Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Republicans just stop the double standards.
However the idea that more security would have led to a different outcome, shows a lack of force on force knowledge, and the operation of a diplomatic mission. Even with a group of Marines, the outcome would have been the same, only with a Libyan body count.
Diplomats cannot do their jobs from a bunker or with an occupational force, and according to the State Department embassy personnel are ALWAYS asking for more resources, no matter what the threat level, often without the Ambassador's direction.
Too many conservatives, in their zeal to cast this president as something he is not, are ignoring the reality that embassies are on the front lines, in fact there were twelve terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad during the Bush administration — the most of any president in history:
2002 - Nine people killed by bomb blast near US embassy in Lima - seen as attempt to disrupt forthcoming visit by President Bush.
2002-2006 - Karachi consulate attacks: three separate attacks killed 18 people including an American diplomat
2002 - Two Marines shot, one killed in Kuwait.
2003 - Riyadh Compound Bombings kill 9 Americans, among 35 others.
2003 - Three American diplomats are killed by a roadside bomb targeting their convoy in Gaza.
2003–present - Damascus terrorist attacks: American interests in Syria targeted radicals.
2004 - Civilians Nick Berg, Jack Hensley, and Eugene Armstrong kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq.
2004 - Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr, civilian working in Saudi Arabia, kidnapped and beheaded; five other Americans die in attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2004.
2007 - American embassy attacked in Athens, Greece.
2008 - John Granville, US diplomat, assassinated in Khartoum, Sudan
Does that add perspective to your constant bullshit?
So back off the ludicrous white washing of history. The fact free bubble you guys live in actually causes you to harm this nation. You are damaging our country, disenfranchising fellow citizens, and just pissing reasonable people off by denying facts, ignoring science and believing that Leave it to Beaver and the Flintstones were historical documentaries.
So stop it.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
GOP Election tactics
This election season, the GOP is taking four key strategies to their
recent success to the extreme. Extremes radical enough to impinge on
Americans' conscious minds.
It is obvious that these strategies have been incredibly successful. But, I would suggest that the main condition for their success has been that they confirm the biases and prejudices of their audience and so are repeated daily by the right wing echo chamber aimed solely at the low effort thinking of the average low-information voter.
These tactics are:
1. Money shoveled into advertising.
The ridiculous and patently partisan Supreme Court ruling opened the doors to unlimited amounts of plutocratic cash, and it is pouring into ridiculous levels of advertising. But intrusive advertising has a powerful tendency to lose its effectiveness, as commercial advertisers know all too well. Will the American people begin to react negatively to one party outspending the other by massive margins?
2. The constant scapegoating of minorities and the dismissal of women as equal citizens.
When the political attacks on minorities and women, who form a small majority of the country, become aggressively overt, will they lead to political blowback?
3. Voter suppression and caging.
It's been going on since 1789, of course, and when you suppress the rights of a single minority group, other folks can shrug it off. But now, they are suppressing the votes of multiple minority groups, the poor and the elderly. Which means us, our neighbors, friends and our grandparents. These suppression tactics will be experienced by millions of Americans, some who have been voting in what they perceive as their interests for decades. Is this blatant attack on democracy going too far even for complacent America?
4. Lying as a campaign tactic.
Lee Atwater taught the lessons of Josef Goebbels to the GOP--lie large and often, and if repeated, people will believe the lies. The GOP has been lying above and beyond the spin-line since the 1980s. But normally, they lie with message discipline, so it can be repeated by by right wing media, and pundits verbatim. However Romney and Ryan are lying impulsively, without consistency, often contradicting their previous positions and statements. And the lies increasingly contradict the actual lived experience of most Americans. Will the GOP finally develop a serious credibility problem?
Obviously, it is my hope that these tactics finally begin to backfire this year and lying to America will begin to engender consequences. If that happened, I think we would see a break in the rigid fervor of right wing ideology that has gripped the nation since they canonized Reagan.. Credibility once lost is almost impossible to regain, and we in the reality-based world have for decades been yearning for a return to some form of intellectual consistency in the nation. The GOP is basically betting the house on taking their trusted tactics to the horizon. It would be ideologically satisfying to see them lose that bet.
