews who wants to go back to ancient days.  That would be Ron Paul, who's lamenting the infringement of liberty upon laundromat owners who are now forced to allow darkies to use their machines.  Not that he'd say that, but the fact that he wouldn't answer the question suggests that even he realizes how ridiculous his position is.

Government isn't the Only Problem

In Paul's defense, he makes clear that he opposes Jim Crow laws, and identifies them as bad government..  So he scores a point for that.  And I honestly don't believe he's a racist, as I feel he genuinely believes that property rights trump civil rights, and that the free markets will somehow magically fix these problems; even though that obviously didn't happen in the past.

Somehow, libertarians fail to appreciate the fact that money isn't the only motivator in life; or understand how racism can make racists richer.  But it's pretty simple: If only white people can get good jobs and eduction, then they'll have more money and power than if they have to compete with non-whites.  That shouldn't be complicated, yet libertarians seem to miss this point entirely.

Moreover, his ideological demands disallow him from admitting the reality: Racism wasn't just from the government.  Jim Crow laws institutionalized this racism, but as he said, it was the culture.  And that culture also had rampant discrimination in it by private individuals.

And so Matthews' question about the laundromat was entirely valid, yet Paul couldn't answer it.  He knew his answer would be crazy and offensive, so he refused to answer at all; insisting that it was "ancient history" and "the past."  Uh, Paul?  You're 75 years old.  You were 29 when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.  This isn't ancient history.

Shorter Ron Paul: Property Rights Superior to Civil Rights

And the problem Ron's having is a problem all delusional Republicans suffer from: Their answers only work if they look at the one side of the coin, while ignoring that the other side even exists.  Because yeah, it is kind of messed up that the government can force businesses to serve customers they don't want to serve and I suppose this is a violation of their property property.

And yet...there was also another problem we were dealing with: The violation of civil rights.  And this problem was perpetrated by both the government and individuals, and was a significantly worse problem than the violation of the rights of racists to refuse to let black people use their washing machines.  And so we're to imagine that the property of white people takes precedent over the lives of black people.  Not that Paul would deny the right of black people to discriminate against white people; but I fail to see how that fixes his dilemma.

So Paul is forced to ignore the bigger problem and focus on property rights and infringement of liberty.  And while he rightly attacks government-enforced discrimination, he simply must ignore the problems of white-only laundromats and water fountains and pools, or the whole not-hiring-black-people thing or letting them go to our schools and join our clubs.  And his best response is a nonsensical one about ancient history, as if the problems of segregation magically solved themselves.

Delusions of a Paul Person

And one final point I'd like to make about Paul is the delusional state that Paul and his followers live in, where they'll insist that he's not more popular because the media ignores him; in complete defiance of reality, which has him on television on a regular basis.

I recently read a rant from a Paul person making such a claim on the very night I happened to catch Paul on Anderson Cooper's show, repeating nonsense with very little pushback from Cooper.  It's as if we're to imagine that Ron Paul has a right to have a platform from which to speak, and anyone who disagrees with him is oppressing him.  But since Paul's positions only make sense if they're not questioned, I'm sure it seems unfair to have people question him because it exposes libertarianism as the charade it is.

And then there's Paul's belief that Matthews' question was intended to trap him into being labeled a racist.  Because yeah, had Paul answered the question truthfully, it would have put him in the position of supporting racism.  But...that's not Matthew setting a trap.  That's because Paul's position supports racism. And if people will reject Paul if they hear him say his position on civil rights, then that's what should happen.

And the problem is that you don't get to pick and choose how your argument is applied.  This is reality, not some late night bull session at the dorms.  And if we're discussing your beliefs, we have to consider all of the implications of your beliefs, not just the ones that support your position.  But libertarians do this all the time.  It's not a practical philosophy at all, and only works as long as you focus on the areas that work.  And you're just a brainwashed fool if you suggest otherwise.

And so the Paul people imagine that there's some grand conspiracy keeping Paul down, by refusing to put him on TV and then trying to trap him when they do put him on.  But the only conspiracy here is the one perpetrated by their own delusions.  And so they'll spend all their time focusing on one side of the coin, while insisting that it's a trick to consider that the coin has two sides.

Panderer for President

When someone hires you to do a job, you work for them. You do what they say and you execute policies even if you disagree with them.  Not talking about anything unethical, necessarily; but sure, yeah, you're likely to cross even a few ethical lines, as long as it's not too egregious.  As their employee, you're obligated to do what they ask of you to the best of your ability, or you should step aside and let them hire someone else. To do otherwise is morally irresponsible.

But for some reason, we expect our politicians to be different. To actually believe in the policies they write and execute. Why? Whom amongst us believes in every policy we fulfill in our jobs? If the boss tells you to do some lamebrained policy that annoys customers and creates inefficiencies, you do it. Because he’s the boss and he said so. We do it all the time and we don’t have a problem with that.  Life simply couldn't work if people only did things they believed in.

So…why do we expect our politicians to be any different? We’re the boss. They’re our representatives.  Our employees.  They need to do what we say, even if they don’t believe in it. And frankly, I’d rather have a politician who does that. He should represent OUR beliefs, not his own.

Romney v. Romney

And this all ties to Mitt Romney's big problem.  I mean, besides that his name is Mitt.  I mean, really.

As things stand, Mitt's one big accomplishment of passing universal healthcare in Massachusetts is the biggest thing holding him back.  That wasn't the case last time around, as his big problem then was the whole Mormon thing.  Well, plus that the man's not particularly bright, has only one term as governor on his political resume, had a horrible economic record as governor, and is stuck in a political party that's gone batshit crazy.  Plus, his name is Mitt.  I mean, come on.

And so Mitt gave a dumb speech yesterday that was mocked by Democrats and lambasted by Republicans.  The latter because Republicans realize that healthcare mandates are pretty much the only weapon they've got to fight Obama with; seeing as how all the race baiting and whistle-calling still seems to be blowing up in their faces for some odd reason.

Sure, Republicans from Nixon, to Bush Sr, to Newt Gingrich, and many many others once supported mandates.  But now that Obama used mandates in his plan and all the Obamascare lies about Death Panels have been laid to rest, mandates are all they've got.  And that means that Mitt's got mandate problems.  Not because it was a dumb idea, but because it was a smart idea and he's trying to woo dumb voters.

Mitt as Technocrat Employee

So my response would be the smart one.  Mitt should have explained that he passed universal healthcare with mandates in Massachusetts because MA is a liberal state and that’s what they wanted. And then he could pivot and say that he opposes Obamacare because America is a conservative nation and doesn’t want it.

Sure, the bit about America being too conservative would be a lie, as each of us really do want good healthcare.  But the main part is the truth: Mitt supported universal healthcare when his constituents wanted it, and he opposes it now because GOP primary voters oppose it.  And that’s not “flip flopping” or political pandering. That’s what we should want. We shouldn’t want an ideologue who forces his ideology on a resistant public. We should want smart guys who give the boss what the boss wants.  And if he gets a new boss, it's ok to support new policies.

Because the reality is that this is what most politicians do anyway. Sure, there are always a few true believers, and we consider them to be nutjobs.. But most politicians just want to be in politics and will support whatever they need to support to stay in office. And as much as that’s a problem, it’s only because they lie about this and pretend to be ideologues. That makes no sense.

