Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Odd man out?
ESPN reported today that Matt Leinart is in danger of being cut. I would put the percentage chance that this actually happens at 2% or nearly double the probability of my Furriners cohort making a 4 ft putt.
Monday, August 30, 2010
ESPN the Magazine NFC Preview - you're on the list!
ESPN the Magazine has apparently done 10,000 simulations of the NFC and has decided that the Atlanta Falcons have the best chance to be the NFC representative to the Super Bowl. While I find that prediction fairly absurd, it is I suppose plausible.
Where I have a problem is that they give the St. Louis Rams 6 wins. I'll do my own laundry for an entire year if the Rams win 6 games. Worse yet they have the Lions only winning 3 games. I'm not sure what statistics they are using but there is no way in hell the Lions win less games than the Rams.
Additionally they have the Chicago Bears winning as many games as the Minnesota Vikings and the Green Bay Packers at 9. The Vikings alone should sack Jay Cutler 23 times this year. I call BS on each of these predictions. I'd be willing to bet a quarter that the Rams win less than 6 games, less than the Lions and that the Bears are a distant third to the Vikings and Packers in the NFC North.
ESPN the magazine - this is the most embarrassing thing I've seen online since Sarah Palin starting comparing herself to Shakespeare.
Where I have a problem is that they give the St. Louis Rams 6 wins. I'll do my own laundry for an entire year if the Rams win 6 games. Worse yet they have the Lions only winning 3 games. I'm not sure what statistics they are using but there is no way in hell the Lions win less games than the Rams.
Additionally they have the Chicago Bears winning as many games as the Minnesota Vikings and the Green Bay Packers at 9. The Vikings alone should sack Jay Cutler 23 times this year. I call BS on each of these predictions. I'd be willing to bet a quarter that the Rams win less than 6 games, less than the Lions and that the Bears are a distant third to the Vikings and Packers in the NFC North.
ESPN the magazine - this is the most embarrassing thing I've seen online since Sarah Palin starting comparing herself to Shakespeare.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Mike Martz and Jay Cutler are at it again.
After the Chicago Bears - Arizona Cardinals preseason football game today I found this quote from Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune:
"He was intercepted twice, sacked four times and had a passer rating of 31. That's nine sacks now in essentially a full game of action over the last two weeks."
While math may not be my strong suit, right now the combination of Jay Cutler and Mike Martz are on pace to shatter the NFL sacks allowed record. At 9 a game that gives us a total of 144 sacks allowed.
Also of note in the same report by Biggs he noted how the Bears defense was not up to par in the following statement:
"The defense was again shredded on third down by hardly all-star caliber quarterbacks."
To Biggs' point Matt Leinart did dominate the Bears with his best performance of the preseason going 9 of 10 for 84 yards and a 135 rating, while just edging out the second best QB on the field Dan LeFevour who was 10 of 12 for for 100 yards and a 129.2 rating.
Suck on that women who are currently doing my laundry!
"He was intercepted twice, sacked four times and had a passer rating of 31. That's nine sacks now in essentially a full game of action over the last two weeks."
While math may not be my strong suit, right now the combination of Jay Cutler and Mike Martz are on pace to shatter the NFL sacks allowed record. At 9 a game that gives us a total of 144 sacks allowed.
Also of note in the same report by Biggs he noted how the Bears defense was not up to par in the following statement:
"The defense was again shredded on third down by hardly all-star caliber quarterbacks."
To Biggs' point Matt Leinart did dominate the Bears with his best performance of the preseason going 9 of 10 for 84 yards and a 135 rating, while just edging out the second best QB on the field Dan LeFevour who was 10 of 12 for for 100 yards and a 129.2 rating.
Suck on that women who are currently doing my laundry!
Friday, August 27, 2010
Ken Mehlman Is Pro-Gay Rights... Now
In the event you live under a rock and did not hear, former chairman of the Republican National Committee (2005-07) and Bush-Cheney Campaign Manager (2004), Ken Mehlman, this week publicly acknowledged that he is a homosexual.
Fine. I have nothing to say about that.
I bring this up to point to a short segment that The Daily Show did about this topic on yesterday's show and how it relates to my co-bloggers list of strongly held convictions:
1) Republicans/conservatives are unable and/or unwilling to "put themselves in someone's shoes" (so to speak).
2) College QBs operating in the spread take longer to adapt to the NFL (if they can at all).
3) Laundry is woman's work.
For this post, we are only dealing with #1.
And so I thought of that belief when Jon Stewart showed the soundbyte of Ken Mehlman responding to ABC News as to whether he regretted being part of Karl Rove's politics of divisiveness (i.e. courting votes using an anti-gay agenda):
"What I regret is the fact that I had not come to terms with this part of my life and, therefore, I was not able to do what I was able to do in other areas and work for a more inclusive and broader party."
Jon Stewart's comment:
"Right! You can't expect him to fight for the rights of a group that he didn't know he was a part of! I'm sure if he ever found out he was black, he'd be 100% against segregation too. It's like that old poem:
First they came for the gays
But I didn't know I was gay... so who gives a shit!"
Okay, so maybe Elijah Moon is on to something. And I share his opinion on #2 (I'm looking at you Bradford, McCoy, and Tebow). I am still not convinced that #3 is true though. No matter how much he rants about how only a woman should do laundry... I think he's wrong and I am not afaid to say it.
Fine. I have nothing to say about that.
I bring this up to point to a short segment that The Daily Show did about this topic on yesterday's show and how it relates to my co-bloggers list of strongly held convictions:
1) Republicans/conservatives are unable and/or unwilling to "put themselves in someone's shoes" (so to speak).
2) College QBs operating in the spread take longer to adapt to the NFL (if they can at all).
3) Laundry is woman's work.
For this post, we are only dealing with #1.
And so I thought of that belief when Jon Stewart showed the soundbyte of Ken Mehlman responding to ABC News as to whether he regretted being part of Karl Rove's politics of divisiveness (i.e. courting votes using an anti-gay agenda):
"What I regret is the fact that I had not come to terms with this part of my life and, therefore, I was not able to do what I was able to do in other areas and work for a more inclusive and broader party."
Jon Stewart's comment:
"Right! You can't expect him to fight for the rights of a group that he didn't know he was a part of! I'm sure if he ever found out he was black, he'd be 100% against segregation too. It's like that old poem:
First they came for the gays
But I didn't know I was gay... so who gives a shit!"
Okay, so maybe Elijah Moon is on to something. And I share his opinion on #2 (I'm looking at you Bradford, McCoy, and Tebow). I am still not convinced that #3 is true though. No matter how much he rants about how only a woman should do laundry... I think he's wrong and I am not afaid to say it.
Dick Armey Is Full of Shit
That Dick Armey is full of shit should not be a news flash to anyone. If you do not know who Mr. Armey is (and the extent with which he is a shit containing vessel), I would argue you need to be better informed.
Anyway, I wanted to address a quote from Mr. Armey on Meet The Press this past weekend where he was (sort of) debating lame duck Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.
Mr. Armey had this to say:
I'll give you anywhere from a minimum of $2T to a possible $8T worth of real stimulus to the economy from the private sector if we can just relieve the private sector that's sitting on it's cash from the fear that this administration is going to screw up the future of this economy.
This gives me yet another chance to post this link from Mr. Barry Ritholtz and also this well written blog post from Furriners.
According to the Total Liquid Assets graph in the Ritholtz post, there is just over $1.8T of cash on the balance sheets of America's 500 largest nonfinancial companies. I am guessing that is where Mr. Armey is getting his suggestion that "a minimum of $2T" of stimulus could be given to the economy if not for Obama's policies. The problem is that the graph shows that the balance had already risen to over $1.4T as early as 2005! And that was when the economy seemed to be doing okay (and it was - provided you were already very wealthy).