But will it happen? There are some encouraging signs I think. But these Goebbels-inspired tactics are still awfully strong.
What do you think?
It is obvious that these strategies have been incredibly successful. But, I would suggest that the main condition for their success has been that they confirm the biases and prejudices of their audience and so are repeated daily by the right wing echo chamber aimed solely at the low effort thinking of the average low-information voter.
These tactics are:
1. Money shoveled into advertising.
The ridiculous and patently partisan Supreme Court ruling opened the doors to unlimited amounts of plutocratic cash, and it is pouring into ridiculous levels of advertising. But intrusive advertising has a powerful tendency to lose its effectiveness, as commercial advertisers know all too well. Will the American people begin to react negatively to one party outspending the other by massive margins?
2. The constant scapegoating of minorities and the dismissal of women as equal citizens.
When the political attacks on minorities and women, who form a small majority of the country, become aggressively overt, will they lead to political blowback?
3. Voter suppression and caging.
It's been going on since 1789, of course, and when you suppress the rights of a single minority group, other folks can shrug it off. But now, they are suppressing the votes of multiple minority groups, the poor and the elderly. Which means us, our neighbors, friends and our grandparents. These suppression tactics will be experienced by millions of Americans, some who have been voting in what they perceive as their interests for decades. Is this blatant attack on democracy going too far even for complacent America?
4. Lying as a campaign tactic.
Lee Atwater taught the lessons of Josef Goebbels to the GOP--lie large and often, and if repeated, people will believe the lies. The GOP has been lying above and beyond the spin-line since the 1980s. But normally, they lie with message discipline, so it can be repeated by by right wing media, and pundits verbatim. However Romney and Ryan are lying impulsively, without consistency, often contradicting their previous positions and statements. And the lies increasingly contradict the actual lived experience of most Americans. Will the GOP finally develop a serious credibility problem?
Obviously, it is my hope that these tactics finally begin to backfire this year and lying to America will begin to engender consequences. If that happened, I think we would see a break in the rigid fervor of right wing ideology that has gripped the nation since they canonized Reagan.. Credibility once lost is almost impossible to regain, and we in the reality-based world have for decades been yearning for a return to some form of intellectual consistency in the nation. The GOP is basically betting the house on taking their trusted tactics to the horizon. It would be ideologically satisfying to see them lose that bet.
But will it happen? There are some encouraging signs I think. But these Goebbels-inspired tactics are still awfully strong.
What do you think?
Friday, October 19, 2012
Romney Cites Study Based On Repealing Almost All Middle Class Tax Breaks To Bolster His Tax Plan
Mitt Romney has been desperately trying to refute a study by the Tax Policy Center
showing that he can’t mathematically achieve his goals of reducing
income tax rates while shielding the middle class from a tax increase
and not adding to the deficit. If Romney is committed to his rate
reduction and deficit neutrality, he would have to raise middle class taxes by $2,000, even under the most generous assumptions.
Romney has been pointing to “six studies” that he claims show that his tax plan work. However, those “studies” (which are mostly blog posts and op-eds) show no such thing.
So now the Romney campaign is touting a 2006 study from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation that he claims vindicates his approach, telling Roll Call the study shows “how a ‘Romney-style tax plan’ could bolster growth.” According to the study, tax reform that eliminates deductions and loopholes and reduces income tax rates will slightly increase economic growth over a decade. But the study assumes that nearly all middle class tax breaks — including those for children, mortgages, and employer contributions for health care — are repealed in their entirety:
Romney’s claims about job creation under his tax plan are almost entirely fabricated. An economic adviser for both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations said this week that Romney’s tax plan won’t create jobs.
Romney has been pointing to “six studies” that he claims show that his tax plan work. However, those “studies” (which are mostly blog posts and op-eds) show no such thing.