We need to get out of the True Believer frame of mind, and move into the 21st Century by hiring people who are open about their desire to give us what we want.  Like Obama.  Giving voters what they want is what democracy is all about. None of this is personal. It's a job.  Sure, we could spend all our time trying to find the people whose beliefs match the policies we want, or...we could hire a guy who will give us whatever policies we want, regardless of what he believes.  What a crazy idea!

Again, that's what most politicians do anyway.  Is it really a problem if they're honest about it?

A World of Burnouts

What amazes me most about this video is not that this man did this strange thing.  No, people do strange things all the time and there's nothing particularly impressive about it.  What amazes me here is that all the other people seemed to know what to expect from him, and knew the rules of it.  Like they do this sort of thing all the time.  They even had some sort of cage setup, as well as referees and staff to facilitate the whole thing, so this was clearly well thought out ahead of time.

At the end, one man proudly exclaims "We have a winner."  And no one seemed to dispute that.  No one was like, "Wait a minute, you haven't heard my burnout, yet."  No, everyone seemed to be in agreement that what this man did was simply the best at whatever it is they're trying to do. And he was drinking a beer, no less.  As the man says, it's not as easy as it looks; yet this guy makes it look so easy.

And of course, the title of this YouTube video is: THE BEST bad ass Harley burnout - no comparison - with a beer, so it seems that yet another person has the capability of judging burnouts, in such a way that they can positively identify this as the BEST, I can only assume that they're right.  Make sure to put it in full-screen and crank up the speakers.  It's Harley time.



So...am I mistaken, or are all these people breathing in rubber-smoke?  Is it not the burning rubber that's making all that smoke?  And if it is, isn't that obscenely dangerous for all those people to be inhaling for so long?  And might that explain why they all seemed so burnt out?  I mean, really.

That said, I will admit, it was a pretty impressive burnout.  Not that I have anything to compare it to, but it was still pretty cool.

Goofus and Gallant Governments

Looks like Obama's hostile takeover of the banking industry continues unabated as news hits of the Justice Department suing Deutsche Bank for writing bad loans they promised were good.  According to the government, a third of their loans have now defaulted.  And so now the government is suing because the lender hadn't done due diligence and lied about it.

And that, of course, is good government.  Yes, the question remains why the government is backing bank loans anyway, as it seems like it'd be a lot cheaper and easier if the government lent the money themselves.  But that's a subject for a different post.

Here's the line that stuck out for me:

As far back as 2003, a HUD audit found that MortgageIT hadn't met basic standards of quality control. In response, the company assured the government that it had changed its practices. But, according to the complaint, that wasn't true.

And that, of course, is bad government.  The government identified a serious problem.  Told the bank about it.  The bank promised that they'd do better, without changing anything.  Seven years later and the taxpayers are bailing out the bank for $1 billion, while the bank gets to keep their profits.  Uh, no.  That's not working for me.  If a bank wants to make a loan, the bank needs to back the loan, period.  I see no reason why we need some greedy banker as a middleman, particularly not when his interests are so disaligned with our own.

Otherwise, I'd like to see HUD directly offering loans directly.  They could even work with Treasury to automatically deduct payments each month, and it'd include a small amount for mortgage insurance; in case the homeowner loses their job and can't pay.  It could even be tied directly to their unemployment benefits, with the homeowner having part of their unemployment garnished, but significantly less than the home payment would be.  This really shouldn't be too difficult.

And, hmm.  I wonder who was in charge when HUD blew it...

The Genius of Bush

Osama's death has brought cries of me-me-me from Republicans who cringe at the idea of Obama taking credit for something as manly as killing Osama bin Laden have brought Bush back to the table; like the disgraced carcass of a wannabe turkey at Thanksgiving.

And I happened to stumble upon a media lap-dance Republican Stooge Fred Barnes gave to President Bush over at the Weekly Standard, back in September 2006.  Now mind you, this is a mere two months before the GOP got shellacked in the mid-terms, and perhaps when Osama was hunkering down in his compound in Abbottabad.

Here is the entire first paragraph:

WE NOW KNOW WHY the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism. Here's how President Bush explained this Tuesday: "This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."

Oh, well then.  That's why Bush didn't make Osama the main goal: Because it didn't fit his strategy.  In other words, he picked this strategy because it fit his strategy.  Right.  That explains everything.  Of course, if I got paid what Fred Barnes got paid, I'd probably report drivel like that, too.

And of course, as it turns out, it didn't take 100,000 special forces stomping around.  But who's counting.

Find Terrorists ???  Profit

Bush then goes on to impart his knowledge on combating terror warfare.  It's a surprise West Point doesn't invite him over to lecture on the topic.

The way you win the war on terror is to find people [who are terrorists] and get them to give you information about what their buddies are fixing to do.

Really?  That's what we needed to do to win?

Let's make a checklist:

Find Terrorists
Get Their Information
Find More Terrorists

Of course!  That's what we needed to do: Find terrorists so they can help us find more terrorists.  Wow, it's so simple!  I can't believe it didn't work.  Because we all know there's a finite number of terrorists, and once you've found them all, you win!

Institutionalizing Actions

And here's one for you:

It's really important at this stage . . . to be thinking about how to institutionalize courses of action that will enable future presidents to gain the information necessary to prevent attack.

How to institutionalize courses of action.  Indeed.

Fortunately, Fred decodes this into human speak, writing:

This, presumably, would include the use of secret prisons, tough but legal interrogation techniques, a ban on lawsuits against interrogators, electronic eavesdropping, and monitoring of bank transfers, among other measures.

But of course, by "legal interrogation," they mean as they define what's legal; making the word "legal" entirely superfluous.

And, what?  Ban on lawsuits against interrogators?  What the hell for?  Of course you should be able to sue your interrogator.  After all, if he didn't do anything wrong, he shouldn't have anything to worry about, right?

Fight the Aura!

And here's perhaps the saddest part:

I know exactly what's in the news.  I listen to a lot of people. I've got smart people around me. And they can march right in here--this Oval Office can be slightly intimidating, but I've got people here who can fight through the aura and say, 'I think you're wrong. I think you're right.'

Hear that?  He's got smart people.  People who can fight through the aura to tell him he's wrong as well as when he's right.  Well, that's good to hear.  Because I've long had trouble with people who were simply incapable of fighting my aura to tell me when I'm right.  It's good to know he didn't suffer that problem..

Of course, you read stuff like this and you start to wonder...

At the outset of the interview, which occurred the morning after his speech to the nation on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bush declared: "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."

...perhaps they didn't fight enough.

IslamoNihilist of the Century: Osama Bin Laden

Crossposted at: The American Nihilist

It is with great joy and femininity that I humbly announce the brilliant and proudful martyring of a supreme nihilist leader, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.  Born Lewis Herschwitz in Queens New York, he quickly rose the ranks of nihilism under the tutelage of The Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright before being assigned the greatest role of his life: Playing his Eminence Osama Bin Laden, Islamonihilist Extraordinaire.