While there may be a small kernel of truth to the private sector having some concerns about the implications of so-called ObamaCare, Mr. Armey has no interest in having an intelligent discussion of policy. Instead, he chooses inflammatory rhetoric with no legitimate factual basis. He is a partisan hack only concerned about his own self-interests (read: he is full of shit).
Anyway, I wanted to address a quote from Mr. Armey on Meet The Press this past weekend where he was (sort of) debating lame duck Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.
Mr. Armey had this to say:
I'll give you anywhere from a minimum of $2T to a possible $8T worth of real stimulus to the economy from the private sector if we can just relieve the private sector that's sitting on it's cash from the fear that this administration is going to screw up the future of this economy.
This gives me yet another chance to post this link from Mr. Barry Ritholtz and also this well written blog post from Furriners.
According to the Total Liquid Assets graph in the Ritholtz post, there is just over $1.8T of cash on the balance sheets of America's 500 largest nonfinancial companies. I am guessing that is where Mr. Armey is getting his suggestion that "a minimum of $2T" of stimulus could be given to the economy if not for Obama's policies. The problem is that the graph shows that the balance had already risen to over $1.4T as early as 2005! And that was when the economy seemed to be doing okay (and it was - provided you were already very wealthy).
While there may be a small kernel of truth to the private sector having some concerns about the implications of so-called ObamaCare, Mr. Armey has no interest in having an intelligent discussion of policy. Instead, he chooses inflammatory rhetoric with no legitimate factual basis. He is a partisan hack only concerned about his own self-interests (read: he is full of shit).
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Kevin Seifert of ESPN - You're on the list
Kevin Seifert, the NFC North blogger for ESPN had this to say recently about the Lions move of Amari Spievey to Safety:
"I wouldn't consider this move a sign that Spievey is a bust, however. There was talk even before the draft that his long-term future was at safety."
My problem here is that a position change does not automatically make a player a bust. Bryan Buluga who was drafted in the first round by the Green Bay Packers was recently shifted from Tackle to Guard. The thought was that he was not going to get to play at Tackle and he might be an upgrade at guard. Some suggested before the draft that guard may be a better position for Buluga in the NFL. I have not heard of anyone calling Buluga a bust because of this change. This is not to say that I believe Amari Spievey was a great draft pick or that he will be successful at Safety but the Lions have a desperate need at Safety and if Spievey, as a third round pick, can fill that void, then I would call that a success. The point is, the guy has played all of two preseason games so let's hold off on the bust label until at least the third preseason game.
"I wouldn't consider this move a sign that Spievey is a bust, however. There was talk even before the draft that his long-term future was at safety."
My problem here is that a position change does not automatically make a player a bust. Bryan Buluga who was drafted in the first round by the Green Bay Packers was recently shifted from Tackle to Guard. The thought was that he was not going to get to play at Tackle and he might be an upgrade at guard. Some suggested before the draft that guard may be a better position for Buluga in the NFL. I have not heard of anyone calling Buluga a bust because of this change. This is not to say that I believe Amari Spievey was a great draft pick or that he will be successful at Safety but the Lions have a desperate need at Safety and if Spievey, as a third round pick, can fill that void, then I would call that a success. The point is, the guy has played all of two preseason games so let's hold off on the bust label until at least the third preseason game.
Pat Tillman Documentary
Late last week a documentary about Pat Tillman's time in Afghanistan was released. While I really don't have much thoughts on this movie or Pat Tillman's service to the country, other than to say he is clearly a better man than me, I do think the Tillman Story points out a Repubocrisy that baffles me.
Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire in a war that was undermanned and without clear direction. After his death there were lies told by many high ranking officials as part of a cover up. For some reason the American military complex is put on a pedestal by the right and any critique proves how un-patriotic you are. I think the story of Pat Tillman is an example that all corners of our government has issues. I think it also illustrates how many great people serve our country at all levels. What I don't understand is how conservatives can make excuses for the corruption, the wasteful spending and devastating affects our military has on service men and women, their families and the civilians in the countries we occupy (help spread democracy to). The fact is the military is a government agency and it is no more or less corrupt, wasteful, or harmful to American citizens than any other branch of the government. As mentioned previously on this blog we should look at every government agency including defense when we try and figure out how to reduce the budget. The military does not deserve a free pass by the right any more than President Obama deserves a free pass by the left. They all work for us and they should all be held to the same standard.
Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire in a war that was undermanned and without clear direction. After his death there were lies told by many high ranking officials as part of a cover up. For some reason the American military complex is put on a pedestal by the right and any critique proves how un-patriotic you are. I think the story of Pat Tillman is an example that all corners of our government has issues. I think it also illustrates how many great people serve our country at all levels. What I don't understand is how conservatives can make excuses for the corruption, the wasteful spending and devastating affects our military has on service men and women, their families and the civilians in the countries we occupy (help spread democracy to). The fact is the military is a government agency and it is no more or less corrupt, wasteful, or harmful to American citizens than any other branch of the government. As mentioned previously on this blog we should look at every government agency including defense when we try and figure out how to reduce the budget. The military does not deserve a free pass by the right any more than President Obama deserves a free pass by the left. They all work for us and they should all be held to the same standard.
I Knew This Was Probably Too Good To Be True
I think it's safe to say that the loyal readers of Furriners that don't actually exist know that we do not think highly of a certain couple rookie quarterbacks.
Here is where I have posted on Jimmy Clausen.
I posted this on Tim Tebow.
What our currently non-existent readers may not know is that we also do not think highly of Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy. And, in fact, I have previously mentioned McCoy in this blog a couple times.
So I got to say I was a little giddy when I read that McCoy was "on the bubble" for the final 53 man Browns roster. Alas, newer reports cast doubt on the previous report.
Regardless, everyone seems to agree that McCoy's career is off to an inauspicious start.
My recommendation: if the Browns need another QB, they could get Matt Leinart from the Cardinals... he would make a solid #3 QB.
By the way and for the record, Sam Bradford has not been much better. I have restrainted myself from yelling "I Called It!!" because it is, of course, WAY too early for that - but here is what Rotoworld said about Bradford a couple days ago (8/24):
If Bradford doesn't play better than he has, it will be a concern for the organization.
If I were a Rams fan, I would have been concerned the second they turned in the card to pick a System QB with the #1 overall pick.
Here is where I have posted on Jimmy Clausen.
I posted this on Tim Tebow.
What our currently non-existent readers may not know is that we also do not think highly of Sam Bradford or Colt McCoy. And, in fact, I have previously mentioned McCoy in this blog a couple times.
So I got to say I was a little giddy when I read that McCoy was "on the bubble" for the final 53 man Browns roster. Alas, newer reports cast doubt on the previous report.
Regardless, everyone seems to agree that McCoy's career is off to an inauspicious start.
My recommendation: if the Browns need another QB, they could get Matt Leinart from the Cardinals... he would make a solid #3 QB.
By the way and for the record, Sam Bradford has not been much better. I have restrainted myself from yelling "I Called It!!" because it is, of course, WAY too early for that - but here is what Rotoworld said about Bradford a couple days ago (8/24):
If Bradford doesn't play better than he has, it will be a concern for the organization.
If I were a Rams fan, I would have been concerned the second they turned in the card to pick a System QB with the #1 overall pick.
Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.
I keep hearing how much a landslide victory for the Republicans this November's elections will be but then I hear something like Rick Scott has been selected by the voting public in Florida as the Republican candidate.
I understand the anti-incumbent fever that is supposedly sweeping the nation, but this is not the outsider you want. This is particularly true if you care about the deficit and national debt. With Rick Scott at the helm his company paid over $1.7 billion to settle various lawsuits brought against them for Medicare fraud. Rick Scott got rich by stealing from the government and you want to put him in charge of government money? To put the irony of this in terms Republicans can get on board with imagine if Arianna Huffington in charge of Fox News.
