I Call Truth!

I beg your forgiveness for reporting on something that I'm sure all the Furriners readers have already seen but, in the event that anyone has missed it, I will report that there's a video posted over at the Arizona Cardinals team page over at ESPN.com which includes this interaction between host Trey Wingo and NFL analyst Darren Woodson:

TW: (Arizona) is built to win and win in that division now. Can Matt Leinart be that quarterback for them?

DW: I don't think so right now. When you look at quarterbacks around the league, you'd better have one of these three qualities:

1) you'd better be athletic (Donovan McNabb)
2) a very smart quarterback (Peyton Manning)
3) a big arm (Brett Favre)

Right now, Matt Leinart doesn't have any of the three.

TW: Of those three things you mentioned, which is he most likely to be able to get to through hard work and off-season conditioning and working with the coaching staff?

DW: He'd better spend some time with Peyton Manning! ... He's never going to have that athletic ability. He's never going to be a guy who's going to increase his arm strength.

Well said, Darren!

As for Derek Anderson:

Big Arm? Check.
Smart? Check.
Athletic? Well, let's not get crazy here! He moves as well as Tom Brady... let's just put it that way.

I'm Already Too Late With This

Over the last couple days, there has been reports out of Dallas Cowboys camp about how Dez Bryant was refusing to participate in the customary rookie hazing process of carrying the shoulder pads of the veterans.

I think every report/opinion I've read/heard about it can be distilled down to "Who does he think he is?!?" Well, I was with you, Dez. The hazing tradition is stupid... and someone should take a stand. Now, I will acknowledge that carrying pads is a very modest form of hazing and, if that is all there is to it... well, then even I can not work up much indignation. But when it comes to something like this, I'd had drawn the line much sooner.

Alas, Bryant has already caved. Oh well, maybe Tim Tebow should be the guy to take the stand... I bet the media would have covered the story differently if it were him that took that stand.

Thank You, Lord...

...Robert Skidelsky.

I was watching Fareed Zakaria GPS this weekend and there was a discussion of economics with Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson and Robert Skidelsky.

You pretty much know what you're going to get with Mr. Ferguson. I was poised, notebook at-the-ready for some pure conservative BS. Here is the first quote I took note of:

For years, there's been a consensus in Washington: Republicans are against increasing taxes and Democrats are in favor of spending public money and the net result is that the United States always runs a deficit, it's a structural deficit; it's nothing to do with the recession.

Alas, the facts can be cruel to conservatives. I would direct you to www.presidentialdebt.org to familiarize yourself the actual data on the federal spending of the past 35 years. It's not the most user-friendly chart I've ever seen but I'm sure the learned readers of Furriners will make sense of it. A key number is the -2% in YOY column of the last year of the Clinton administration. That's the surplus! So, don't give this "structural deficit" nonsense.

Anyway, the second quote from Mr. Ferguson that I took down that I was ready to call bullshit on is this:

NF: But why is it that small and medium sized businesses in the United States today are not hiring? Why is it that they're not expanding? Why is it, therefore, that unemployment is stubbornly high? It's because they see the tax-hikes coming that are implied by this fiscal policy.

It turned out I don't have to call BS because Robert Skidelsky did it for me:

RS: It's not the case that the reason businesses are not borrowing is because they are expecting tax increases down the line. They're not borrowing because they don't see the demand in the economy for the products they might be producing.

And therein lies the argument for additional stimulus.

A.A.D.A.F.C.

I, er, I mean we NEVER actually make it to #4 on the agenda.

Well, Duh!

If you've been following on Furriners NBA Draft Coverage, this should not surprise you:

David Thorpe of Scouts, Inc posts at ESPN.com (Insider access):

(Patrick Patterson) was the second-most disappointing rookie of summer action relative to my expectations for him.

I'm going to get my resume ready for when James Dolan finally cans Donnie Walsh. Those two years as Assistant Manager at a Bennigan's during the Clinton Administration should seal the deal. Knicks fans! Get ready... I'm coming to Madison Square Garden and I'll find a way to get Chris Paul! (I wonder if Derek Anderson has ever given basketball a shot?)

Strike Three

Someone needs to get Dylan Ratigan a DVD of SchoolHouse Rocks as a refresher course on how a bill becomes a law. Recall that the financial reform bill passed with zero votes to spare; all Republicans outside of the New England triumvirate of Snowe, Collins, and Scott Brown voted against the bill... not because it didn't go far enough a la the NAY vote from Democratic Senator Russ Feingold but for reasons such as, to quote Richard Shelby (R-AL), it being a "legislative monster" or, as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) more famously said, it was like "killing an ant with a nuclear weapon".

Well, late last week, Ratigan had Michael Crowley from Time Magazine on his show to discuss the passing of the bill and Crowley reported:

I think (the Obama administration) feel like the financial reform bill was the best they could do. Again, in a perfect world, they might have done some things a little differently, but the numbers in the congress are very hard for the Democrats.

That makes sense does it not? Dealing with the "Party of No" means you end up selling out key principles to get those last couple votes. It happened in the health care bill with the special deals for Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida. Now it happened in this bill with the deal for Scott Brown and the watering down of other parts of the bill (such as the stripping out of new regulations on the rating agencies). As ugly and as unfortunate as this is, such is Washington D.C. with a Republican Party trying to score political points on every single issue by opposing what a Democratic Party majority is trying to accomplish.

Ratigan, unwilling to see it for what it is, instead says:

Teddy Roosevelt had the audacity to break those institutions up and resurrect a truly creative, dynamic, adaptable country. This president doesn't seem to have that where-with-all.

Well, yes, props to Teddy Roosevelt. He is not on Mount Rushmore for no reason. However, Roosevelt had the authority to do his trust busting because of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. It's not like he was the one who got that passed (and it had passed almost unanimously... one vote against in the entire congress... perhaps the 1890 version of Ron Paul?) So the heck with "where-with-all", what is the authority he wants Obama to use to impose new rules on Wall Street? No matter how much of a Big Government, socialist, communist, etc. the right wing thinks Obama is, he is still bound by the Constitution and the laws and statutes enacted in the past 220+ years and, as such, we are left a legislative process which produces the Dodd-Frank Act and all the problems it doesn't address because the members of Congress do not want them addressed.

Sarah Palins easy!

I just realized why Sarah Palin keeps getting put in the news and not just because she is a whore for attention. She's easy.