It started out as a simple plan: The Soviet Union would pretend to invade Afghanistan, in order to create instability so our Islamonihilist agents The Taliban could instill terror and Sharia Law across the land; to punish the Christian God, who we hate.  Meanwhile, the stupid capitalist imperialist American pigs would naively funnel billions of dollars of weaponry and training to our Islamonihilist buddies led by Herschwitz, while we secretly manufactured heroin which we used to buy votes in American inner-cities, to keep them all docile, lazy, and stupid; just as FDR suggested we do.

Little did we know that Herschwitz's character would prove so popular that the Muslim sheep would official anoint him Grand Poohbah of All Muslims; repeating the success we had with our previous Islamonihilist jihadist, Tom Lawrence.  And with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tupac Shakur, Hamas, and ACORN, Osama Bin Laden's nihilist reign of terror shook the world from coast to coast.  And now he has achieved his greatest reward, supreme martyrdom; and at the hands of the High Holy Highest Barack Hussein Ayatollah Ayers Bin Obama; thus completing the circle, just as Nietzsche had foretold. After all, nothing is more nihilistic than sacrificing your life for nothing, especially if it was done by someone on your own team.

And so we salute you and your martyrdom, Comrade Herschwitz of Queens.  May all your like-minded allies soon join you in Nihilist Heaven.  Their rewards can't come soon enough.  As for the rest of us, we will celebrate by giving our weekly gruel rations to our pets while we flagellate ourselves with synthetic beef jerky.  It's what Bin Laden would have wanted us to do.

The Tyranny of Founders

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) at a subcommittee hearing on defending DOMA:

No one can seriously believe that the constitution's authors intended to create a right to same-sex marriage.

i remember hearing repeatedly during the Bush years that the Constitution wasn't a death pact.  Yet here we are, with Republicans insisting that we're entirely bound by what they imagine the Founding Fathers intended for us, as if we're not allowed to have any say over our own society. 

Does democracy mean nothing to them?  Is the Will of the People truly meant to be subservient to the invisible hand of the Founding Fathers and what we interpret their wishes to be?  Perhaps if that were the case, the Founding Fathers might have thought to have written that into the Constitution or something; along with the part about how our laws need to be based upon the Bible and how the government is allowed to take away the liberties of non-Christians and anyone who might sympathize with them.  Somehow, none of that was written into my Constitution.

The Fine Line Between Crazy and Crazy

I read a story at an atheism website titled Loopy Christian College Kid Stabs Himself at Atheist Gathering to Prove God Exists, about a guy who stabbed himself in the hand in front of an atheist group as a way of proving the existence of God.  Now obviously, the guy's crazy.  I mean, duh.  I don't care who you are, when you're stabbing yourself in the back of the hand to prove a point, you're not dealing from a full deck.

But what's odd is reading the comments there.  At first, the general consensus is that the guy is crazy and worthy of snark.  Here are the first three comments:

"Okay, I know I’m a bit slow but could someone please explain just how the fuck stabbing yourself in the hand with a pen proves the existence of a god, ANY god?  These people really are loopy, I sometimes wonder if there was a case for eugenics when I read this sort of shit."

"I know, Graham – lol – one word, KNOB!!!!! "

"Well he certainly convinced me…..that religion makes people incredibly stupid."

But soon, there was a change in the tone of the comments, from snark to pity.  And the later consensus is that the guy has a mental illness and needs help.  And again, well duh.

Too Crazy to Insult

And my question is: How is there a difference between "Crazy religious fundie" and "mentally ill guy who needs help"?  As if it's ok to make fun of a crazy person, as long as they're not TOO crazy.  And I see this same thing with attacks on stupid people.  As if it's ok to make fun of people for being stupid, unless they're TOO stupid; in which case we pity them and refer to them with the euphemistic "mentally challenged."

And I've just never understood that.  Because no one wants to be stupid or crazy.  And anyone who is stupid or crazy is obviously too stupid or crazy to know any better, otherwise they wouldn't be that way.  That just goes without saying.

And of course, there is no specific line that says one guy is "crazy" while another has a mental illness, or one guy is stupid and the other "mentally challenged."  We're all part of a continuum of the same thing, and one guy's average intelligence is another guy's moron.  No matter how smart you are, there's always someone else who thinks you're an idiot; and he might be right.

And it's fun to make fun of people who do and say crazy shit.  It's how we cope with the crazy shit that goes on every day.  And as long as the people involved don't get their feelings hurt by it, it's all in good fun.  But we need to stop pretending there are huge distinctions between the people we mock and the ones we pity.

Crazy Is as Crazy Does

When Michele Bachmann recites crazy stuff that displays her immense ignorance, yes it's funny and we'd be wrong to let it go unchallenged.  But she should still be pitied, as she's too stupid and crazy to know any better; and the real problem isn't that she's ignorant, but that she was put in a position of power.  Unfortunately, she's too stupid and crazy to know any better and apparently imagines she has some chance at becoming president.  And that's yet more evidence of how stupid and/or crazy she is.

It's not as fun to think this way, but we should all be pitied.  We're all humans and we all have our failings.  We all say stupid stuff and we're all crazy.  The only distinction between us is how functional we are with our stupidity and craziness. Some people simply lack the tools required to function properly with what they've been given, and sometimes they crack and do horrible things.  And once we realize that, we get closer to being able to help them before they crack.

There is no line that says one guy is sane, another crazy, and yet another mentally ill.  We're all in the same boat and we all need a helping hand.  And the ones we fear most are the ones that need the most help.  But we all need help at some point or another.  It's still ok to snark at the stupid and crazy things people do, but that doesn't permit us to neglect our duty to help these people when they need it.  And with any luck, the stupid crazy people will soon be smarter and saner, and will snark at their past indiscretions along with us.

Correction: Obama Greater Magician Than Assumed

Just a quick update to my earlier post Obama the Magician, about how the Whitehouse used smoke & mirrors to make a $14 billion spending cut look like $38.5 billion to the Tea Partiers who really don't know what they're doing. 

It looks like the early report I was relying upon was, in fact, mistaken.  The $38.5 billion in spending cuts Tea Partiers were unhappy to accept apparently only amounts to $350 million in actual cuts this year.  And as an added note, the four "czars" they smugly cut were unfilled positions.  Yet more smoke & mirrors to satisfy bozos whose ignorance is only exceeded by their incompetence.

Could someone please show me the evidence that Obama doesn't play 50-Dimension chess, please?

Wall Street to Boehner: Don't Fuck Around With Default

In my previous post, I suggested that Republicans wouldn't seriously attempt to use the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool, because Wall Street is easily frightened and wouldn't even want to hear a serious threat of us defaulting on our debts; let alone allowing them do it.  As usual, I know what I'm talking about and the evidence once again proves it.

Politico:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has had conversations with top Wall Street executives, asking how close Congress could push to the debt limit deadline without sending interests rates soaring and causing stock prices to go lower, people familiar with the matter said.
[....]
The Wall Street executives say even pushing close to the deadline — or talking about it — could have grave consequences in the marketplace.

“They don’t seem to understand that you can’t put everything back in the box. Once that fear of default is in the markets, it doesn’t just go away. We’ll be paying the price for years in higher rates,” said one executive.

The Tea Party might be in the driver's seat, but Wall Street still owns the car.  There won't be a government default.

And this is my biggest problem in life: I already know everything and nothing comes as a surprise.  It's a blessing and a curse, I suppose.  But I'm bored.  Terribly, terribly bored.