My point is you guys have a golden opportunity to gain seats and you're blowing it. It has been almost universal that in the mid term elections for a Presidents first term his party loses seats but if you guys keep voting people like Rick Scott in you're practically putting up a white flag.
I understand the anti-incumbent fever that is supposedly sweeping the nation, but this is not the outsider you want. This is particularly true if you care about the deficit and national debt. With Rick Scott at the helm his company paid over $1.7 billion to settle various lawsuits brought against them for Medicare fraud. Rick Scott got rich by stealing from the government and you want to put him in charge of government money? To put the irony of this in terms Republicans can get on board with imagine if Arianna Huffington in charge of Fox News.
My point is you guys have a golden opportunity to gain seats and you're blowing it. It has been almost universal that in the mid term elections for a Presidents first term his party loses seats but if you guys keep voting people like Rick Scott in you're practically putting up a white flag.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf
Rauf, of course, is the iman behind the Park 51 Community Center project.
And I'm certain that all Furriners readers have a competent grasp of google so this will not replace your own research should you be interested in learning about this gentleman's background. However I did want to single out a couple recent "takes" of Fareed Zakaria.
Take #1 (from 8/8)
Take #2 (from 8/22)
Also, here is a quote from John Podesta on Charlie Rose last week (~8/19):
The Iman who leads that effort was somebody that has been embraced by Republicans and Democrats. (He is someone) who Condi Rice and Karen Hughes sent on the road on behalf of the State Department as a goodwill ambassador explaining the best traditions of America. This is exactly the kind of voice that we want to hear. A voice that repudiates Al Qaeda - that is against terrorism.
And I'm certain that all Furriners readers have a competent grasp of google so this will not replace your own research should you be interested in learning about this gentleman's background. However I did want to single out a couple recent "takes" of Fareed Zakaria.
Take #1 (from 8/8)
Take #2 (from 8/22)
Also, here is a quote from John Podesta on Charlie Rose last week (~8/19):
The Iman who leads that effort was somebody that has been embraced by Republicans and Democrats. (He is someone) who Condi Rice and Karen Hughes sent on the road on behalf of the State Department as a goodwill ambassador explaining the best traditions of America. This is exactly the kind of voice that we want to hear. A voice that repudiates Al Qaeda - that is against terrorism.
Barack Obama & The Park 51 Community Center
Allow me to rant a bit:
Mitch McConnell (human/turtle hybrid?) was on Meet The Press this weekend and he said this in response to a question about the controversial community center/mosque:
Obviously, this is not about freedom of religion. Typically, these kinds of decisions have been made by local officials. What's been different about this one is that you have the President of the United States weighing in on this issue - actually on each side of the issue within 24 hours which has helped stimulate a great national debate - not about freedom of religion but about the appropriateness of the location.
Okay, so that is not THAT unreasonable (for a modern day Republican/conservative anyway). However, a couple things I will note for the record. As this article indicates, President Obama's comments were made at a Ramadan Iftar dinner on 8/13, so if that is not an appropriate venue to comment on an issue concerning Muslim-Americans, I don't know what could be. Moreover, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich had long since taken this out of being a strictly local issue. Here is a column commenting on Palin's opposition from 7/19 and here is a column that Gingrich published on 7/28. Now, I will grant you that they are nothing but citizens with an opinion, but you must grant me that these are not ordinary citizens.
Also, I was watching an episode of Charlie Rose last week as Mr. Rose was having a conversation with John Podesta (a former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton) and Kenneth Duberstein (a former Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan) regarding the first year and a half of the Obama presidency. Mr. Duberstein (more on him later) - though still very much the conservative - said this:
I think what (Obama) said Friday night on religous freedom and what America stands for was absolutely appropriate... the presidency should be on the high plain of talking about principles of America... he was absolutely right to talk about that but he should have said that the placement of a mosque is a local issue by New York City and New York state.
Okay, I don't necessarily agree with the need to comment on the jurisdiction of the zoning issues... but whatever... my point is that even rational conservatives recognize that the appropriateness of the POTUS addressing this issue.
Mitch McConnell (human/turtle hybrid?) was on Meet The Press this weekend and he said this in response to a question about the controversial community center/mosque:
Obviously, this is not about freedom of religion. Typically, these kinds of decisions have been made by local officials. What's been different about this one is that you have the President of the United States weighing in on this issue - actually on each side of the issue within 24 hours which has helped stimulate a great national debate - not about freedom of religion but about the appropriateness of the location.
Okay, so that is not THAT unreasonable (for a modern day Republican/conservative anyway). However, a couple things I will note for the record. As this article indicates, President Obama's comments were made at a Ramadan Iftar dinner on 8/13, so if that is not an appropriate venue to comment on an issue concerning Muslim-Americans, I don't know what could be. Moreover, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich had long since taken this out of being a strictly local issue. Here is a column commenting on Palin's opposition from 7/19 and here is a column that Gingrich published on 7/28. Now, I will grant you that they are nothing but citizens with an opinion, but you must grant me that these are not ordinary citizens.
Also, I was watching an episode of Charlie Rose last week as Mr. Rose was having a conversation with John Podesta (a former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton) and Kenneth Duberstein (a former Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan) regarding the first year and a half of the Obama presidency. Mr. Duberstein (more on him later) - though still very much the conservative - said this:
I think what (Obama) said Friday night on religous freedom and what America stands for was absolutely appropriate... the presidency should be on the high plain of talking about principles of America... he was absolutely right to talk about that but he should have said that the placement of a mosque is a local issue by New York City and New York state.
Okay, I don't necessarily agree with the need to comment on the jurisdiction of the zoning issues... but whatever... my point is that even rational conservatives recognize that the appropriateness of the POTUS addressing this issue.
The Chicago Bears, Mike Martz and Jeff Backus
I have long held the opinion that Mike Martz's offense sets up the offensive line to fail (see below). I don't think this is a revolutionary thought but it serves to explain my point later in this article.
I predict that the Chicago Bears will rank in the top 3 in the league for most sacks allowed not because they have an awful line but because of Mike Martz's offense. I also believe that left tackle Chris Williams will be benched at some point this year because he will be blamed for a bunch of sacks that are really the fault of the system he is in. I also believe the even if Lovie Smith retains his job next year the either Mike Martz or Mike Tice will not.
This bring me to my real point. As a Detroit Lions fan I get tired of hearing every year about how we need to replace Jeff Backus. While I am a Backus supporter I think he is at best, in the middle of the pack for left tackles. Jeff Backus, however, is not the reason the Lions have been so bad over the last decade. I think he was always thought of as solid until the arrival of Mike Martz and that Martz's system ruined the perception of Backus's ability. At the end of last season Jim Schwartz indicated that Backus should have been considered for the pro bowl. Many in the media found this laughable. I dare say that Jim Schwartz has a much better idea of how Jeff Backus preformed last year than any member of the media and give that Schwartz has not shown a propensity for blowing smoke up peoples ass, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. If you really want to drink the Lions Kool aid then you will believe that having Rob Sims at left guard will lead to an even better season for Jeff Backus. My guess is that Backus would actually have to make a pro bowl for people to stop ranking left tackle as the Lions top need in the off season. Do I think Backus is destined for a Pro Bowl appearance in the near future - No. Do I think he is better than most people give him credit for - Yes.
I predict that the Chicago Bears will rank in the top 3 in the league for most sacks allowed not because they have an awful line but because of Mike Martz's offense. I also believe that left tackle Chris Williams will be benched at some point this year because he will be blamed for a bunch of sacks that are really the fault of the system he is in. I also believe the even if Lovie Smith retains his job next year the either Mike Martz or Mike Tice will not.