Sarah Palin backers like her because she is simple and reminds them of themselves. This gives them hope that after attending their 5th college and marrying a meat head they could still be a successful reality TV star. Americans love to dream, and for the simpletons she represents the things they aspire to do but will never accomplish.

Conversely Palin haters put her on TV because she represents the easy example of the complete lack of intelligence that is present in today's conservative movement. We think that by pointing out her faults people will realize the she is the least intelligent politician since George W. Bush and they won't support her any more.

The real problem here is that neither side is right. As much as Palin backers wish it were true, successful people tend to be smart or at the very least extremely good at something and Sarah supporters, by in large, are neither. And as much as I wish it were true, Sarah supporters are not smart enough to realize how clueless they are so expecting them to view things rationally is like expecting Joe Lieberman to be loyal.

Andrew Breitbart, Shirley Sherrod, and Repubocrisy

Andrew Breitbart is on a quest to end the world of the liberal media bias. His solution for this problem: become unapologetically partisan and use tactics fit for a smutty tabloid.

There are a number of problems with the way Andrew Breitbart has gone about his recent business related to Breitbart.com. The first issues is regarding his belief in a liberal media bias. This is a simple minded answer to disagreeing, for simple people. There are no credible studies that have concluded any liberal or conservative media bias. This is part of why Republicans love it so much. The majority of the people pushing the liberal media bias hate when the media uses facts that are not in line with their beliefs. This is because having a belief to them trumps being informed. If there were truly informed they would have to rationally consider the opposing view point which is just too much for most Republicans.

The second issue with Andrew Breitbart is his solution to this magical unicorn known as liberal media bias. Apparently Breitbart feels an eye for an eye is how problems should be handled because to prove that the media has a liberal bias Breitbart approves of a complete conservative media bias. His recent attacks on Shirley Sherrod are a clear example of this. Instead of reporting the entire story he just released part of a video with comments by Mrs. Sherrod that could be construed as racist. If however you view the entire video you will see that her point was the exact opposite. She was trying to information the NAACP members of the dangers of racism and the importance of avoiding it. If the tables had been turned you can bet that Andrew Breitbart would have done his best Sarah Palin impression and dismissed any allegations of racism levied against a white person as slanderous.

The irony is that Mr. Breitbart has shown a spotlight on racism and the damage it can do. This to me is an admission that he feels racism is bad and should be eradicated. Yet when you consider racism in the US it has a much more power past and present among the White community than the Black. So, in this instance I can agree with Andrew Breitbart. Racism needs to be stopped. The problem is Mr. Breitbart clearly has no idea how to improve things as his tabloid stunt only serves to increase the racism in the US since it now gives the racists whites an example to rally behind which will lead to a more open hatred and that hatred from the right will lead to a corresponding reaction from the left.

Congratulations Andrew Breitbart, not only are you a complete douche bag but your actions will lead to more the divisiveness that you claim you would like to end. Nothing like doubling down on being a Dick.

Strike Two

I am tired of Mr. Ratigan sort of ranting in multiple directions with regards to the availability of capital in this country. He has spent weeks, if not months, just ranting and raving about how all the banks (or, at least, the big Wall Street banks) "steal" all the money and that is why there is no capital in the system, no investment going on and, hence, no jobs being created.

He is still arguing that point (actually, it is somewhat reminiscent of Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound" from the NAFTA debate of 1992 as he talks of the banks sucking all the money out of the backdoor of the financial system); however, he is now concurrently latched onto the idea that many corporations are hoarding cash*.

So, I guess the situation if you follow his narrative is the Treasury/Fed is just printing money out of thin air and flooding the system with money but that there is no money available for businesses to invest in their innovative ideas while other corporations will not spend any money because there are worries about new regulations or something.

It's quite a portrait he paints! However...

...this brief interaction between Peter Morici and Richard Quest from Your Money on CNN on Sunday (7/18) will probably give a better understanding of what is going on in 30 seconds than watching a week worth of Ratigan:

PM: To create jobs, businesses need customers and capital. The customer side? There's just not enough demand for what Americans make.

RQ: Peter may be right that there's an imbalance in the US-China relationship but there's not a lot the U.S. can do about it as long as it keeps sucking in those imports.

* Seriously, this is a link worth clicking. It's funny because I found this link after referencing the comment from Peter Morici. I was just adding some references to the post as I typically do and I thought the hoarding cash argument could be linked because when Ratigan shows his chart of corporations hoarding cash, he lists his source as Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation (a tremendous book by the way), so I google "Barry Ritholtz hoarding cash" and expect to find a post about the problems of corporations hoarding cash and how the Obama administration is impeding the recovery - but that is not what it is at all!

Strike One

Last week, I watched with interest the coverage of the passing of the financial reform bill on The Dylan Ratigan Show. I have several thoughts/observations about his coverage that I am going to spread across a few separate posts.

First off, the show uses this caption:

SENATE PASSES WALL ST. "REFORM" 60-39.

I point this out only to make sure everyone knows (although if you're bothering to read this... you probably already do know) that the bill passed with zero votes to spare (that will be more relevant in a subsequent post). Oh, and I was mildly annoyed by the quotations around the word "reform" because of it's implication - but that annoyance was really moot considering he spent days flat out saying it was not true reform.

Anyway, Mr. Ratigan decided to make a big deal of a poll that said that 80% of the population doesn't think it fixes the problems or will prevent the next crisis or whatever (Ratigan didn't seem to really think the exact phrasing of the question was important I guess). And he says this:

The American voter has a pretty clear view of this. Four out of five people in that Bloomberg poll say they don't think this does anything to fix the problem. The problem they see is that the banks are too big to fail, the banks give 40% of the funding to all politicians. Politicians then do what the banks want them to do ultimately when to comes to protecting their core businesses.

With all due respect to my fellow citizens, I say with great confidence that there is NO WAY Americans have "a pretty clear view of this." This is an extremely complicated issue and I suspect >50% of the members of congress couldn't discuss this topic with any depth of understanding and clarity.

And for TeaBag Nation who throw hissyfits about members of congress not reading bills... I suspect, in this case, they are completely correct but I do not think it matters because most would not understand it anyway.

I Need Football Season To Start

Another post from the weekend news coverage. (When football season starts, I assure you I will not be watching CNN Newsroom on a Sunday afternoon!)