Reading the Clean Bill Tea Leaves

On my last post, longtime reader Betsy asks why the media was insisting that Obama and Democrats got rolled before they even knew the details of the shutdown deal, as well as wondering if Obama will tell Republicans to go to hell regarding negotiations over the debt ceiling, as he should know they won't screw with it. I don't have time for details, as it's tax season and I'm up to my eyeballs right now, but figured I'd share my comment as a new post.

First off, the reason the pundits and talkers speculated about who got rolled before we even knew the details is because they're idiots who are paid to talk, whether or not they know what they're talking about. If they sit there and say "I don't know, let's wait for the details," they get fired and replaced by people who don't require facts to substantiate their speculation. Like it or not, television news is considered by their corporate owners to be in the entertainment industry, and they're much more concerned with ad revenues than truth.

As for the debt ceiling, the Whitehouse has already told them to go to hell, repeatedly. But they did it nicely, by insisting that they want a "clean bill." That's polite-talk for "go to hell, you're not screwing with this one." Had they merely said it once, it wouldn't mean much. But every time it comes up, the Whitehouse keeps insisting they want a "clean bill," which means there won't be any negotiating.

The government shutdown was different, as the Tea Partiers hate the government and would have been just as happy to see it shut down, as they don't like what it does anyway. For them, the negotiations were simply the price they'd be willing to accept in order to not get what they wanted anyway. It'd be like if we were demanding that oil companies stop drilling in the Gulf, but were willing to accept something else in return.

But the debt ceiling is different. The GOP is clearly jockeying for position to get something out of it, but the Whitehouse keeps repeating "clean bill," which means they won't even discuss it. And since Wall Street is made of herd animals who are easily frightened because they're dealing with powers they don't understand, they won't even want to hear talk about a default, and are likely to be putting the kibosh on this already. So I'm fairly certain that Republicans already know they can't play this game for long.

And the one thing that could ruin this would be for Obama to tell them to go to hell, as that'd force them to do something about it, to show that he can't talk to them that way. And so we're stuck reading tea leaves, in order to understand what's really going on with our lives. But in this case, "clean bill" is pretty straightforward and I'm fairly confident that we'll get one.

Obama the Magician

The thing hurting Obama the most with progressives is speculation.  If a report comes out that is negative against Obama, it's assumed to be true.  Why?  Apparently, because of all the other reports that were speculated to be true.  And if it's possible that Obama's doing something as bad as Republicans, then we should take it for granted that it's as bad as what Republicans would do.  Why?  Because of all the other reports that are imagined to be true.

But what happens when the dust settles, and it turns out that the initial report was wrong?  I don't know.  By the time that happens, they've moved on to the next thing that Obama might be doing wrong; and the past wrong is added to the giant pile of wrongs, none of which are revisited once the truth is known.  And if you have one report that says Obama likes kittens and another report that says he eats them, we'd be fools to not add kitten eating to Obama's list of sins.

And one of the worst things Obama can do, apparently, is to negotiate with Republicans.  It's taken as a given that he's a horrible negotiator who gives Republicans everything they asked for, all in the name of kumbaya bipartisanship.  And that's assumed because Obama refuses to insult Republicans, but instead, pays lip service to bipartisanship and Republican sincerity.  Even subtle jabs at Republicans are treated as compliments, because they weren't rude enough.

And no matter how good the deal looks for us after the fact, it was already assumed to be yet another defeat; which is to be added to the heap of defeats Obama handed us, very few of which can be discussed in any actual detail.  And that's because these are only "defeats" if you assume it was ever possible to get everything we wanted. 

So getting insurance for millions was worthless because we didn't get a public option, which was never going to be the public option progressives were imagining they were getting anyway.  They had their pony plan.  Obama didn't deliver a pony.  End of story.  Sure, his plan looks nothing like what McCain/Palin would have given us, but he gave them everything they wanted.

Who Rolled Whom?

And so it is with the recent brouha over the government shutdown budget talks.  It was taken as a given that Obama was being rolled and should have bluffed by calling the Republican's bluff that they weren't bluffing about.  And it should only be assumed that we got the worst deal possible, while giving them everything they asked for.  Why?  Because that should always be assumed, even though it's never happened.  Apparently, if Republicans get anything, it means they got everything.  It's as if words just don't mean anything.

But...if recent reports are to be believed, it appears that Republicans got rolled; as $38.5 billion in spending cuts only consisted of $14.7 billion in actual cuts.  The rest of the cuts were achieved with smoke & mirrors, including the removal of funds that weren't going to be spent anyway.  And that makes sense, as Republicans really aren't that bright; and Tea Partiers especially so.


A month ago I wrote a post I never posted about Obama's strategy in proposing spending cuts as he did, and how it'd paint Republicans in a bad spot.  My thinking was that because Obama already came up with all the low hanging fruit to cut, Republicans would be in a bad position because they wouldn't be able to come up with much else to cut; and the whole thing would be a trap for them.  But I never posted it because it wasn't done and I never got back to it. 

After the deal was cut, I revisited that post to see if I should go ahead and post it, now that hindsight could judge the wisdom of it.  I didn't, because it wasn't totally spot on and I was a little ashamed of it.  But with these new reports coming out, it appears my shame was misplaced.  Republicans really couldn't come up with much else to cut.  At least not the $60 billion they were demanding.  Apparently, they couldn't even get half that.  Yet, Obama and Democrats score the points for getting the deal cut, while Tea Partiers gnash their teeth that they didn't get everything they wanted.

Granted, now is not the time to be taking $14 billion out of the economy.  If anything, we should have added more.  Like the time Obama got us over $500 billion in stimulus that boosted the economy and added millions of jobs.  But...the Republicans had real leverage against us and that simply can't be vanished away; no matter how bold of a blogger you are. 

I was unhappily willing to accept $38 billion in cuts.  I'm happier at $14 billion.  Could Obama have done better?  Maybe.  And maybe tiny ponies will fly from my butt and give me $14 billion to spend.

Perspective: What Republicans Really Want

And finally, I'd just like to put this in perspective.  Many progressives insist that Obama's given Republicans everything they wanted.  But of course, if you want to see what Republicans want, look at the Ryan Plan.

What do Republicans want?  They want $3 trillion in taxcuts for the rich.  They want to take $3 trillion in spending from the poor and needy.  They want to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  That's what Republicans want.  How much of that has Obama given them?  Nada.  Yet, Ryan is considered one of their moderates, and not representative of the true power behind the party.

What else do Republicans want?  They want war with Iran and other countries.  They want to ban abortion.  They want to kick out all the Mexicans.  They want to deny you birth control.  They want to outlaw gay sex.  They want us to return to the Gold Standard.  They want a Christian nation with biblical laws.  They want to end public education.  They want to fund Christian schools.  They want to destroy unions.  They want to end labor laws. 

I could easily go on and on.  You get the point.  These are some of the things Republicans want and Obama hasn't given them any of it.  So anyone who tells you that Obama is a sucker who has given Republicans everything they want is full of shit and I refuse to be nice about that.  It's totally and completely full of shit.  They are lying.  Period. 

It's all just hyperbole designed to get you to hate Obama just as much as they do, while the rest of us are stuck doing the heavy lifting; trying to defend reality against pony plans and speculative reports.  Fortunately, while they're a loud group, they're just a small subset of the left; while the vast majority of liberals and/or Democrats continue to support Obama. 