This bring me to my real point. As a Detroit Lions fan I get tired of hearing every year about how we need to replace Jeff Backus. While I am a Backus supporter I think he is at best, in the middle of the pack for left tackles. Jeff Backus, however, is not the reason the Lions have been so bad over the last decade. I think he was always thought of as solid until the arrival of Mike Martz and that Martz's system ruined the perception of Backus's ability. At the end of last season Jim Schwartz indicated that Backus should have been considered for the pro bowl. Many in the media found this laughable. I dare say that Jim Schwartz has a much better idea of how Jeff Backus preformed last year than any member of the media and give that Schwartz has not shown a propensity for blowing smoke up peoples ass, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. If you really want to drink the Lions Kool aid then you will believe that having Rob Sims at left guard will lead to an even better season for Jeff Backus. My guess is that Backus would actually have to make a pro bowl for people to stop ranking left tackle as the Lions top need in the off season. Do I think Backus is destined for a Pro Bowl appearance in the near future - No. Do I think he is better than most people give him credit for - Yes.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Speak For Yourself, Elijah!
Last week, Roger Clemens was indicted for perjury pertaining to what he told a House Committee in 2008 about his (non-)use of PEDs.
ESPNews kept running the same little clip over and over again with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) saying:
No one wants to see somebody like a Roger Clemens fall but I got to say he had several members of our committee basically almost begging him not to do this. He asked for it and I think he got more than he bargained for.
It seems to me that members of congress are comically misinformed when it comes to sports and sports culture. Most famous was the late Senator Ted Kennedy's infamous introduction of "Mike McGwire and Sammy Sooser" back in 1999 (a few months after they had captivated the nation with the home run chase of 1998).
And I so I say that Roger Clemens is a fucking asshole. I think there are a LOT of people thrilled to see him "fall". This isn't Lance Armstrong. This isn't Tom Brady. Or Lolo Jones. Or 2007 Pro-Bowl QB Derek Anderson. They are beloved sports icons.
This is Roger Clemens. He is a prick. Fuck him.
ESPNews kept running the same little clip over and over again with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) saying:
No one wants to see somebody like a Roger Clemens fall but I got to say he had several members of our committee basically almost begging him not to do this. He asked for it and I think he got more than he bargained for.
It seems to me that members of congress are comically misinformed when it comes to sports and sports culture. Most famous was the late Senator Ted Kennedy's infamous introduction of "Mike McGwire and Sammy Sooser" back in 1999 (a few months after they had captivated the nation with the home run chase of 1998).
And I so I say that Roger Clemens is a fucking asshole. I think there are a LOT of people thrilled to see him "fall". This isn't Lance Armstrong. This isn't Tom Brady. Or Lolo Jones. Or 2007 Pro-Bowl QB Derek Anderson. They are beloved sports icons.
This is Roger Clemens. He is a prick. Fuck him.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Rational or Irrational?
Rational or Irrational is a game I have decided I would play based on a conversation I had yesterday with my borderline extreme conservative cousin. Below is a list of topics and the odds (in the form of a percentage) that I think they have of happening. The timetable for my estimates is "in my life time" - I have the over under at 50 right now.
- Muslims impose Sharia Law in the US - 0.0000000001%
- The Chinese control the US because of our National Debt issues - 0.00001%
- We see increased natural disasters as a result of man made CO2 - 94%
- Percentage of Americans that will believe Barack Obama is a Muslim during the next Presidential election - 22%
- Percentage of Americans that are complete morons - 22%
- Democrats grow the balls to repeal any of the Bush tax cuts - 4%
- Military spending gets a serious look for cutting our national deficit - 9%
- Another Stimulus bill gets passed - 7%
- Another Stimulus bill gets passed with no tax cuts - 0.00%
- Muslims impose Sharia Law in the US - 0.0000000001%
- The Chinese control the US because of our National Debt issues - 0.00001%
- We see increased natural disasters as a result of man made CO2 - 94%
- Percentage of Americans that will believe Barack Obama is a Muslim during the next Presidential election - 22%
- Percentage of Americans that are complete morons - 22%
- Democrats grow the balls to repeal any of the Bush tax cuts - 4%
- Military spending gets a serious look for cutting our national deficit - 9%
- Another Stimulus bill gets passed - 7%
- Another Stimulus bill gets passed with no tax cuts - 0.00%
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque or Terrorist Training camp?
I'm always amazed at how quickly people are able to forget the events of the past and how little acts of restricting one groups rights based on irrational fear, leads to a overt oppression of these groups.
Limiting the rights of Muslim Americans based solely on their religious affiliation is unconstitutional and flies in the face of the expressed goals of President George W. Bush and Republicans (at least republicans before Obama was elected). Back in a couple of 2001 speeches President Bush said the following:
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
This is a slippery slope that Republicans (and some Democrats) are leading us down. If it is not OK to have a Islamic cultural center two blocks from an attack by Islamic extremist then how far away is OK? Why stop at the Islamic center what about Muslims who live near the twin towers site? Can Muslims visit the 9/11 attack locations?
Irrational fear of a specific group led to the Japanese internment around WWII, yet America was never attacked by Japanese on American soil. It is similarly absurd to suggest the Muslims in America want to impose Sharia Law and establish terrorist training camps.
New Yorkers defend the constitutional right to build the mosque by a 64-28 margin. Luckily for us our laws are dictated by our constitution and not political whims. If you would like to start cherry picking which groups get protection under our constitution I say good luck but I think years from now we will look back on this event and be embarrassed by our paranoia.
Limiting the rights of Muslim Americans based solely on their religious affiliation is unconstitutional and flies in the face of the expressed goals of President George W. Bush and Republicans (at least republicans before Obama was elected). Back in a couple of 2001 speeches President Bush said the following:
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
This is a slippery slope that Republicans (and some Democrats) are leading us down. If it is not OK to have a Islamic cultural center two blocks from an attack by Islamic extremist then how far away is OK? Why stop at the Islamic center what about Muslims who live near the twin towers site? Can Muslims visit the 9/11 attack locations?
Irrational fear of a specific group led to the Japanese internment around WWII, yet America was never attacked by Japanese on American soil. It is similarly absurd to suggest the Muslims in America want to impose Sharia Law and establish terrorist training camps.
New Yorkers defend the constitutional right to build the mosque by a 64-28 margin. Luckily for us our laws are dictated by our constitution and not political whims. If you would like to start cherry picking which groups get protection under our constitution I say good luck but I think years from now we will look back on this event and be embarrassed by our paranoia.
Last US Combat Troops leave Iraq
John McCain once said:
To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility" and "a failure of leadership."
He also said:
I still say setting a date for withdrawal is chaos, genocide
Below I have listed articles and videos of the complete Armageddon that is currently taking place in Iraq because of the President sticking to his timetable.
Yes, there you have it. Republicans were right all along.
To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility" and "a failure of leadership."
He also said:
I still say setting a date for withdrawal is chaos, genocide
Below I have listed articles and videos of the complete Armageddon that is currently taking place in Iraq because of the President sticking to his timetable.
Yes, there you have it. Republicans were right all along.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Capatalism, Socalism, Patriotism and the Top 1%
Why is it when the tax codes redistributes the wealth to the richest Americans we call it Capitalism or Patriotism but when we look at making it a level playing field it becomes Socialism?
In a report by the IRS on taxes paid in 2007 they found that the 400 best-off taxpayers (the top 10th of the top 1%) paid an average tax rate of 16.6%, which puts them just slightly above the second lowest tax rate for that year. This means according to their tax return they only made around $35,000.