So now the Romney campaign is touting a 2006 study from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation that he claims vindicates his approach, telling Roll Call the study shows “how a ‘Romney-style tax plan’ could bolster growth.” According to the study, tax reform that eliminates deductions and loopholes and reduces income tax rates will slightly increase economic growth over a decade. But the study assumes that nearly all middle class tax breaks — including those for children, mortgages, and employer contributions for health care — are repealed in their entirety:
Under the proposal, all personal exemptions, itemized deductions, personal credits except for the earned income credit, and all above-the-line adjustments to income except for retirement savings deductions and the deduction for self employment taxes would be repealed. The largest categories of deductions repealed are present-law deductions for home mortgage interest expenses, State and local taxes, and charitable contributions. In addition, the exclusions for certain employee fringe benefits, such as employer contributions for health and life insurance, would be repealed. The standard deduction would remain.The study also found that such a plan would result in the “redistribution” of income tax liability from high-income earners to the middle class. And the promised job growth is only between 1 and 2 percent over ten years (one to two million jobs), while Romney promises that his tax plan will create seven million jobs over four years.
Romney’s claims about job creation under his tax plan are almost entirely fabricated. An economic adviser for both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations said this week that Romney’s tax plan won’t create jobs.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Republicans bring the stupid to the Science Committee
I began to have some serious doubts about the overall IQ of the House Science Committee when a particularly stupid, yet outspoken freshman teabagger, Sandy Adams (R-FL), who luckily has since been defeated in a primary, started raving about how the National Weather Service should be disbanded because cable TV does such a great job, obviously never bothering to consider where cable TV gets their information. He did so in an official Science Committee hearing.
Another member of the committee stated that most of the other Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement.
Unfortunately not all of them feel this way.
Long passed are the days when mainstream Republicans like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency.
That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which considers Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed, Biblical Literalism, and power mongering.
Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas "Democrat" who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting rich off the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee?
He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has actually accused climate scientists of inventing the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, just in order to receive federal research grants.
What more evidence could the Republican leadership possibly desire in order to give Hall the chairmanship?
In fact, when you look at the current committee, you sense that the Republican leadership chose their members specifically for their ignorance and devout denial of Science.
Aside from weather expert Adams, the committee is chock full of flat-earth idiots, teabaggers like Paul Broun (R-GA), Todd Akin (R-MO), the GOP expert in lady parts, and internet porn expert Ben Quayle (R-AZ). Other notably anti-Science members of the Science Committee include Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Steven Palazzo (R-MI), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Chip Cravaack (R-MN) and Larry Bucshon (R-IN).
This month, with the election coming up, Scientific American decided to ask a simple question-- and answer it scientifically: Does Congress Get A Passing Grade On Science? They contacted 32 congressional leaders involved in science on their committees but only 9-- 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans-- agreed to respond.
It is an enlightening read.
The Republican denial of climate change science is a textbook example of irresponsibility and borders on depraved indifference.
According to the scientific journal Nature, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have taken positions on climate change that are "fundamentally anti-science" and the result of "willful ignorance," making it "hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness."
Notwithstanding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is a serious threat, House Republicans unanimously supported a bill, H.R. 910, to overturn EPA's scientific finding that climate change endangers public health and welfare.
During the floor debate on H.R. 910, Henry Waxman offered an amendment that stated: "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused or acceleratedlargely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare."
240 out of 241 House Republican voted to reject these scientific findings.
Many House Republicans explained their rejection of EPA's scientific findings by stating their view that the science is "not settled." , despite 98% consensus of Climatologists.
At the same time, these same House Republicans have voted to cut funding for climate research that could provide more insight into the pace and likely impacts of climate change. They have also refused to hold hearings to better understand the overwhelming body of existing scientific evidence showing that climate change is occurring.
If Policymakers cannot accept scientific fact as evidence for something as serious and potentially disastrous as climate change, how in the fuck can we trust them with women's rights, healthcare or ANY science related issues?