Obama's critics on the left might call themselves the base, but that's just another disagreement they're having with reality.

Grand Theft Politics

The problem Democrats keep having in negotiations with Republicans is that the Republicans aren't bluffing.  They really ARE as crazy as they seem to be, and until quite recently, I suspect that the vast majority of Republicans in the House simply didn't comprehend the disaster they were threatening us with.  But they rarely do. 

Mean Jean

It's like playing chicken with a guy who imagines he's in a video game.  Sure, he knows he can crash, but he still thinks that's the fun part.  Maybe it's their belief in God, I don't know.  After all, if the Big Guy has a plan for us, surely it couldn't be upset by a little government shutdown, could it?

And that's the main problem we're having with Republicans, is that the reality they're living in is so fictitious that they really don't understand that this shit is for real.  That's how it is that they can talk about "2nd Amendment Remedies" and the Secession of Texas, and then not understand why anyone finds such talk offensive. 

Because they don't really mean it.  It's all just a silly little drama for them, like professional wrestling, but less sweat.  Sure, it's real.  But it's just not "real" real. 

Negotiating with Crazy

And it's obvious that at this point Boehner and the few sane-ish Republicans left in the party are sitting in the backseat, begging for the Tea Partiers to pull over and let them drive.  But when they hear Obama say the same thing, that only makes them feel like they must be doing something right, so they put the pedal to the metal and drive even faster.

So what can Obama and the Democrats do, but swerve first, because they know the Republicans aren't bluffing.  But for as much as many progressives fault Democrats for that, and insist that this has something to do with cowardice, the real strength of our opponents is that they really don't know what they're doing.  Even their negotiating skills are laughable, but as long as they're holding America hostage, what choice do we have? 

The real solution would be to have a sensible media that dutifully called out the Crazy before they took office.  That's the answer.  Now Obama's stuck dealing with the wackos that the "gatekeepers" didn't keep out.  And yes, this is exactly why Obama agreed to extend the Bush taxcuts.  It's not that he agreed with them or because he's a wimpy wimpwimp.  It's because he knew he'd get a better deal in 2010 then he would in 2011.  History seems to have born that out.

Again, these people aren't faking the ignorance.  Congressional Republicans aren't pretending to be crazy as a negotiating tactic..It really is Mean Jean Schmidt and Michele Bachmann who are wielding great powers they don't understand. Normally, the party establishment would stash these bozos aside and only the ones who lasted a few elections would get any real power. 

But the Republicans gave the Crazies the impression that the Crazies are the most important people in the world, and now they're acting accordingly.  Crazy is as crazy does, and these people really are crazy...

Dr. Paul at the Office

Breaking News: John Bolton Still Around

Looking over Yahoo headlines and saw Ex-UN Ambassador: Obama Not Qualified as President, and thought "Hmm, I wonder what that's about."

But then I saw the lead paragraph:

DES MOINES, Iowa – Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton says President Barack Obama isn't qualified to lead the country.

And I'm like, "John Bolton doesn't like Obama?  This is news because..."

I mean, seriously.  This is neo-freak John Bolton, for christ's sake.  There's not even a good reason anyone's even listening to this bozo, let alone taking his criticism of Obama seriously.  And in Iowa of all places.  Like, seriously.  John Bolton has some chance at the presidency.  I'd give better odds to a hobo off the street. 

The fact that Republicans are still stuck with creepers like Bolton hanging around is proof of how inept they truly are.  They needed to shuffle that guy off to academia a long time ago and burned all the bridges in between.  And the party is stinking with them.  John Bolton, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, please.  Retire these people.  They are all stones around the neck of anyone associated with them.  It'd be like forming an NFL team entirely based on Hall of Fame players who went broke and need the money.  Yeah, they might have been good in their time, but that time was a long time ago and these people are now an embarrassment.

Of course, the only new Republicans who can gain traction these days are freakshows like Palin and Bachmann; but at least the media knows these people are lightweight entertainers.  They still listen to Gingrich and Cheney as if they know something; despite the fact that they're not only unelectable but can't even be hired by people who are electable. 

And Bolton.  Jesus christ, John Bolton.  Why anyone would want this guy associating with them is beyond me.  It's a new day, yet not only are Republicans going with a Greatest Hits release, they're culling it from some of their biggest disgraces.  But I suppose since the GOP doesn't really have many long-term successes, outside of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, that might be the only option they have.

My Parlimentary Mystery

One of the mysteries I haven't been able to figure out is what the allure of parliamentary-style governments is.  Because we already have coalitions in our government.  Sure, there's the hardline Democrat or Republican thing.  But without a doubt, that's a fairly superficial label. 

Conservative Democrats are always more likely to side with their fellow conservatives, not because they're weak-kneed traitors, but because that's what conservatives do.  The question shouldn't be why they're voting conservative, but rather, why they call themselves Democrats.  And what exactly do we imagine is happening when we get steel workers in Ohio voting for the same president as tree-hugging hippies in San Francisco?  Sounds like a coalition to me.

And so we basically have coalition governments.  That's how FDR did it.  That's how LBJ did it.  That's how Reagan did it.  Getting your party's majority in Congress is important, but it's not enough if you can't get your party to obey.  And so FDR cobbled together farmers, and laborers, and blacks, and intellectuals, and anyone else he could grab in order to pass his New Deal.

Same thing with LBJ.  These men didn't pass liberal legislation because they were so strong, but because they were so good at working their coalition.  And fortunately for them, they had more liberals in their coalition than Obama does.

Elections Forever

And so I'm at Socratic Gadfly, because I wanted to write a follow-up post to my one on Critics I Don't Like.  And I see this post about Canada's silly excuse for politics, talking about how The Canadian Parliament gave a vote of no-confidence to conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, triggering parliamentary elections.  To which Mr. Gadfly says "I love parliamentary governments."

And ok, I confess that I don't know much about parliamentary systems, but I don't know.  I just think this sounds like a dreadful idea.  It'd basically be like an everlasting impeachment election, with Republicans mounting continuous votes of no-confidence, grinding all congressional business to a halt as Democrats are constantly staving off every attack.  All it would take would be a lucky break at the polls, and Obama would be history; long before he had the chance to get anything done. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds absolutely awful.  I don't know how other governments get anything done, but I can't imagine this working out well for us.  Am I missing something here?

The Critics I Don't Like

I don't care what your expectations before 2009 were, any reality-based review of Obama's first two years shows that Obama got a lot of legislation passed in an extremely hostile environment, with the strongest string of liberal-based legislation we've seen since LBJ; and before that, FDR.  That's simply undeniable.

Point: Obama got a lot of fucking shit done, and there isn't one among us who can claim to have done as much as Obama.  Yes, that's because he's the president and we're not; but that's kind of the point.  Sure, he could have done more and I'm sure he has many of the same regrets we do, but it's not easy when you have to get everything right and even one wrong word can destroy everything.

Yet all the same, there are critics who will INSIST that Obama should have done more.  And his track record on domestic surveillance and whatnot leaves much to be desired.  And they'll go so far as to lay blame on Obama for every political indiscretion they believe he's made, finding each to be more inexcusable than the last. 