To make the top 400, a taxpayer had to have income of more than $138.8 million. As a group, the top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income, and paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.
About 81.3% of the income of the top 400 households came in the form of capital gains, dividends or interest, the IRS data show. Only 6.5% came in the form of salaries and wages.
In a report by the IRS on taxes paid in 2007 they found that the 400 best-off taxpayers (the top 10th of the top 1%) paid an average tax rate of 16.6%, which puts them just slightly above the second lowest tax rate for that year. This means according to their tax return they only made around $35,000.
To make the top 400, a taxpayer had to have income of more than $138.8 million. As a group, the top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income, and paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.
About 81.3% of the income of the top 400 households came in the form of capital gains, dividends or interest, the IRS data show. Only 6.5% came in the form of salaries and wages.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Good news for immigrants
In what I assume will be a land mark decision that will sweep the nation given the current immigration concerns the Michigan legislature passed a bill that will allow non-certified teachers to teach Native American language.
Finally all of the immigrants in the US can learn to speak the native language of this nation. I would like to amend this bill to include the provision that anyone who dose not learn the Native American language can leave the country. Chalk one up for America!
Finally all of the immigrants in the US can learn to speak the native language of this nation. I would like to amend this bill to include the provision that anyone who dose not learn the Native American language can leave the country. Chalk one up for America!
Guns allowed at Arts, Beats, and Eats
It has been decided by the Royal Oak City Commission that people will be aloud to carry handguns at the Arts, Beats, and Eats festival in Royal Oak Michigan. I really don't have strong opinions one way or another regarding gun rights but the question I have about this is why?
Why do people need to carry a fire arm at a festival? I have been to this event and at no point did a firefight breakout. Additionally the festival has policeman (less now of course thanks to these same gun toting yahoos how keep pushing for lower taxes which costs jobs for public servants like policemen) to intervene in case of an incident.
These people need to understand that they are not John McClane and this is not the movies. Your life is not constantly threatened and not being able to openly carry a gun into a preschool class (those kids can be mean I tell you) is not a suppression of your rights.
Why do people need to carry a fire arm at a festival? I have been to this event and at no point did a firefight breakout. Additionally the festival has policeman (less now of course thanks to these same gun toting yahoos how keep pushing for lower taxes which costs jobs for public servants like policemen) to intervene in case of an incident.
These people need to understand that they are not John McClane and this is not the movies. Your life is not constantly threatened and not being able to openly carry a gun into a preschool class (those kids can be mean I tell you) is not a suppression of your rights.
Health Care and Pension costs in Public Education
Recently I have heard a significant amount of discussion about how educators make too much money and benefits. While I am not a big supporter of the Unions that have worked out these deals I would argue that the members of the teachers union are some of the most highly educated union workers in the US. Many of them would get equal pay in the private sector. I also find it odd that these same people believe that a CEO who is in charge of cleaning products deserves $28 million a year.
Regardless, the point I wanted to make involves the benefits. Right now teachers have a pension fund which has a large cost. There is a push to change this to a 401K system which I think is a fine idea as long as you are willing to spend the $150 million per state that it would take to make this switch. I would also point out that this will not have the saving you might think since you have already set the bar on pay and benefits and typically those numbers won't change much.
More importantly I wanted to talk about the health care costs. The rise in health care costs is not the fault of the teachers. Last year we had the opportunity to take significant steps towards reducing the cost of health care for Americans which would have included union members like teachers. When faced with this opportunity a huge percentage of people who would like to cut public spending opposed any changes.
The irony is that if these people were better educated they would be able to see how all of these issues were connected and they would have understood the benefits to lowering health care costs. This blind distrust of government spending will have an increasingly negative impact on Americans. As the old saying goes "you get what you pay for." Smaller government means a smaller voice for you.
Regardless, the point I wanted to make involves the benefits. Right now teachers have a pension fund which has a large cost. There is a push to change this to a 401K system which I think is a fine idea as long as you are willing to spend the $150 million per state that it would take to make this switch. I would also point out that this will not have the saving you might think since you have already set the bar on pay and benefits and typically those numbers won't change much.
More importantly I wanted to talk about the health care costs. The rise in health care costs is not the fault of the teachers. Last year we had the opportunity to take significant steps towards reducing the cost of health care for Americans which would have included union members like teachers. When faced with this opportunity a huge percentage of people who would like to cut public spending opposed any changes.
The irony is that if these people were better educated they would be able to see how all of these issues were connected and they would have understood the benefits to lowering health care costs. This blind distrust of government spending will have an increasingly negative impact on Americans. As the old saying goes "you get what you pay for." Smaller government means a smaller voice for you.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Alan Greenspan On The Bush Tax Cuts
From Meet The Press, 8/1/10:
AG: Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts - but not with borrowed money... and the problem we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and, at the end of the day, that proves disasterous.
David Gregory: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?
AG: They do not.
Good additional reading on this subject can be found in The Atlantic (link).
AG: Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts - but not with borrowed money... and the problem we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and, at the end of the day, that proves disasterous.
David Gregory: You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves?
AG: They do not.
Good additional reading on this subject can be found in The Atlantic (link).
John Clayton is officially on the BS watch list
In an answer to a question about the help around Calvin Johnson of the Detroit Lions John Clayton had the following to say:
A: Scheffler is going to help Johnson out the most, but defenses will still commit to covering Johnson. I think Stafford is going to be better, but he's still a young quarterback with only 12 games of experience. I'm not sold the offensive line is that much better. Best is exciting but he's only a role player at the moment. The Lions will be better on offense, but clearing out room for Johnson to do his thing is one of the keys to the season.
I want to log this so at the end of the year when Matt Stafford gets some pro bowl votes and Jahvid Best is vying for offensive rookie of the year honors, Clayton can eat crow.
A: Scheffler is going to help Johnson out the most, but defenses will still commit to covering Johnson. I think Stafford is going to be better, but he's still a young quarterback with only 12 games of experience. I'm not sold the offensive line is that much better. Best is exciting but he's only a role player at the moment. The Lions will be better on offense, but clearing out room for Johnson to do his thing is one of the keys to the season.
I want to log this so at the end of the year when Matt Stafford gets some pro bowl votes and Jahvid Best is vying for offensive rookie of the year honors, Clayton can eat crow.
Furriners Presents Top 10 Minor League Prospects
I am going to drastically change gears for this post. My colleague here at Furriners is of the opinion that putting lists on the site might get some visitors to our humble blog.
I guess it is my passive agressive nature that has led to picking a subject to which he is completely unqualified to offer any input. If he retaliates with a list of "Best Justin Bieber Songs"... so be it!
Anyway, I present my list of the Top 10 MLB Prospects as of August 2010.
1. Domonic Brown (OF-Phillies) - A big guy (6'5", 200+) with power and speed. May be a future 20-20 guy in the majors.
2. Jesus Montero (C-Yankees) - I like his hitting potential. Apparently can't defend at all... but seems to have a bat that profiles well at 1B; just not in New York with Mark Teixeira in the way.
3. Jeremy Hellickson (RHP-Devil Rays) - Yes, they will always be the Devil Rays to me. I wanted to do this post after Tiger analyst Rod Allen referred to Hellickson as the best pitching prospect in the entire minor leagues. I just did not believe it. A review of his stats and watching him dominate the Tigers has changed my opinion. Reminds me a little of Zack Grienke minus 4-5 mph on his fastball.
4. Julio Teheran (RHP-Braves) - I like pitching prospects that miss bats and Teheran is doing so this year (119 ip, 88h, 138k at last check). He is 19 years old and has reached AA and reportedly has power stuff.
5. Peter Bourjos (OF-Angels) - This guy can really run. He's not my favorite prospect but his stats definitely show solid skills (.314, 13 HRs, 27 SBs, & 12 triples). Would like to see him draw more walks (only 24 BB w/ 414 ABs)!