This time, the host was Fredricka Whitfield and she reached some "financial expert" named Daria Dolan on the phone to discuss the passing of the financial reform bill. Mrs. Dolan immediately betrayed where she was coming from with this comment:

Maybe if they had more time instead of trying to rush this through like everything else, they might have done some good for us.

WTF!?!?! You know, I am very willing to listen to the criticisms from people "in the know" about the bill. In fact, I want to hear what people are saying about it as it is a topic I really care about. However, to say that they rushed it through!?!?! That is fucking ridiculous. The financial system essentially collapsed in September 2008 when Lehman Brothers failed. For better or for worse, TARP was passed in October 2008. And yet, Mrs. Dolan claims this was "rushed through"!?! That is bollocks!

Then, she proceeded to name some of her concerns with the bill. They included "Bank Stocks Could Under-Perform" (meaning people who have invested in bank stocks could see less return on their investment). Okay? Got that? I will say that is not really a concern of mine but fair enough... that is her concern.

Then Ms. Whitfield asks her the question: "who is the big winner (in this bill)?"

Mrs. Dolan's response, I shit you not, is "hmmmmm... the banks will be the big winners." What the hell?!!?!? I thought we were supposed to be concerned that the banks weren't going to be very profitable anymore?

I am looking forward to about six weeks from now when the majority of the bullshit I hear on Sunday afternoon is being flung by the likes of Brian Baldinger, Dan Dierdorf, and Rich Gannon.

Medicare Fraud, Illegal Immigrants and Unemployment

In a long standing tradition of the Republican party and the Repubocrisy they unwittingly perpetrate, where they see things in only black and white, capitalism is always good while illegal immigrants and unemployment are always bad. Well thanks to the recent arrests for medicare fraud these Republicans will now have to come up with a new excuse for why the stealing of money from the government preformed in the name of capitalism are anomalies while the stealing of money from the government is the only term that can be used for the unemployed and immigrants here illegally.

Unfortunately for Democracy, making excuses to fit your narrow view of things is a whole lot easier than trying to understand something and facing the fact that your views make you a naive, Nascar watching simpleton.

Mitch McConnell Has ADD

An observation regarding State of the Union with Candy Crowley this past Sunday:

It looks like the decision of whether to extend the Bush tax cuts (for those making greater than $200k or $250k a year) is going to be an issue in the mid-term elections. It's even been previously discussed on this here blog with Republicans saying, with one side of their mouth, they care greatly about the deficit, but with the other side, saying we have to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Moreover, they claim they want to extend the jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed but that it must be paid for but the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy does not have that same requirement because tax cuts pay for themselves (which is bunk).

Anyway, back to SOTU. In introducing the topic, Ms. Crowley played a recent clip of Alan Greenspan saying this on Bloomberg TV:

They should... let (the Bush tax rates) lapse... the problem is that unless we start to come to grips with this long-term outlook, we're going to have major problems.

Literally, within the next 2-3 minutes, Senator McConnell said this:

What they're trying to do is to argue... we ought to have a significant tax increase. I don't know the economists you're talking to but the ones I'm talking to are saying that raising taxes in a middle of a recession is not a good idea.

Ummm... did he not just see Alan Fucking Greenspan say taxes should be raised?!? And just so we're clear, Alan Greenspan is no "big government" liberal, Keynesian acolyte. He is a conservative icon (semi-disgraced though he may be with what happened in the last half decade).

Furthermore, viewers of Fareed Zakaria GPS will know (not that watching GPS isn't a prerequisite for being informed) that new Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron has raised taxes and cut spending in an effort to deal with UK public finances.

So, I guess consider this a plea for intellectual honesty. I am cynical enough to think that Americans will support tax cuts no matter what... but at least don't intentionally mislead people about the facts.

Gerald McCoy to hold out

As a Detroit Lions fans I was pulling for the Rams to select Sam Bradford so we could take Ndamuknog Suh instead being stuck with Gerald McCoy. I like Suh's game and feel there is a high bust potential for McCoy but in addition to that I read recently that McCoy publicly stated that he won't sign a contract until Bradford is signed.Saying "I would love to be there on time. But it's also one of those situations where while an opportunity presents itself for you to get paid, you need to get as much as you can,". Conversely Suh has publicly stated all along that he wants to do what ever it takes to be in camp on time. Odds are Suh reports a day or two late and McCoy a week or two afterwords but the fact that McCoy won't sign until Bradford is signed indicates his loyalty is to the all mighty dollar instead of the Bucs. I assume all players feel that way but publicly stating it is a brazen admission that I think has ominous implications for is future success.

I Call Bull... No, I Can't Do It!

I was watching Fareed Zakaria GPS this weekend and Fareed said this:

Now, at the end of August, remember the United States will pull out all but 50,000 troops from Iraq. At the end of 2011, all American forces are scheduled to be gone.

I have too much respect for Mr. Zakaria to "call bullshit" on him but it does strike me as naive. Isn't it pretty much a truism that the U.S. almost never leaves anywhere?! I think that is where many progressives and Ron Paul see eye-to-eye. In fact, Barney Frank and Ron Paul have recently teamed up to argue for cutting the military budget and shutting down some of the military bases we have around the world (and bringing the troops home... or, more accurately I presume, deploying them to where they are actually needed).

This transcript of a joint interview with Wolf Blitzer is worth a read. Here is an (edited) excerpt to whet your appetite:


BLITZER: Congressman Frank, the Pentagon's budget for 2010 almost $700 billion, in your estimation, what should it be?

FRANK: Well, for this year, I would like to cut it about 50. And I want to stress, Wolf, I don't want this argument hijacked. The case that Ron Paul and I are making, along with Representative Walter Jones, a Republican, Ron Wyden, a Democrat, is separate, to a great extent, from Afghanistan.

People can differ about Afghanistan. I voted to go in, I think it is bogged down. But we are talking about useless expenditures which are, for geopolitical reasons that I don't think are valid, in NATO, in Japan.
...
So I want to make it very clear, we are talking about NATO. NATO was a wonderful idea. It was formed in 1949. We are as far away from NATO as NATO was when it was done in time from the presidency of Grover Cleveland.

NATO has served its purpose. And I don't -- The New York Times had a very interesting article a couple of weeks ago about the extent to which Europe -- Western Europe, wealthy nations, facing no real threat, can afford very, very good expenditures for social welfare, because America...

BLITZER: So basically, what both of you are saying, bring the troops home from Germany, from Japan, from South Korea, bring them home...