But all the same, they think Obama's doing relatively well in a tough situation, and as much as they know he can do better, they're willing to accept him as being better than the alternative.  Overall, they consider Obama to be a decent man who not only wants to do the right thing, but has the ability to do it and really needs to take a stronger stand in order to overcome the obstacles he's facing.

Those people are ok with me.  I have no problem with this sort of thing at all.  I disagree with them, of course, and will defend Obama when I think a defense is warranted.  But I think their points are reasonable, and it's only in a matter of degrees on how much we expect Obama to do more.  In the end, we both agree that Obama is trying to do the right thing, but could have done better.

The Other Ones

It's the other Obama critics I have a problem with.  The ones who insist that Obama is a conservative Democrat or a moderate-conservative Republican or an evangelical Christian or a traitor or a fool. 

The ones who take great joy exposing the truth about Obama in everything they write; all in order to educate us fools so that we finally understand what a charlatan Obama truly is.  The ones who insist that we're suckers being fleeced.  Or who state as fact that Obama is the bastard child of Jimmy Carter and George Bush, exposing him to be a weak-kneed, thumb-sucking, Kumbaya-singing moron who enjoys trampling our freedoms and making a mockery of everything we believe in.

These are the people I have a problem with.  Because, come on.  Whatever you may think of Obama's decisions thus far, it's obvious the man's not an idiot.  Whenever he speaks, it's obvious there's a real person inside thinking about what he's saying.  Moreover, he's obviously someone who has embraced liberal ideas, but who is willing to compromise when he feels it's to his advantage. 

Liberal by Default

And that's exactly what Obama has always claimed to be.  He never said he's a liberal ideologue.  He just wants whatever works, and it just so happens that liberalism works.  And that's why it's at the basis of everything he's trying to do, because he wants to give us what works.  He's said that repeatedly.  This isn't a bug in his personality; it's a feature.  He wants to do what works and he doesn't want to have to spend a long time messing with it.

And let's be honest.  Presidenting ain't easy.  It's not like the man has time to sit down and read Talking Points Memo and Crooks & Liars all damn day.  I guarantee you that there is a LOT OF SHIT that each of us know that Obama will never hear about.  He simply doesn't have the time to sit back and read all the news and analyze it.  No matter how much information Obama is fed, it can never be enough.  That's why Nixon started wiretapping people, and even that wasn't enough.

As scary as it is, a President can only take the information that's given to them and pray they're asking the right questions and getting the right answers.  They're doing all this shit on the fly and everything they say or do becomes the news the moment they do  it.  Under the circumstances, Obama's performance is utterly amazing.

Attacking the Wrong Side

Fortunately, the vast majority of Democrats approve of Obama, which is why his approval ratings have remained as high as they have.  Even the mildly disgruntled Obama critics aren't likely to tell a pollster that they disagree with Obama.  Or if they do, that it's like to stay that way by Election Day.  They might not like what Obama's doing, but they certainly prefer him over the alternative.

But for some reason, Obama's hardcore critics decided it somehow made more sense to bash Obama for not doing more, rather than making Obama's job easier by bashing the Republicans who were stopping him.  Rather than focus their energies on Republican lies and trickery, as they had for the previous eight years, they decided to turn their same muckraking skills on Obama.  Every failure, real and imagined, was due to entirely to Obama's failings, and anyone who doesn't agree is a brainwashed fool who is too dumb to see the truth.

These are the ones I have a problem with.  And the dividing line is this: If you think that Obama is better than the alternative, then you're ok.  But if you think that Obama is as bad as or worse than the alternative, then you're part of the problem. 

The Dividing Line

Because, whoopdidoo!  You exposed Obama again for not having passed something he talked about on the campaign trail.  Yea you!  Meanwhile, Republicans are destroying unions throughout the country and crippling already under-funded schools.  People are literally dying because of Republican policies.  That's the alternative.  Not Pie-in-the-Sky Universal Healthcare and ponies in every garage.  But real villains doing really bad things. Obama may be flawed, but he's the best sheriff we've got.

So to pretend as if Obama's policies somehow equate with conservativism, or that he's the same as Republicans; I'm sorry, but that's insane.  Seriously.  Anyone who can look at Obama's healthcare bill and honestly say that it's no different than if we had a Republican president, that person is a total nut who shouldn't be taken seriously. Differences of opinion are fine, but we're talking difference of reality, here.  And as usual, that's where we have to draw the line.

In short: It's perfectly ok to criticize Obama.  Just don't make an ass of yourself about it.

A World Without Borders

I read an interesting interview in Fortune titled Where in the World is Cheap Labor?, which was an interview with Auret van Heerden, the CEO of the Fair Labor Association, an anti-slave labor group. Basically, it confirms everything Doctor Biobrain has been saying about the exploitation of cheap labor.  And as I've always said, the more Big Business relies upon these places, the sooner they'll develop a middle class and improved labor conditions.

Exploiters don't create inequality.  They exploit the inequality that already exists.  And by doing so, they slowly begin to depend upon a more productive and sophisticated labor force.  As it turns out, smart workers are better workers.  And of course, the more people you employ, the more managers, middlemen, and accountants you'll need to keep track of it all.  And you have to pay those people real wages.

And so Big Business will continue to flow into these places, up to the point that the expense of being there is in balance with the productivity they'll get from the workers.  And once the workers become too expensive, then Big Business will move to the next Second World Country and start anew.

It's like they're reverse-locusts.  They swarm in to suck the countries dry, but end up leaving them more prosperous than they arrived.

Note: This is only in reference to the exploitation of cheap labor, not the exploitation of natural resources; which goes by a completely different set of rules.

Second Note: The processes I'm talking about occur over decades, not years.   But in the grand scheme of things, a few decades is nothing.  Important change never happens overnight.


Economic Tide

And as the Fortune article asks, what happens when globetrotting Big Business finally finishes their sweep of the globe, and each major area has already seen wages rise to an economic balance; and then what?  What can they do when there is no relative inequality between the various nations?

What else?  Raise wages for everyone.  And where's the money going to come from?  Consumers, and hopefully, profits.  But it was all inevitable, eventually.  As much as it pains them to realize it, we're worth more to them as workers than slaves, and there really is no such thing as a free lunch. 

At this point, I'm just going to quote the first two Q&A's, as van Heerden does a better job than me at explaining it.  Enjoy!

Is China still an option for global manufacturers seeking lower costs of production?

It's an incredibly fast-moving situation. Labor markets which we previously thought were inexhaustible, like China and India, have actually tightened up quite dramatically. Employers can't get workers. Wages have gone up. Add to that the energy cost increases, and the factories, the contract manufacturers, are now suddenly squeezed. So they're turning around to their buyers -- to the retailers or the brands -- and they're saying, "Hey, my prices need to go up." And the brands are saying, "Whoa! We don't think we can pass those prices on to the consumer." There's something of a train smash looming.

Won't they just look for cheaper alternatives elsewhere?

They're wondering if they could push more stuff to Bangladesh or Vietnam or Indonesia and so on, but the options are limited. The last country added to the supply chain was Cambodia in 2000, and there are only one or two places left. People are looking at Africa again to see if there isn't something that they've overlooked there. Finding another cheap platform, another cheap country, was the default until now, but frankly that's no longer an option. There's nowhere else to go.