Congress should be holding hearings with the nation's top scientists to understand the problems we face so they can design sensible policies to mitigate these issues. Ignorance is NOT valuable to anyone to anyone except those who will profit from it in the short term.
Another member of the committee stated that most of the other Republicans saw Adams as an embarrassment and as a focus for scorn and derision... and amusement.
Unfortunately not all of them feel this way.
Long passed are the days when mainstream Republicans like Sherwood Boehlert would dominate and chair the Science Committee and spend his career working on environmental policy and energy efficiency.
That kind of agenda has become anathema to today's Republican Party which considers Science as a liberal conspiracy against their single-minded belief in Greed, Biblical Literalism, and power mongering.
Today the Science Committee is chaired by the oldest and one of the most senile Members of Congress, Ralph Hall, a former Texas "Democrat" who switched to the GOP after voting to impeach Bill Clinton, getting rich off the Abramoff gravy train and endorsing George W. Bush. So what qualifies Hall to be chairman of the Science Committee?
He's one of Congress' leading Climate Change deniers and has actually accused climate scientists of inventing the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, just in order to receive federal research grants.
What more evidence could the Republican leadership possibly desire in order to give Hall the chairmanship?
In fact, when you look at the current committee, you sense that the Republican leadership chose their members specifically for their ignorance and devout denial of Science.
Aside from weather expert Adams, the committee is chock full of flat-earth idiots, teabaggers like Paul Broun (R-GA), Todd Akin (R-MO), the GOP expert in lady parts, and internet porn expert Ben Quayle (R-AZ). Other notably anti-Science members of the Science Committee include Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Steven Palazzo (R-MI), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Chip Cravaack (R-MN) and Larry Bucshon (R-IN).
This month, with the election coming up, Scientific American decided to ask a simple question-- and answer it scientifically: Does Congress Get A Passing Grade On Science? They contacted 32 congressional leaders involved in science on their committees but only 9-- 7 Democrats and 2 Republicans-- agreed to respond.
It is an enlightening read.
The Republican denial of climate change science is a textbook example of irresponsibility and borders on depraved indifference.
According to the scientific journal Nature, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have taken positions on climate change that are "fundamentally anti-science" and the result of "willful ignorance," making it "hard to escape the conclusion that the U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness."
Notwithstanding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is a serious threat, House Republicans unanimously supported a bill, H.R. 910, to overturn EPA's scientific finding that climate change endangers public health and welfare.
During the floor debate on H.R. 910, Henry Waxman offered an amendment that stated: "Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused or acceleratedlargely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare."
240 out of 241 House Republican voted to reject these scientific findings.
Many House Republicans explained their rejection of EPA's scientific findings by stating their view that the science is "not settled." , despite 98% consensus of Climatologists.
At the same time, these same House Republicans have voted to cut funding for climate research that could provide more insight into the pace and likely impacts of climate change. They have also refused to hold hearings to better understand the overwhelming body of existing scientific evidence showing that climate change is occurring.
If Policymakers cannot accept scientific fact as evidence for something as serious and potentially disastrous as climate change, how in the fuck can we trust them with women's rights, healthcare or ANY science related issues?
Congress should be holding hearings with the nation's top scientists to understand the problems we face so they can design sensible policies to mitigate these issues. Ignorance is NOT valuable to anyone to anyone except those who will profit from it in the short term.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Sigh...My Bullshit meter is pegged sir!
(1) Willard Inc. and his handlers demonstrated that it is possible for a man to get up in front of a national TV audience and not just lie his head off but at almost every point flatly contradict things he has said just as publicly and: (a) be lying both times, and (b) have nobody in the infotainment noozemedia notice.
(2) That the president's handlers were totally unprepared for debating against blatant lies and complete reversals and denials employed by Mr. Romney. Which is kind of sad considering Romney's track record of complete fabrication and outright lies.