BARNEY: Yes.

BLITZER: ... from all over the world. It is a waste of money.

FRANK: No, not all over the world. Excuse me, Wolf, I don't argue in extremes. Not all over the world. There are parts of the world where I think...

BLITZER: Where?

FRANK: ... there needs to be -- well, for instance, I do want sea and air power to confront the People's Republic of China. I don't want Taiwan overrun. And I think sea and air power can help with South Korea. But South Korea is larger than North Korea, and can put its own troops in. Fifteen thousand Marines in Okinawa are irrelevant to what we want to do with China.

We're not going to land Marines on the Chinese mainland. So yes, there are parts of the world where our presence would be useful, but -- and I think we have to be very clear that we would be there militarily to confront Iran. But it is not any longer reasonable to have troops virtually everywhere.

The general view is America must be the superpower and be everywhere. And that exacerbates our national security, doesn't help it.


In spite of the political clout of the Frank/Paul combination, allow me to make a not very bold prediction, U.S. troops will be in Iraq when the 45th president takes the oath of office in January 2017.

It's not very often I say this - but I really hope I'm wrong (except about Barack Obama being re-elected of course).

I refutiate Sarah Palins reality

I really have no interest in Sarah Palin and typically don't even find her worth discussing given the complete lack of value that she adds to any argument. Her recent statements do however fall in to a category that would be considered a pet peeve of mine: Liberal Media Bias.

I'm certain you are going to find people complaining that the media is showing a liberal bias by reporting on her recent word gaffe. These people have it completely wrong. I routinely butcher the English language and I take no issue with people making up words (see Repubocrisy in this blog). The only reason the media is discussing her made up word is because she followed it up with ridiculous statements comparing herself the Shakespeare.

Unfortunately for Sarah Palin and the people who support her there is a huge difference between being a literary genius who creates a word for artistic purposes and an aspiring politician who refuses to admit when she makes a mistake.

The problem for someone like me is that Sarah supporters will think this is an example of her being witty. I can't even put into words how sad that is.

As Winston Churchill stated: “All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes.”

Maybe this mistake about not accepting when you make a mistake will be Sarah Palin's start towards becoming wise...yeah, probably not.

I Have a Bad, Bad Feeling

It is perhaps difficult to argue that Jennifer Granholm has been a successful governor of Michigan. Here at Furriners, we rely on statistics and provable facts... which, as our banner says, is why we are not Republicans. (FUN FACTS: Derek Anderson threw 29 touchdown passes in 2007. Troy Aikman had a career high of 23.) And the stats aren't necessarily in Granholm's favor.

Well, in November, Michigan will be electing a new governor (Granholm can not run again due to term-limits). It seems as though all polls suggest the Republicans have an outstanding shot at winning. But wait... it gets worse!

The leading candidates:

Pete Hoekstra - current U.S. Congressman. He is a pathetic liar. I know these may be "partisan" sources... but at least check out this link and/or this video.

Mike Cox - Michigan Attorney General. Total fraud.

Cox was on The Dylan Ratigan Show this week to talk about his legal filing in support of Arizona's profiling, er, illegal immigration law. Ratigan quoted a Gov. Granholm spokesperson saying:

"Governor Granholm disagrees with the Arizona law... Attorney General Cox's lawsuit is a patently political ploy in his quest to earn the Republican nomination for governor."

Ratigan actually asked him if that was true?!?!

Great question! Maybe he could ask Melania Knauss if she married Donald Trump for money or not?

Anyway, it should be obvious to everyone that the answer is yes (to both). Even FoxNews is reporting that it's a political stunt.

The other thing that really ticked me off was Cox arguing that the federal lawsuit against the Arizona law was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Well, what the heck is it when an AG from Michigan files to support an Arizona law? That is not a waste of taxpayer money? Moreover, I would argue it is a waste of taxpayer money when the lawsuit is a political ploy that has no chance of success. That certainly describes the lawsuit that Mike Cox supports to fight the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The other leading candidate is an Ann Arbor businessman named Rick Snyder. As of now, I know very little about him. Several months ago, he was running television ads in which he didn't even indicate his party affiliation. That gives this liberal blogger hope that he is a reasonable guy (i.e. a pragmatic moderate) and, if the Democrats are destined to lose, he is currently my favorite Republican candidate (by default).

By the way, if Melania Knauss googles herself (or whatever) and finds this: if you get tired of being married to an asshole billionaire, feel free to contact me. I have an apartment in Ann Arbor, a Ford Focus, and a NFL Sunday Ticket package where we can watch all the Arizona Cardinals games! I'm just saying... think about it.

Mitch McConnell can't read a graph.

In what has to be considered an indictment of the failures of our education system Mitch McConnell recently stated:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue,"

Ezra Klein has some great information on this topic. My favorite being:

Mark Zandi, an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, estimated (pdf) that a dollar spent extending the Bush tax cuts would generate .32 cents of taxable economic activity, while a dollar spent on unemployment benefits would generate $1.61 of taxable economic activity.

Below is a graph that I put together which is similar to a graph the Heritage Foundation put together on Federal Revenue (Red) over the years with the Federal Budget (Blue) for each year.



As my first grader can tell you there is a definite drop in the red line starting after the year 2000. I'm not sure how Sen. McConnell can say "no evidence whatsoever" when clearly this is evidence to contradict his statement.

The point Sen. McConnell is trying to make is that tax cuts don't need to be paid for because they pay for themselves. Again if you have two eyes you can see Mitch McConnell is full of shit. Over the best five years under Clinton, with higher taxes, the revenue for the government increased by a little under 40% over those five years while the best five year stretch for Bush was 44%. This means we lost trillions of dollars of possible revenue because of the Bush tax cuts. If Sen. McConnell was right and tax cuts paid for themselves then the best five year stretch for Bush would have needed an increase of 58% over five years to just get us back to the revenue this graph suggests we would have ended up at had we left the Clinton tax rates in place. It would take approximately 25 years for these tax cuts to pay for themselves if we campare the best case scenario for the Bush tax cuts. If you throw in a sixth year the Bush tax cuts would never pay for themselves compared with the Clinton growth.

I'm not sure there is anything more damning of the Republicans lack of understanding of economics than this.

Social Security Insolvency? Not from my point of view.

I have heard a lot of talk over the last decade about how SS is bankrupt. A recent CBO report suggests we have 85 years before we will be out of money so I'm not sure we are in dire straits right now.