It's always a mistake to extrapolate the future from how things are exactly right now.  In the grand scheme of things, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Politicking Ain't Easy

I saw this post at TPM about the New Hampshire Republican who said that "defective people, the drug addicts, mentally ill, the retarded -- all of them" should be left to die. And well, that is what it is.  I suppose I can understand the sentiment in a theoretical sense, but, well.  No. 

But the part of that post I found more interesting was a letter that guy wrote to a newspaper, which I'll reprint in its entirety, as it's a bit of honesty that really should be better understood:

I'm a New Hampshire Republican representative. Got slid in during the Republican landslide last fall. So far I really don't know what I'm doing. The whole process is so alien to anything else. A new Rep really needs a coach along with him at first but there is no room for anyone to sit with him, and no way they could holler at him in a committee meeting.

Am learning the hard way. Little by little. I think that a few of the other first time reps must be in the same boat with me. We're all sort of bluffing it out. The few votes I've made so far I really didn't know what I was voting for or against. Just looked at the people around me and went along with them.

There is so much pomp and circumstance connected with the legislature. You have to separate the real doings from all the fluff. People who obviously are making very generous salaries come and go as witnesses before the various committees with tidbits of usually self-serving information. You wonder where the money is coming from to pay these people.

Yes, slowly if I keep my health, I'll master this trade and hopefully be of some use to the state. I like to write about things and applied for this job mostly to have the opportunity to write about politics from the inside. They say the pen is mightier than the sword but you've still got to get your scribbling read by the people.

And that's the truth, I'm sure.  I believe it.  I just wish more politicians would say this sort of thing.

Because all new jobs are tricky to become accustomed to, and I can easily understand how difficult being a legislator would be.  Yet, we expect them to do it all.  They're supposed to know how to raise funds, fight opponents, manipulate the media, run a staff, respond to constituents, save the day, and never make a mistake.  And, if they're lucky enough to have time left over, they'll read the legislation they're voting on; even if it was changed a few hours before the vote.

Because it really is too much for most people to handle.  You get into office by running on charm, sham, and luck; and then you hold on for your dear life for a few years until you can start to understand how it all works.  That's how it is for regular jobs, and in politics, it's like that times a million.  And so you really are dependent upon the party apparatus to tell you how to vote and what to think. 

And of course, even those people are just making it up as they go along and nobody ever really has any firm answers about anything.  Just as soon as you think you understand the rules of the game, everything shifts and you're out of a job.  Any politician who can stay in office past two terms has a real knack for it and should be commended for his/her performance.



And that's why, whenever I hear people whine about how Obama sold us out or is a conservative, I just want to punch them in the fucking face.  Seriously.  Oh, wah!  So you gave a few bucks to Obama.  You put a sign in your yard and a bumpersticker on your car.  And now you think he owes you the world, because you're his base and you have all the answers.  Well why the hell won't you get off your ass and run for office, if you think it's so easy?  Huh?

Because seriously, I'm not trying to make excuses for him.  This is an acknowledgment that this shit is hard, and as smart as I am, I don't want his fucking job.  And if the only thing Obama ever did was to prevent John McCain and Sarah Palin from owning the Whitehouse, that was more than you've ever done in your life.  So you should be down on your knees praising his black ass that he did what you couldn't have ever done, and what many of his critics said couldn't be done.

And if he gave us a respectable healthcare plan, job stimuli, credit card and Wall Street reform, and a repeal of DADT; well, that's just the icing on the cake.  Because the man's doing an impossible job and needs all the help he can get.  And thanks to Republican over-reach, he really shouldn't need that much help, as we're all getting a clear idea of how much better Obama is than the alternative. 

History as Science

People have a tendency towards accepting things that fit what they were looking for, while rejecting anything that doesn't fit what they were looking for.  It's like our brains light up like a pinball machine when we see what we were hoping to see.  But because we're such fallible creatures (as are all creatures), that tendency must be rejected.

If anything, the moment you see an extraordinary claim that fits what you want, you must dig deeper to make sure you're not lying to yourself.  That's because your natural defenses of cynicism and disbelief are down, and you can end up believing all kinds of crazy stuff with no bearing on reality.

And so it is with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Exxon) and his theory that deficit spending will bring another Holocaust.

As he says:

We can do better than that, but we'd better hurry, because two, three, four more years of what the president proposed, 1.65 trillion in deficit spending? There's not gonna be a country. I don't care how much smarter we think we are in this country. How much more intellectual some of the liberals may be here, you can't outrun history.

There are lessons that are established and if you commit this act, then in the laws of nature and history, you're gonna get this result. You spend too much money you don't have for long enough, you're gonna lose your country. It's happened over and over. Doesn't matter how smart you are, it doesn't matter how many letters you have after your name, it doesn't matter — if you commit certain acts, you're gonna get certain results. Just as sure as it's a scientific experiment that's been proved over and over. Well it has. You spend too much, you're gonna lose the country.

His basis for this?  He read a book.  A history book.  Ahh, one of those.  Say no more, Congressman Gohmert.  We thought you were crazy, but if you have a history book to support your crazy claims, then I guess your theory is solid.

Because, yes, when they say that history repeats itself, they mean it exactly repeats itself, even when circumstances building up to events are completely different.  As long as you can find a few circumstantial parallels, it means you're heading towards the same place.  Based upon this, I've deduced that the leader who will bring about this new holocaust will be named Schmadolph Schmitler, or possibly Shodolph Shotler; depending upon whether or not they repeal Obamacare.

Seriously, Gohmert really needs to consider not only reading another history book, but getting some analysis of what it means.  But then again, if he thinks he already knows more than the intellectuals with "lots of letters after their names," it's fairly obvious that the guy will ignore anyone who doesn't already agree with him.  The man might not know much about history, but he knows what he likes.

Politics are Real

So Walker and his Republican buddies did it.  They pulled the plug on government unions in Wisconsin; thus poking the union machine in the eye.  What a bunch of morons.  I mean, it was a dumb enough scheme to begin with, but they knew they had to do it with a quick knock-out blow.  Once that was denied them, they needed to re-group and play it cool for a few years; at least until things simmered down some.

But no.  They believed the hype about the future going to the bold and they went bold.  And now, they're screwed.  Royally.  Whoever out there that's telling people that politics isn't real doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.  Life isn't a slippery slope; it's a pendulum.  The more you push in one direction, the more the other side will push back.  Make a win on abortion rights in the 70's and you've enraged anti-abortion crowds for decades to come. 

That's the reality of it.  Actions cause reactions and there are no knock-out blows.  And if your plan requires your opponent to lie down and die after you blast them your hardest, then your victory will most assuredly be short-lived.  The only easy victories are the ones your opponent can't rally support around. 

Cause and Effects

And like the whole collective bargaining thing, that wasn't a cheap gimmick or some easily won toss-off from a simpler age.  People fought for that, almost as hard as the people who fought against it.  And finally, the people who were against it realized it wasn't worth the fight.  Because you know what the alternative is?  Strikes.  If you don't give unions the right to negotiate contracts legitimately, then they'll take the power illegitimately.  That's life.  That's how it works.