6. Kyle Drabek (RHP - Blue Jays) - I am obliged to mention that Drabek was acquired by the Jays in the Roy Halladay deal. He is included because of his H/IP ratio is very good (110h in 142ip at last check). I would like to see more strikeouts to be truly confident he'll continue to succeed in the majors.
7. Freddie Freeman (1B-Braves) - Honestly, I don't like 1B who generate comparisons to Mark Grace. He only hit 8 HRs last season but has picked it up this season (15 HRs in AAA at age 20 at last check). Considering his size (6'5", 220), I am going to project that he'll hit for enough power in the majors so he doesn't become the next Mark Grace or J.T. Snow or Wally Joyner. No one wants that.
8. Eric Hosmer (1B-Royals) - Pretty much everything I just said about Freeman applies to Hosmer. Last season, Hosmer hit 6 HRs in 377 ABs. This year, he's hit 15 including 8 in his first 89 ABs at AA (at age 20). Considering his seemingly plus plate discipline (more walks than Ks this season), I am granting him a spot in my top 10.
9. Aroldis Chapman (LHP-Reds) - This rating is based on raw potential and reports about his pure stuff (including the 100+ mph fastball). Certainly the stat based projections would not put him in the top 10... although his H/IP ratio and K/IP ratio are good for a 22 year old in his first season in the United States (at the AAA level).
10. Matt Moore (LHP-Devil Rays) - I was tempted to rank Randall Delgado (RHP-Braves) in the final spot but considering my rankings are largely based on statistical analysis... how could I leave out the minor league strikeout king? Last season, Moore had 176 Ks and 86 hits allowed in 123 ip. He is showing it's no fluke as he has 170 Ks and 96 hits allowed in 121 ip (in high A ball) - and he is showing improved control (70 bb in '09 and 48 thus far in '10).
Honorable Mention:
Randall Delgado (RHP-Braves)
Michael Pineda (RHP-Mariners)
Shelby Miller (RHP-Cardinals)
Michael Moustakas (3B-Royals)
Simon Castro (RHP-Padres)
Grant Green (SS-Athletics)
Mike Trout (OF-Angels)
I guess it is my passive agressive nature that has led to picking a subject to which he is completely unqualified to offer any input. If he retaliates with a list of "Best Justin Bieber Songs"... so be it!
Anyway, I present my list of the Top 10 MLB Prospects as of August 2010.
1. Domonic Brown (OF-Phillies) - A big guy (6'5", 200+) with power and speed. May be a future 20-20 guy in the majors.
2. Jesus Montero (C-Yankees) - I like his hitting potential. Apparently can't defend at all... but seems to have a bat that profiles well at 1B; just not in New York with Mark Teixeira in the way.
3. Jeremy Hellickson (RHP-Devil Rays) - Yes, they will always be the Devil Rays to me. I wanted to do this post after Tiger analyst Rod Allen referred to Hellickson as the best pitching prospect in the entire minor leagues. I just did not believe it. A review of his stats and watching him dominate the Tigers has changed my opinion. Reminds me a little of Zack Grienke minus 4-5 mph on his fastball.
4. Julio Teheran (RHP-Braves) - I like pitching prospects that miss bats and Teheran is doing so this year (119 ip, 88h, 138k at last check). He is 19 years old and has reached AA and reportedly has power stuff.
5. Peter Bourjos (OF-Angels) - This guy can really run. He's not my favorite prospect but his stats definitely show solid skills (.314, 13 HRs, 27 SBs, & 12 triples). Would like to see him draw more walks (only 24 BB w/ 414 ABs)!
6. Kyle Drabek (RHP - Blue Jays) - I am obliged to mention that Drabek was acquired by the Jays in the Roy Halladay deal. He is included because of his H/IP ratio is very good (110h in 142ip at last check). I would like to see more strikeouts to be truly confident he'll continue to succeed in the majors.
7. Freddie Freeman (1B-Braves) - Honestly, I don't like 1B who generate comparisons to Mark Grace. He only hit 8 HRs last season but has picked it up this season (15 HRs in AAA at age 20 at last check). Considering his size (6'5", 220), I am going to project that he'll hit for enough power in the majors so he doesn't become the next Mark Grace or J.T. Snow or Wally Joyner. No one wants that.
8. Eric Hosmer (1B-Royals) - Pretty much everything I just said about Freeman applies to Hosmer. Last season, Hosmer hit 6 HRs in 377 ABs. This year, he's hit 15 including 8 in his first 89 ABs at AA (at age 20). Considering his seemingly plus plate discipline (more walks than Ks this season), I am granting him a spot in my top 10.
9. Aroldis Chapman (LHP-Reds) - This rating is based on raw potential and reports about his pure stuff (including the 100+ mph fastball). Certainly the stat based projections would not put him in the top 10... although his H/IP ratio and K/IP ratio are good for a 22 year old in his first season in the United States (at the AAA level).
10. Matt Moore (LHP-Devil Rays) - I was tempted to rank Randall Delgado (RHP-Braves) in the final spot but considering my rankings are largely based on statistical analysis... how could I leave out the minor league strikeout king? Last season, Moore had 176 Ks and 86 hits allowed in 123 ip. He is showing it's no fluke as he has 170 Ks and 96 hits allowed in 121 ip (in high A ball) - and he is showing improved control (70 bb in '09 and 48 thus far in '10).
Honorable Mention:
Randall Delgado (RHP-Braves)
Michael Pineda (RHP-Mariners)
Shelby Miller (RHP-Cardinals)
Michael Moustakas (3B-Royals)
Simon Castro (RHP-Padres)
Grant Green (SS-Athletics)
Mike Trout (OF-Angels)
I'll take the brain surgeon over the nurse, thank you.
I have many opinions and I do my best to gather as much information as possible before really arguing my side but I still concede that they is a very large portion of topics I am completely unqualified to talk about, let alone argue for or against.
I was reading today about Republican concerns over the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that was part of the health care reform. This board is supposed find ways to lower the costs of Medicare yet Republicans are against this even though its job is to make recommendations on cost cutting that will lower the deficit. They want government to keep its hands out of Medicare? This reminded me of the Republican concerns over the EPA's ruling on green house gas emissions. They claim that this decision should be made by congress not the EPA. This is odd considering the EPA is filled with people whose sole job is to make decisions about the environment while almost 60% of the Senate is comprised of former Lawyers.
If I have a question about why my care won't go I ask a mechanic because he has been trained to fix cars. If I need brain surgery I go to a brain surgeon not a general practitioner because the surgeon has been trained in brain surgery. Politicians should accept their limitations and use the help that is offered by these entities.
With the sheer volume of topics that the legislature has to answer you would think they would welcome some outside help from experts in the field. This would help to make the best decisions since not only are we asking people who have a high degree of understanding on the issue at hand to make a recommendation but we can remove the partisanship that permeates our current political landscape. Just think how much more the US could accomplish if getting elected wasn't the major reason for supporting or opposing legislation. If we just did things the way experts think it should be done.
Forcing important decisions into the hands of a select few who are unqualified to answer those questions does not move us closer to Democracy, it makes us more authoritarian.
I was reading today about Republican concerns over the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that was part of the health care reform. This board is supposed find ways to lower the costs of Medicare yet Republicans are against this even though its job is to make recommendations on cost cutting that will lower the deficit. They want government to keep its hands out of Medicare? This reminded me of the Republican concerns over the EPA's ruling on green house gas emissions. They claim that this decision should be made by congress not the EPA. This is odd considering the EPA is filled with people whose sole job is to make decisions about the environment while almost 60% of the Senate is comprised of former Lawyers.