My take on this is that like most things in government right now we are just not fully funding the SS program. Like a classic Democrat (according the Republican lore) I'm for redistribution, though I'm for redistribution of our current federal funds. The way I see it right now programs like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are fine however the department of Military and Defense is running a deficit.

I guess moving forward we can only afford to have defense spending that is three times as large as the next biggest spending country. If a humble guy like Lebron James can take a cut to keep from bankrupting the Miami Heat, I think the Military can do the same for America. After all, when was the last time you saw the Military have a meaningful win like Lebron...Oh wait.

BP, the DOJ, and the drilling moratorium

I feel for the people who are currently out of work because of the drilling moratorium, but it should be noted that the people that are concerned about the jobs are the same people (Republicans) who complain about the government loaning the big three in Detroit money. The data that I find shows that up to 50,000 jobs could be affected by the moratorium while it was reported that up to 14 million jobs would be affected by a contraction of the big three. That number has been challenged and the NY Times puts the number closer to 3 million. So just to make this clear Republicans feel that 50,000 oil jobs are more important than 3 million automotive jobs.

Luckily these people can at least get unemployeement checks. I have been told by Republicans that unemployment checks are so big that people don't even bother looking for more work. So while these people may not be working, according the the Republican stance on unemployment, they are getting plenty of money to live on so the jobs themselves are really not that important.

It has also been reported that Republicans feel that the only people who use unemployment do so because they are lazy and the fact that the unemployment rate stands at 9.5% has nothing to do with their inability to find a job. Given this line of thinking all of the displaced oil drilling workers just aren't trying hard enough to get other work. Why are we making such a big deal about a bunch a lazy, unmotivated people?

I'm sure the tens of thousands of fisherman who rely on the gulf for their jobs are really sympathic to the plight of the oil drillers.

Void of all of this Repubocrisy, one very important point that I wanted to make is this sense that the government is to blame for these lost jobs. Big oil has had a long history of influence in government and the reason for 85 days worth of an oil spill is because big oil has fought for and won limited regluation. Almost all business is against regulations because if tends to have a negative impact on profits which business loves. What it does have an affect on is safety. Too much regulation was not the reason that 29 coal miners in West Virginia died recently. That was a push for profit. Too much regluation was not the reason thousands of Enron employees lost all of their retirement savings. That was done in the name of profits. Similarly, by all accounts, the disaster in the gulf was a push by BP for profit not for increased safety. The reason it has taken so long to get a solution to the oil spill is that regluation only requires oil companies drilling off shore to have a plan in place in case of a problem. They don't have to have a secondary system ready to go. They don't even need to have the equipment on hand that it would take to make a secondary system. All the need is a plan. Imagine if we tried to eliminate the military and replace it with a written plan for what we would do if there was a need for the military.

The point here is that BP and other oil companies asked to have even less regluations than we currently have because it affects their profits and if you beleive that the politicians are fighting for American jobs in complaining about the moratorium you are delisional. These politicians are bought and paid for by big business and the push back against the moratorium in the name of jobs is disingenious. As I have said here before the government is the voice of the American people and fighting against it only serves to lessen the power of the people and increase the power of big business. Big oil asked for this disaster and we let them have it so let's stop complaining about the government trying to prevent another disaster and support more regulations that will protect future American jobs and the environment.

The Double Whammy

You probably do not know who Dave Zirin is. However, I have blogged about him before after he made one of the stupidest predictions I have ever heard... or, if you listen to him, he would probably say that he was just reporting was his "sources" were telling him. He was full of shit then and he is still full of shit.

So what am I talking about?

Well, he was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show last night talking about the LeBron James decision to join the Miami Heat.

Here is a excerpt of what he had to say:

You're gonna look at the Miami Heat this fall and you're going to see the future of the NBA. Three superstars who are lorded over and then a bunch of players who are extras who make the league minimum and, you know what? Basketball is the ultimate team game, this is not how you win championships.

Hmmmm... first of all, who knew that the league has enough superstars so that every team will have three of them?!? Regardless, do you know what else came across the ESPN ticker later that very same night:

Mike Miller to sign with Miami Heat for 5yr/$30m.

and this:

Travis Outlaw agrees to terms with New Jersey Nets for 5yr/$35m

If you know who Travis Outlaw is... congrats you're an NBA fan. You also know he is not all that good (he's been in the league 7 seasons and has 32 career starts. That means he has started less games in his career than Derek Anderson.).

Chris Hayes (also from The Nation) was filling in for Rachel Maddow. He swallowed Zirin's bullshit whole and regurgitated it right back to him with this analysis:

So you have this situation where the Miami Heat and NBA basketball will be reinscribing the political economy of the U.S. The vanishing basketball middle class. And you have this sort of superstar economy with a few very, very well compensated tended players and the rest. This is the stake through solidarity.

Dave Zirin's reponse: "Exactly."

Ummm... is now a good time to mention that Brendan Haywood signed this week for 6yr/$55m? Is it okay if I point out that he is 30 years old and has career averages of 7.7 points and 6.4 rebounds per game?

So, note to MSNBC: if you're going to talk about sports... please call upon someone who actually knows what he is talking about! (Hint: my shift supervisor at Applebee's is willing to give me time off for television appearances. Even on basic cable!)

* By the way, the "double whammy" referenced in the title of this post refers to going with both the "Stupid" AND "I Call Bullshit" tags. Congrats Zirin... you are indeed a pioneer!

States Rights and Repubocrisy

Polls show that the vast majority of Republicans feel that States Rights should be paramount (85% according to a Pew Research poll) unless of course a state makes a law Republicans don't like.

In a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on the defense of marriage act (DOMA), Tauro stated the following opinion.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,"

This apparently has Republicans up in arms even though the justification for this ruling is that marriage has always been an issue for the states to decide, which they support.

The recent Arizona law has Republicans claiming states rights yet when the Bush administration went after the California state law on Medical Marijuana Republicans were fine with it. These same people would also be for a repeal of the Washington law on assisted suicide on a federal level even though the citizens of the state decided it was OK.

This is a clear case of Repubocrisy where Republicans become complete hypocrites because while they are for states rights apparently the states only have the right to agree with Republicans.

Hey Oakland! Riots don't make the point you are trying to make.

For some reason the natural reaction for a group of people not liking something now a days is rioting and looting. Don't people understand that if you really want someone to respect your views, breaking shit and stealing is not the way to do it. These people need to channel their anger and make it into a positive force like MLK did.