(3) Do we know whether moderator Jim Lehrer was acting out of compulsions invisible to the naked eye which made most of the questions suitable for a well-armed liar like Willard while also omitting from the discussion almost every subject of actual important regarding domestic affairs? I think again of that mock Republican presidential debate staged by ACN anchor Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) on The Newsroom where Will as moderator asked real issues questions and in follow-up pressed each candidate stand-in for an actual answer.
I've always believed that G Ws second term fell apart not because the American public realized that it had been systematically lied to at every point during the Bush regime, but because Americans became angry at the woeful quality of the lies they were being fed. It was, like, personally insulting to them; we were being asked to swallow lies that wouldn't get past a learning impaired four-year-old!
And so, in accord with the gospel delivered unto them by St. Ronnie the Reagan, which tells neo cons that as Americans they're entitled to a reality that makes them feel good and never ever have to settle for any so-called reality that doesn't, they completely expunged the Bush regime from memory -- without, however, ever turning against either its policies or its procedures.
Similarly, the bumbling failures of the Willard presidential circus to date, has repelled many of those same Americans who are demanding nothing more than their a minimum standard in the bullshit they're asked to swallow.
The real danger lies in the fear that if Willard's people have truly gotten their fabrication act together, their guy is already immunized against charges of "flip-flopping," and accusations of "inconsistencies" or "contradictions" or even calling out the lies, will be unlikely to have any real impact, since that portion of the public's only question is most likely to be, "Does this candidate make me feel better about preferred my reality ?"
Speaking of reversals, denials and lies:
Here is Mitt stating that he will drop the tax rate to 20%, AND then denying that he ever mentioned tax cuts.
http://youtu.be/ZykA7oQm8Eg
Some facts about the Romney Tax plans:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-debate-economic-plan-2012-10#1-maintain-the-bush-tax-cuts-on-personal-income-1
There is reality, and there is conservative consensus reality where lies do not matter the next day.
(2) That the president's handlers were totally unprepared for debating against blatant lies and complete reversals and denials employed by Mr. Romney. Which is kind of sad considering Romney's track record of complete fabrication and outright lies.
(3) Do we know whether moderator Jim Lehrer was acting out of compulsions invisible to the naked eye which made most of the questions suitable for a well-armed liar like Willard while also omitting from the discussion almost every subject of actual important regarding domestic affairs? I think again of that mock Republican presidential debate staged by ACN anchor Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) on The Newsroom where Will as moderator asked real issues questions and in follow-up pressed each candidate stand-in for an actual answer.
I've always believed that G Ws second term fell apart not because the American public realized that it had been systematically lied to at every point during the Bush regime, but because Americans became angry at the woeful quality of the lies they were being fed. It was, like, personally insulting to them; we were being asked to swallow lies that wouldn't get past a learning impaired four-year-old!
And so, in accord with the gospel delivered unto them by St. Ronnie the Reagan, which tells neo cons that as Americans they're entitled to a reality that makes them feel good and never ever have to settle for any so-called reality that doesn't, they completely expunged the Bush regime from memory -- without, however, ever turning against either its policies or its procedures.
Similarly, the bumbling failures of the Willard presidential circus to date, has repelled many of those same Americans who are demanding nothing more than their a minimum standard in the bullshit they're asked to swallow.
The real danger lies in the fear that if Willard's people have truly gotten their fabrication act together, their guy is already immunized against charges of "flip-flopping," and accusations of "inconsistencies" or "contradictions" or even calling out the lies, will be unlikely to have any real impact, since that portion of the public's only question is most likely to be, "Does this candidate make me feel better about preferred my reality ?"
Speaking of reversals, denials and lies:
Here is Mitt stating that he will drop the tax rate to 20%, AND then denying that he ever mentioned tax cuts.
http://youtu.be/ZykA7oQm8Eg
Some facts about the Romney Tax plans:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-debate-economic-plan-2012-10#1-maintain-the-bush-tax-cuts-on-personal-income-1
There is reality, and there is conservative consensus reality where lies do not matter the next day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)