If I have a question about why my care won't go I ask a mechanic because he has been trained to fix cars. If I need brain surgery I go to a brain surgeon not a general practitioner because the surgeon has been trained in brain surgery. Politicians should accept their limitations and use the help that is offered by these entities.
With the sheer volume of topics that the legislature has to answer you would think they would welcome some outside help from experts in the field. This would help to make the best decisions since not only are we asking people who have a high degree of understanding on the issue at hand to make a recommendation but we can remove the partisanship that permeates our current political landscape. Just think how much more the US could accomplish if getting elected wasn't the major reason for supporting or opposing legislation. If we just did things the way experts think it should be done.
Forcing important decisions into the hands of a select few who are unqualified to answer those questions does not move us closer to Democracy, it makes us more authoritarian.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Another Dumbass Republican
Okay. So I didn't even try to be clever with that title but this ass clown pissed me off. This is another dispatch from Monday's Hardball (without Chris Matthews). I also didn't take down any direct quotes because this gentleman clearly was not worth it but, nevertheless, I wanted to comment on the discussion.
The ass clown in question is Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA). The discussion concerned the economy. Mr. Scalise clearly knew his talking points and blathered on about businesses hoarding cash (which is a conceit I have previously discussed several times on this blog) and how the Economic Recovery Act was a complete failure that didn't create any jobs.
So what does Mr. Scalise want to do to fix the economy?
Well, if you guessed "Extend the Bush tax cuts", you'd be right! You so smart!
He said - and I know I said I didn't have a direct quote so I either lied or consider this a paraphrase (I'm not sure which):
SS: Those tax cuts will generate new income. The tax cuts will create more jobs and it'll bring in more money to the federal government - that's been the case all throughout history.
Okay. That is standard boilerplate supply-side economics pushed by the Republicans. It is what it is. My biggest problem with it is that you have some Republicans (those who seem to pay not even a cursory attention to facts) saying the Stimulus Bill didn't create ANY jobs while simultaneously arguing that tax cuts are the key to economic recovery. Do they not f'n know what was in the Stimulus Bill!?!!? The Stimulus Bill had HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS! If the Stimulus Bill didn't create jobs, then tax cuts do not create jobs! It's that simple... it's not up for debate.
The ass clown in question is Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA). The discussion concerned the economy. Mr. Scalise clearly knew his talking points and blathered on about businesses hoarding cash (which is a conceit I have previously discussed several times on this blog) and how the Economic Recovery Act was a complete failure that didn't create any jobs.
So what does Mr. Scalise want to do to fix the economy?
Well, if you guessed "Extend the Bush tax cuts", you'd be right! You so smart!
He said - and I know I said I didn't have a direct quote so I either lied or consider this a paraphrase (I'm not sure which):
SS: Those tax cuts will generate new income. The tax cuts will create more jobs and it'll bring in more money to the federal government - that's been the case all throughout history.
Okay. That is standard boilerplate supply-side economics pushed by the Republicans. It is what it is. My biggest problem with it is that you have some Republicans (those who seem to pay not even a cursory attention to facts) saying the Stimulus Bill didn't create ANY jobs while simultaneously arguing that tax cuts are the key to economic recovery. Do they not f'n know what was in the Stimulus Bill!?!!? The Stimulus Bill had HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS! If the Stimulus Bill didn't create jobs, then tax cuts do not create jobs! It's that simple... it's not up for debate.
Sarah Palin rolls eyes at Teacher.
Sarah Palin is making a big deal out of some concerns over her facial movements during conversation she had with a teacher in Alaska. According to Palin the Main Stream Media is using "this brief encounter for another one of their spin operations."
I searched for this story on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC and have only found mention of it in the comment sections of blogs for the various sites. I did however find an article about the incident on Michelle Malkins blog and on a fox news channel in Philadelphia. According the Malkin the flap was created by a Newsweek article where the writer noted what he considered to be a "tone" in Palins voice and an eye roll at the teacher. I'm not sure that an opinion piece by a Newsweek writer counts as Main Stream Media to anyone other than Sarah Palin and her victim's mentality.
I myself really don't care about Sarah Palin or who she rolls her eyes at but it should be noted that Palin is an attention whore, rivaling that of a Hollywood movie star (ironically). She has used the media's obsession with her for personal gain at every turn and this attack is the ultimate in biting the hand that feeds you. Without the over analysis of Plain she is nothing. She doesn't get to complain about the media reporting on everything she does when it only helps her in the end. This is like a porn star complaining that guys are only interestd in her body.
The worst part is her supporters think there is some kind of conspiracy to make Sarah Palin look bad. Need I point out the media is just using footage of Palin talking. She does the rest herself.
I searched for this story on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC and have only found mention of it in the comment sections of blogs for the various sites. I did however find an article about the incident on Michelle Malkins blog and on a fox news channel in Philadelphia. According the Malkin the flap was created by a Newsweek article where the writer noted what he considered to be a "tone" in Palins voice and an eye roll at the teacher. I'm not sure that an opinion piece by a Newsweek writer counts as Main Stream Media to anyone other than Sarah Palin and her victim's mentality.
I myself really don't care about Sarah Palin or who she rolls her eyes at but it should be noted that Palin is an attention whore, rivaling that of a Hollywood movie star (ironically). She has used the media's obsession with her for personal gain at every turn and this attack is the ultimate in biting the hand that feeds you. Without the over analysis of Plain she is nothing. She doesn't get to complain about the media reporting on everything she does when it only helps her in the end. This is like a porn star complaining that guys are only interestd in her body.
The worst part is her supporters think there is some kind of conspiracy to make Sarah Palin look bad. Need I point out the media is just using footage of Palin talking. She does the rest herself.
Newt Gingrich for President?
Today on NPR there was a discussion with John H. Richardson of Esquire about his article titled "Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican,".
In the interview Richardson talks about how he spoke with Gingrich's second wife who indicated that she had no interest in trashing Newt. The most revealing comment from Marianne Ginther was that she was concerned he would run for President because she didn't think someone who is so unstable and dishonest could be President.
Yes his ex-wife, one of the people in the world who knows Newt best, thinks he is unstable and dishonest.
Pair him up with Sarah Palin for VP and toss in Michele Bachmann as your Secretary of State and you have a Republican wet dream.
In the interview Richardson talks about how he spoke with Gingrich's second wife who indicated that she had no interest in trashing Newt. The most revealing comment from Marianne Ginther was that she was concerned he would run for President because she didn't think someone who is so unstable and dishonest could be President.
Yes his ex-wife, one of the people in the world who knows Newt best, thinks he is unstable and dishonest.
Pair him up with Sarah Palin for VP and toss in Michele Bachmann as your Secretary of State and you have a Republican wet dream.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Hello! The answer is Bush.
In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center the following question was asked:
(Was) TARP enacted under Bush or Obama?
The disturbing part is how few people knew the correct answer - Bush. Below is the percentage of people (by political affiliation) who answered correctly:
Republicans - 36%
Democrats - 34%
Independents - 35%
I think this lack of understanding has a direct impact on President Obama and his agenda. Polls suggest that Americans are unhappy with TARP and if they believe President Obama is at fault for this thing they don't like then using the transitive property they will think other legislation that the President backs will be similarly flawed.
(Was) TARP enacted under Bush or Obama?
The disturbing part is how few people knew the correct answer - Bush. Below is the percentage of people (by political affiliation) who answered correctly:
Republicans - 36%
Democrats - 34%
Independents - 35%
I think this lack of understanding has a direct impact on President Obama and his agenda. Polls suggest that Americans are unhappy with TARP and if they believe President Obama is at fault for this thing they don't like then using the transitive property they will think other legislation that the President backs will be similarly flawed.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Heritage Foundation Wants To Prosecute Bush Administration Officials!