Displaced Starter?!?!

We prefer "starter-in-waiting". Thank you.

John Clayton posted a column at espn.com lamenting the state of backup quarterbacks in the NFL.

In it, he says:

Can displaced starters such as Derek Anderson (Arizona)... (my note: blah, blah, who cares about the rest of those scrubs)... step up as injury replacements and not cause significant drop-offs?

Come on, Clayton! John McCain could step in for Matt Leinart and the only way Cardinals fans would know the difference would be that McCain is more mobile than Leinart (and, yes, he is right-handed too... fine... are you happy? I'm trying to be serious here.)

Plus, I am convinced Leinart could eventually be deported. He throws a football like someone who grew up playing nothing but ping pong. Reasonable suspicion! He is a Chinese spy!

Shaq to the Heat?

Yes you heard it here first. I am predicting that Shaq either gets traded to the Miami Heat or retires in the next year. After all Shaq is the original attention whore of the NBA and with Kobe having won another couple championships since Shaq's departure, Shaq, motivated by this disdain for Kobe, will need to latch on to the new big three in Miami and ride their coattails to another few rings and will accept minimum money to do it.

Berwick recess appointment is the worst thing to ever happen...if you are a Republican Senator

Since Republicans always seem to wish that government was run more like a big business I would like to ask any Republican when the last time there was a major corporation that went without a CEO for over six months. Based on the compensation for CEO's I believe most big businesses find having someone in charge very important, however these same people have left 180 Presidential appointments hanging out to dry because of a political agenda. It does accomplish another goal of the Republicans, which is to make government look incompetent, since failing to fill these important positions makes the Senate look silly while leaving the day to day operations of these organizations in the hands of someone who has not been vetted by the Senate or is necessarily qualified to handle the responsibilities of the top man. Well done Republicans. You've killed two birds with one obstruction tactic.

The Presidents only option to bypass these sophomoric tactics of the right is to do a recess appointment. As you may have heard recently Donald Berwick was appointed to head Medicare and Medicaid using this method. According to Senate Republicans Dr. Berwick is a controversial appointment and in case you didn't realize you were outraged by the appointment of this guy Mitch McConnell, speaking for you, accused Obama of trying to "arrogantly circumvent the American people".

Just so I understand, one of the main guys behind the complete perversion of the democratic process where a simple majority is no longer viable, is accusing the President of the United States of being arrogant? Am I missing something? Appointing someone to an important government position is an arrogant use of the Presidents power, and hijacking the Senate is what the American people want?

Beyond that Senator McConnell calls Dr. Berwick a controversial appointment. These claims are made based on writings Dr. Berwick has done regarding rationing and the British health care system, which is a Universal Health care system. A Republican mantra has always been that America is great because of our ability to innovate. Why is this line of thinking limited to business? Isn't it possible that the US government can take all of the information that exists with every other industrialized nation having some form of universal health care and make an even better system? Apparently Senator McConnell thinks so little of the American people who serve their country on a daily basis that the only possible option from these people on how to run a health care system is total Armageddon. Apparently the only rationing of health care that Senator McConnell supports is the rationing that the insurance companies have decided on.

Void of that the only people who seem to think Dr. Berwick is a controversial appointment is Senate Republicans. How very Republican of you Senator to assume having a view point validates your view point. Berwick is supported by the American Hospital Association, AARP, as well as President Bush's two heads of the same agency Mark McClellan and Thomas A. Scully, but apparently Senator Mitch McConnell feels he knows better than the people in the industry or those who have held this job before on what makes a good head of the CMS.

Hey Lebron!

As much as I'm not interested in the Lebron James extravaganza and would like to stay away from it, I would like to point out that booking on hour on ESPN to make a 10 second announcement doesn't make you important, it makes you a Dick.

It's no wonder this guy hasn't won a championship yet. He is more concerned about his image than his game. This move has all the maturity of a high school kid. Lebron had been in a category of guys I didn't really root for or against. This decision has changed that for me. Move over TO there is a new king of ego in town and he is a complete self absorbed A-Hole. My new hope for Lebron is a career that mirrors that of Karl Malone or Charles Barkley with great numbers and nothing to show for it.

Breaking News: Global Warming is caused by excess CO2.

For some reason many Republicans have what I like to term as selective science. This means they only believe in the science that agrees with or directly helps them. Since Republicans have a soft spot for Big Business maybe it would be helpful if one of the companies they trust with science, like Pfizer, points out that the scince that saves their lives in the operating room is the same science that came up with wacky ideas like evolution and global warming. Unfortunately for these people just believing in something doesn't make it true. If it did we Sarah Palin would be VP right now and we could cure cancer just by believing it doesn't exist.

Global Warming has been a hot topic of debate recently with a clear division between those who understand scince and those that don't. Much to the shagrian of my Furriners collegue, I have given up on debating Global Warming and decided to focus on the cause of Global Warming: CO2. Excess CO2 is not good for humans and the plant life that sustains us so my question to the Global Warming haters is what do you love so much about CO2?

There is a government web site (www.airnow.gov) set up to specifically inform people about the quality of the air in their area. In the midwest right now the air quality is not good for people in sensative groups with even a small section that is not good for the general population. When you fight against Global Warming you are fight against these people and their quality of life. You are fighting for cheap energy and against people. I would bet that most of these people claim to be Pro-Life and yet to save a few bucks at the pump they are willing to sacrafice the weaker among us.

The problem is that until their doctor tells them they are dying because of poor air quality Republicans will insist CO2 is fine. The irony is that if we do nothing the only chance these people will have of surviving in the future is evolution.

The Right Network?

In case you didn't know the right has decided that one channel dedicated to the views of extreme conservatives (and half truths) is not enough. Later this year there are plans to launch a new network called the Right Network which will cater conservatives.

In the past we have talked about what makes someone a conservative and the idea behind this network fills another of those traits. Being Paranoid. Conservatives have a pohbia for hearing about anything that challenges their beliefs. Because of this when the media gives an unbiased report on an issue all a conservative hears is the things that they disagree with. To justify this fear they have decided to claim anything without an extreme right slant as Liberal Media Bias. How very self serving to be so convinced that you are correct all the time that you assume the people whose job is to gather and report on information are all bias and wrong. Yes you are so paranoid that you believe 100% of the media that doesn't contain the word Fox in the title is a giant conspiracy.