And then, of course, there's the impending recall elections which will most assuredly take down at least a few of the eight eligible Republicans.  Their Senate leader doesn't think recall laws are "legit" because you shouldn't be able to recall a politician for how he votes.  But why the hell not? 

It'd be one thing if the Wisconsin GOPers had run on the platform of crippling unions, but they didn't.  Now Wisconsinites want another bite at the apple, now that they know what they're getting.  That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  As I've said before, democracy is not a term-limited dictatorship.  Nor is it a free pass to do whatever the hell you want, just as long as you can trick your way into office. 

These recalls are what democracy and accountability are all about.  If you don't like facing the will of the people, then you shouldn't get into politics.



And that's why Obama couldn't just give us single-payer universal healthcare.  Well, the main reason was because Democrats in Congress wouldn't have let him.  But even if he somehow pulled out all the cards and forced it on them, that would be the least of his worries.  Because people don't like it when you move too far, too fast.  People get scared with radical change.  And if everyone were to be told they'd be losing their health insurance soon, and instead be taken care of by Big Daddy Government; a lot of people would have been unhappy about that; to say the least.

And so it's about giving people what they can accept.  That's what democracy is all about.  Because democracy isn't some nice-guy, feel-good gesture designed to make us all feel happy inside.  And it's certainly not about giving us the best leaders, as we obviously could do better than what we've been getting.  It's about giving people control over their own lives, so they feel like the system can work for them.  And if you deny them that power and insist that elections are meaningless and you hide your real plans until after you're elected, then you're going to get bad results.

Democracy isn't for the benefit of the people.  It's for the benefit of the government.  People who have input into their daily lives are a lot happier and saner than people who do not.  That's simply undeniable.  That's not to say you can please all the people all the time, as you obviously can't.  But you at least need them to think that they have a legitimate means to control their lives. 

And that means we must ensure that elections have meaning.  And in Wisconsin's case, that means they're just going to have to have another one, as the last one was obviously a lie.  Politics are real.

Obama Defies Caricaturization

Carpetbagger has a post highlighting how rightwing freak Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown) attacks Obama for running a "gangster government," while also attacking him for being too weak.  As he notes, it can't be both.

But of course, we saw this whole "Obama is too tough and too weak" thing  back in 2008, when Hillary Clinton's people were making the same argument: Insisting that Obama wasn't tough enough to fight Republicans, while also insisting that his attacks on Hillary were too harsh. And the real problem is that Obama is smarter than his opponents and continues to make political moves they can't comprehend.

Does he always win every battle? No. Does every maneuver he makes work? No.  But, he doesn't fall into political traps or adopt positions he can't easily defend. And as frustrating as that can be for those on the left who want to see him take bolder positions, it's far more frustrating for his opponents, as he gives them so little to work with.

Had Obama adopted many of the bolder liberal positions he's often attacked from on the left for not adopting, freaks like Bachmann would have something real to complain about and their attacks could gain traction. But as it is, they keep attacking a strawman as Obama defies all their best efforts at caricaturing him.

And that's why he's still more popular than his opponents will ever be, and why he looks to be a shoo-in for re-election.  Yes, it helps that the Republican field is so paltry, but that's mainly because Obama has set the bar so damn high.

Huckabee's Kenyan Problem

Mike Huckabee is screwed.  He thinks he's playing some clever game with his "I believe Obama's a citizen, but his Kenyan background scares me" routine, but he's really jumped down a bottomless rabbithole with no easy way back up. 

And his problem is one that far too many conservatives find themselves victim to: You can't say anything to a targeted audience anymore.  Now that lots of people have videocameras in their pockets, can easily save video and audio recordings, and can distribute anything to the world within minutes; you really can't say anything without risk of having it blow up in your face.  Heck, even innocuous-seeming phone calls with wealthy backers can be fraught with disaster.

And that sure does make things difficult for anyone trying to incite hate against another person or group without the whole world hearing about it in your own words.  It used to be that you had to be careful around any microphone, in case it was live.  Now, the whole world's a potential microphone.

Revisionist Media History

Yet all the same, I see comments like this, suggesting that it's now easier to be offensive than it used to be:

This story would have mattered fifteen or twenty years ago. This story would have had a huge impact back then. That was before the new media landscape. You couldn't get away with such blatant lies and pathetic attempts to explain away stupid behavior.

Those days are gone. Right now, with the willing aid of Fox news and the complacency of the sanitized mainstream corporate press, not only can these right wingers make the most absurd claims, but they know the media will not fight them on corrections.

Really?  When exactly was this mytical time when the media held popular politicians accountable for anything beyond the most obvious racial slurs and offenses?  Fifteen years ago would be 1996.  We're to imagine that the media was vigilant against hateful lies four years into Clinton's presidency?  I don't think so.  Not only were those lies not exposed, they were often enhanced by the media.  After all, it was irresponsible not to speculate about Clinton rumors.

The reality is that media vigilance is the exception, not the norm.  There has simply never been a time in America's history in which the media had a sustained demand for the truth.  That's simply not in human nature, and like it or not, journalists are human.  Like most people, they'll spend more time worrying about what their bosses and peers think than in uncovering truth.  Even big stories like Watergate will only become big if the kewl kidz decide it's a big story.

And of course, the reality is that this quickly became a media firestorm which required Huckabee to immediately go into damage control mode, having to pile lies upon lies to defend himself; all of which are being used to bury him.  Had this sort of coverage existed fifteen years ago, Clinton might not ever have been impeached.  The fact that Huck has to go on Fox News to spin his lies only shows how damaging this sort of thing obviously is.

Side Effect or Drug Trip?

And really, Huck's schtick is simply ridiculous.  There is absolutely no way in a million years that he can possibly ride the "Obama's an unAmerican Kenya-lover" into the Whitehouse.  Even if it could somehow get him the nomination, which is extremely doubtful, he would be buried in the General Election.  The only possible way any Republican can win in 2012 is if they can make Obama the villain to a majority of the population, without looking like they're making Obama a villain.  And if that were possible, someone would have figured out how to do it a long time ago. 

Even worse for Huckabee is that he's definitely jumping the shark on this one, as his claims are so provably false that they only serve to embarrass anyone who associates with him. The more he pimps this stuff, the more radioactive he'll become.  Especially as his claims are so provably false and embarrassing that it can only mean that he believes them to be true.  And that means the only people who will want to support him are people who are, themselves, too dumb to be of any use.

Sure, at some level he knows he's playing a game.  But at a guess, I'm thinking he conflated Indonesia with Kenya, and since he had heard something he wanted to repeat regarding Obama's paternal influence upon his mind; assumed these to be the same thing.  That's the only way his Mau Mau Revolution comments make any sense.

And this is a problem that is slowly destroying the Republican Party, as the hucksters are also the suckers, and they can't remember the underlying truth that was somehow supporting the lies they're spinning.  And at this point, I'm thinking Huckabee's leading the pack of the sucker hucksters.  You can't be a good liar if you don't remember what the lie is, and the Republican Party has been lying for so long that there is simply no basis to any of it anymore. 

And that's why they'll be the most surprised when Obama once again beats the turds out of them in a presidential election.  Their only hope is for the Tea Partiers to permit a handsome and polite moderate to win their nomination, and there's absolutely no chance of that happening.  At this point, Obama knows he just needs to hold on to what he can while the GOP destroys itself further every day.