Having said that I recently received an email chastizing African Americans for having Afrian American specific media. Below is a quote from the email (errantly attributed to Andy Rooney)

'I don't think being a minority
makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The
only things I can think of that are truly
discriminatory are things like the United Negro
College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment
Television, and Miss Black America.. Try to have
things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud
Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss
White America ; and see what happens...Jesse Jackson
will be knocking down your door.

What I would love to hear from my Conservative Bretheran is how they can justify the need for the Right Network while lambasting the African American media. If the claim is Liberal Media Bias then I give you White Media Bias as a response. If there is some other explanation I would love to hear it because this is a prime example of Repubocrisy.

DOJ going after Arizona...I'm game.

To keep with the ever so thin thread of conversation we have going in the last few posts (Repubocrisy) I wanted to talk about the DOJ challenge to the new Arizona law.

First as noted in an NPR story today Republicans have been trying for years to prevent immigrants from entering the country (if only they got the irony) and every time they try it the Supreme Court shoots down their efforts as unconstitutional. This case will be no different.

Second, in a giant case of Repubocrisy, Republicans are going to be up in arms that the DOJ is challenging the Arizona law. I have heard many times that the only reason this law is being put in place is because of the failures of the federal government (it should be noted that Republicans were in charge of the Congress for much of the aughts and made no major changes to these failing laws). I have also heard that Republicans (other than Lindsey Graham at times) have been completely uninterested in working on immigration reform. Unfortunately for supporters of the Arizona law you can't complain about the federal government for failing to act on one hand and then blindly support the very guys who are the cause of this failing to act.

America! Fuck Yeah!

We don't typically comment on one another's posts around here. We spend enough time talking in the office. I talk about Derek Anderson and his ability to throw a 40 yard seam route where the ball doesn't get more than nine feet off the ground. My colleague talks about Justin Beiber's haircut. Truthfully, I think we're talking at each other more than to each other sometimes.

But his post on liberals vs conservatives and their respective views of patriotism reminded me of something I've often thought about.

What makes something "Un-American"?

Like my colleague, I have conservative family members. For example, my mother was adament back in 2008 that Michelle Obama was "un-American" (because of her comments about being proud to be American for the first time after her husband won a certain primary). I hate to go all George Carlin (or maybe I don't hate it all) on you again... but is not anything that an American does by definition become "American"? So, no matter what the conservatives may wish to think, America is not just capitalism, the second amendment, baseball, strong military, and Toby Keith.

America also includes the murder of abortion providers (oops! Bad example. Many conservatives encourage/support that).

Let's try again. America is prejudice, greed, poverty, crime, and Kanye West. America is love and hate. It is reason and ignorance. It is Ann Coulter and Janeane Garofalo. It is Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh and Lance Armstrong and Mike Tyson. It is me and (most likely) you.

The point is that you can't decide something or someone is "un-American" because they don't fit your notion of what America should be.

P.S. The exception to the rule is America IS Derek Anderson and NOT Matt Leinart.

video: America! Fuck Yeah!

Ratigan: Venezuala of BS?

I feel confident saying that Rachel Maddow is unanimously liked and respected by all two Furriners bloggers. My colleague may have decided that watching America's Biggest Loser or The Real Fat Housewives of New Jersey Surviving In The Wild is better use of his time than watching The Rachel Maddow Show but, you know, to each his own. It is certainly less embarrassing than his love for Justin Beiber.

Anyway, the respect for Ms. Maddow is not shared for Dylan Ratigan. I am the only one who takes him at all seriously. What can I say? He can be fun to blog about because, at times, he gets so over the top. I will say that as long as the airwaves have the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, & Rick Sutcliffe, he may not be the "Saudi Arabia of Bullshit"... but he seems to be a lot closer than he thinks.

For example, I consider the following to be a striking contradiction in rhetoric. To be fair, there can be a nuanced interpretation where he does not seem like a hypocrite but to paraphrase Anderson Cooper: I'll report, you decide.

First quote is from his introduction of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) on June 22nd where he calls out the Obama administration for the deep water drilling moratorium:

As it stands, it seems insane to prevent anybody from being able to work that lives there.

Then, on June 29th, Ratigan says this:

"If nothing, it (the BP oil spill) teaches us that relying on off-shore drilling, relying on traditional fossil fuel as it stands right now is simply not sustainable and works to the direct potential future diminishment if not meaning destruction to portions of our country. Not only is it grossly inefficient and expensive, as we saw on April 20th, it's deadly."

Is that not somewhat bi-polar?

And consider the phrasing on that first quote: "insane to prevent anybody...". Insane?!!? Is that not too forceful an adjective for what is admittedly a very difficult issue? And prevent anybody? Let's be clear, we are talking about less than 33 rigs out of the approximately 3,500 rigs operating in the Gulf. Does this sound like "prevent anybody" is the appropriate terminology for this situation?

I guess my argument is that, unlike the Rhodes Scholar (Dr. Maddow), Ratigan has yet to develop a coherent (or at least a consistently coherent) ideology for what is the role of government in today's society.

I suppose if I could stomach Glenn Beck, I would have tons of bullshit to blog about. That said, Saudi Arabia is one step too far for me.

Have you hugged your flag today?

I have had a long standing belief that the major difference between Democrats and Republicans (Liberals and Conservatives if you like) is the ability to put ones self in someone else's shoes. In my personal experience Republicans are almost incapable of such a feet. (If dick Cheney's daughter wasn't gay do you think his stance on homosexuals would be the same?)

As a Democrat I find this ability an important step in formulating an argument. It's the devils advocate of being able to understand and argue the opposing point of view.

Having experienced the Fourth of July recently with some conservative family members I decided that I could make these observations a regular part of this blog, starting with Republicans who wrap themselves in the flag.

I found a poll from a few years back that I think describes the situation fairly well:

By self-report, Republicans are more patriotic – last year, 76 percent of them said they were very patriotic, compared with 53 percent of Democrats. Self-described conservatives were 24 points more likely than liberals to describe themselves that way.

Conservatives were more likely than liberals to see differences in patriotism between the two groups. A quarter of conservatives believed liberals were less patriotic than they themselves were, a percentage nearly four times as large as the percentage of liberals who felt conservatives were less patriotic.

While I'm not surprised by the numbers I think the information is very telling. The Conservative assumes that being a Liberal makes you an arch enemy of America (ie Communist or Socialist). While the Liberal assumes if you live in the country the odds are you support this country.

This is where the "putting yourself into someone else's shoes" comes in. As a Liberal I understand showing up to a World Cup soccer match in head to toe red, white and blue, but what I don't understand is showing up to a BBQ down the street with the same outfit on. I really don't care about your level of patriotism on a day to day basis. I don't think the number of times you sang the National Anthem has any bearing on your level of Patriotism. Because of this I understand that Liberals wouldn't feel the need to identify themselves as patriotic.

I also understand that to Republicans things are black and white and you are either for us or against us. This is why they need to identify themselves as patriotic and hang American flags every where to prove how patriotic they are. The point being, I get it; I don't do it myself, but I get it.

Where the problem lies is that they don't understand how I can be so non-committal. They don't understand how you can be of Mexican decent in America and be just as proud of your heritage as you are of being American. For them it needs to be one or the other. This is why when I debate with a Republican we both walk away mad for different reasons. I'm upset because they can't understand my point of view and my Republican friend is mad at how wrong I am.

These poll results are an example of the underlying problem. The only trouble is my Republican friends won't understand this post, other than that it will make them mad and prove that they are a better American than I am.

Invest In That Doom Bunker

It may be doom bunker time because I think John Boehner has a point and Rachel Maddow is wrong.

Recently, Boehner garnered some headlines when he said this:

We're all livin' a lot longer than anybody ever expected and I think raising the retirement age - going out twenty years so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement - and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken.

Rachel Maddow commented on this with this sarcastic commentary:

Attention all sixty-year olds! Attention all fifty-somethings! John Boehner wants you to know that Republicans are going to raise the retirement age on social security. Okay, everybody good? Don't forget to vote in November you demographic that always votes. Every single election. Every single time.

Ummmm... I think it's perfectly fine to have a difference on the policy proposal but I was annoyed by Rachel ignoring the clear phrase "going out twenty years so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement." That is not exactly a vague phrasing that Mr. Boehner used. Come on, Rachel! You're better than that!

As for my opinion on the proposal. Personally, I appreciate that it's an actual idea - and a potentially politically unpopular one at that - rather than what we typically get from Republicans (generic talking points about lower taxes, less regulation, and support for free markets). What is not clear to me without doing additional research is the imperative for the idea. I hear all sorts of comments on the solvency/sustainability of the social security system. I believe I saw John Ralston say in his interview with Nevada GOP senate candidate Sharron Angle that the system is projected to be solvent until 2037. That sounds promising. But perhaps we should try to do better? Raising the retirement age, raising the tax rate, cutting benefits, and some sort of means testing are all options. I encourage the conversation to happen before it is forced upon us.

I'm Back, Baby!

It's been a couple weeks since I have contributed to this blog. Real life kind of got in the way for a bit. I really wanted to comment on the NBA Draft where I was almost entirely correct (only missing in that Patrick Patterson snuck in at the very end of the lottery at #14 - still 8 picks behind Epke Udoh). See here for my previous posts with predictions.

I've taken notes on several other MSNBC moments that I wanted to comment on but may not take the opportunity now. But maybe I will (even if they are no longer necessarily timely). Let me start with this which I believe is maybe already over a week old:

There are many things that annoy us here at Furriners. Very prominent on the list is Republican politicians using the phrase "the American people want..." or, of course, "the American people don't want..." whatever it is. Often they use that phrase to describe simple platitudes that are agreeable enough and are often meant to insinuate that Democratic policies are keeping the people from the laudible end (example: "the American people want to be kept safe"); sometimes they use it in a way that is vague and open to interpretation (example: "the American people don't want Big Government". Perhaps not... but, obviously, we all have our own threshold for what constitutes "big" government. And even in that example, these people who don't want Big Government are, nevertheless, typically the same people who want government to decide how every pregnancy should conclude (i.e. with a live birth) regardless of the woman's preference).

Sometimes a Democrat will also presume to speak for the American people. Such was the case on The Rachel Maddow Show on June 24 when Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said this:

What this oil disaster - if you can find a silver lining at all - has resulted in is the American people coalescing and beginning to recognize that we have to ween ourselves off our dependence on oil - not just foreign oil - but oil. And pass legislation that will help us invest in renewable energy sources... that is the key to our long-term energy needs.

Are there poll numbers that support this? I mean, I'm sure if you ask some generic question of the masses, they'll agree we should reduce our dependency on oil... but I don't know of any evidence that the American people are willing to make any sort of sacrifice to make this happen! Is there some swelling of grassroots support for a carbon-tax that I don't know about?

If I recall correctly, Thomas Friedman considers it a given that they only way you're going to get Americans to embrace alternative forms of energy is to make it cheap and easy to do so. Thus, unless there is a game-changing technological breakthrough in the near future, the only way it will become cheap and easy (and "cheap", in this case, I mean only as a relative term because, of course, energy will actually cost more than it currently does) we're probably looking at both putting a price on carbon and the need for the federal government to massively invest in infrastructure (modernizing the energy grid and, yes, perhaps building many more nuclear plants). Do tax raises and increased government spending seem like something the American people want? Unlike John Boehner, I don't like to speak for the American people, but I will say that I don't see it.

If you can dish it out

I have found no shortage of Republicans willing to send me those standard mass emails which they claim represents their views. By in large these emails don't contain much facts or truth. I assume my Republican friends send this information to me because they are interested in letting me know how they feel about a certain topic. As such I always take the time to respond to them with the errors in their emails and the facts with documentation to back up my claims. The typical response to my retort is a Joe Wilson like "You Lie". Often utilizing capital letters to let me know how serious they are. The problem is I have yet to receive any proof that my information is inaccurate. All I seem to do is make my friends mad because my facts are contrary to their beliefs. We here at Furriners love debunking this mindless emails and would be more than happy to do so for our reader as well. We just ask that you take our response like a man and if you disagree with us you bring something more to the table than "you're wrong".

Be careful what you wish for

Some day Republicans are going to regain control over the Senate and when that day happens I hope they fully expect to accomplish nothing without achieving 60 votes. They have made their bed and are going to have to lye in it. If John Boehner is lucky enough to still have a job when this happens he better not complain about the tactics Democrats use to block his legislation. I would put big money on Boehner making statements very similar to the remarks President Obama has made recently which prompted Boehner to say the President was whining and I will be make sure to point out how much of a hypocrite Boehner is.