I know, I know. I did not see this coming either. But I was watching Hardball on Monday night (only because Chris Matthews was sick or on vacation or something - it's not a show I typically watch), and Chuck Todd was interviewing Ernest Istook, who was noted to be a former Republican U.S. congressman from the state of Oklahoma and has now joined The Heritage Foundation; the conversation was about the recent chattering in conservative circles about the modification or even the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Chuck Todd asks:
CT: My question is why go to the 14th Amendment? Why not just enforce the border (and) get tougher immigration law because - if you do that - this issue of birthright citizenship isn't going to play as big of a role? It just feels like you're politically poking hispanics in the eye and saying "we're picking on you!"
To which Mr. Istook replies:
EI: Chuck, why be selective in the laws that you enforce? Why say "let's enforce some laws but let's give a pass to people on other laws"?
I guess that means that everybody who broke the law during the detaining and interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush Administration must be prosecuted! Can we take Dick Cheney right from the hospital to a prison cell?
CT: My question is why go to the 14th Amendment? Why not just enforce the border (and) get tougher immigration law because - if you do that - this issue of birthright citizenship isn't going to play as big of a role? It just feels like you're politically poking hispanics in the eye and saying "we're picking on you!"
To which Mr. Istook replies:
EI: Chuck, why be selective in the laws that you enforce? Why say "let's enforce some laws but let's give a pass to people on other laws"?
I guess that means that everybody who broke the law during the detaining and interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush Administration must be prosecuted! Can we take Dick Cheney right from the hospital to a prison cell?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Maybe We Can Use Guns?
No, no, it's not what you think! I'm not going all Sharron Angle on you.
I am referring to a recent segment on The Daily Show where the failure in the House of Representatives of a bill to provide health care to 9/11 first responders was discussed. In the segment, Mr. Stewart lamented that the bill failed because it could not get the 2/3 majority it needed to pass whereas a bill to exempt guns from bankruptcy claims easily cleared that threshold.
So, remember how the credit card reform bill passed in May 2009 with an amendment that allowed guns into National Parks? If you have any sense at all, you thought "WTF? That is stupid!" It turns out, you were wrong! That is the future. So, for example, the Climate Change Bill that cannot pass even in it's watered down state in the Senate? I say we amend it with NRA supported legislation and then all the assholes and pussies in congress will vote for it!
The problem, one would think, is that we could only use to this strategy for so long until we run out of pro-gun legislation that we use to get actual meaningful progress done for our country. I have two thoughts on that:
1) Remember, we're talking the NRA! They will always think of more instances where guns are the answer.
2) Who am I to say the everyone having a gun is a bad thing? It's good enough for Basil Marceaux.Com and he makes more sense than most elected Republicans.
By the way, this brings to mind another quote from Paul O'Neill on Sunday's Fareed Zakaria GPS. O'Neill was addressing the partisan gridlock in Washington when he said this:
You know, in a perverse way, it may be a blessing because if they could agree on something, it would probably be negative to the people.
Dare I say, when it comes to guns, Paul O'Neill is on target.
Sorry...I shouldn't have said that.
I am referring to a recent segment on The Daily Show where the failure in the House of Representatives of a bill to provide health care to 9/11 first responders was discussed. In the segment, Mr. Stewart lamented that the bill failed because it could not get the 2/3 majority it needed to pass whereas a bill to exempt guns from bankruptcy claims easily cleared that threshold.
So, remember how the credit card reform bill passed in May 2009 with an amendment that allowed guns into National Parks? If you have any sense at all, you thought "WTF? That is stupid!" It turns out, you were wrong! That is the future. So, for example, the Climate Change Bill that cannot pass even in it's watered down state in the Senate? I say we amend it with NRA supported legislation and then all the assholes and pussies in congress will vote for it!
The problem, one would think, is that we could only use to this strategy for so long until we run out of pro-gun legislation that we use to get actual meaningful progress done for our country. I have two thoughts on that:
1) Remember, we're talking the NRA! They will always think of more instances where guns are the answer.
2) Who am I to say the everyone having a gun is a bad thing? It's good enough for Basil Marceaux.Com and he makes more sense than most elected Republicans.
By the way, this brings to mind another quote from Paul O'Neill on Sunday's Fareed Zakaria GPS. O'Neill was addressing the partisan gridlock in Washington when he said this:
You know, in a perverse way, it may be a blessing because if they could agree on something, it would probably be negative to the people.
Dare I say, when it comes to guns, Paul O'Neill is on target.
Sorry...I shouldn't have said that.
Why do the rich get richer...Stocks
Bill Ford Jr. admirably took a pay freeze 5 years ago stating he would not take a salary until Ford was profitable. Well Ford is profitable and Bill Ford Jr. $4 million in salary and an additional $12 million in stock options. He is also donating a million dollars of this compensation.
While I have no problem with the top guys making money, especially when the company's profits were $2.7 billion, the issue I have is with the people who suggest that the top 1% pays too much in taxes. Thanks to the stock options Bill Ford Jr. will have decreased his tax bill by almost $2.5 million. Yes, by simply taking stocks instead of a salary he will only pay a 15% tax on his gains instead of the 35% he should pay. This 15% tax rate is equal to the tax rate on individuals making between $8,375 and $34,000. Keep in mind the poverty line in the US stands at $11,161. This means Bill Ford Jr. is going to take the bulk of his earnings and only pay the rate of someone who is below the poverty line.
There is a claim that anyone can participate in the stock market and everyone benefits from this tax loophole but the fact is the majority of stocks are owned by the top wage earners (the top 5% holds nearly 90% of all stocks) and the little guys have very little access to this. Because of this loophole the middle class is forced to make up the difference in lost tax revenue.
Back in the Clinton era the government would have received an additional $1.56 million from the sale of Bill Ford Jr's stock options. The Bush era tax cuts brought about huge tax savings for the rich that the middle class can not access. These tax cuts are a huge contributor to the Federal Deficit and our National Debt.
If you look at the Clinton years you will see that even with the increased tax rates and higher capital gains tax rates people still spent their money and invested in the stock market. The actual taxes are not the deterrent to spending as much as the perception of uncertainty. The rich will spend if they are confident in what is coming. If they are concerned that the economy will take a down turn they hold on to their money. This is the problem with Trickle down economics. It relies on consumer confidence. The poor will spend all of their money regardless of the economy but the rich like being rich and they didn't get that way by spending all of their money.
The Capital gains tax rate is one of the many tax loopholes the rich use to continue to expand the wealth gap. Until the middle class realizes that the deck is stacked for the rich they will continue to pay a much greater percentage of their income in taxes and watch the rich get richer.
While I have no problem with the top guys making money, especially when the company's profits were $2.7 billion, the issue I have is with the people who suggest that the top 1% pays too much in taxes. Thanks to the stock options Bill Ford Jr. will have decreased his tax bill by almost $2.5 million. Yes, by simply taking stocks instead of a salary he will only pay a 15% tax on his gains instead of the 35% he should pay. This 15% tax rate is equal to the tax rate on individuals making between $8,375 and $34,000. Keep in mind the poverty line in the US stands at $11,161. This means Bill Ford Jr. is going to take the bulk of his earnings and only pay the rate of someone who is below the poverty line.
There is a claim that anyone can participate in the stock market and everyone benefits from this tax loophole but the fact is the majority of stocks are owned by the top wage earners (the top 5% holds nearly 90% of all stocks) and the little guys have very little access to this. Because of this loophole the middle class is forced to make up the difference in lost tax revenue.
Back in the Clinton era the government would have received an additional $1.56 million from the sale of Bill Ford Jr's stock options. The Bush era tax cuts brought about huge tax savings for the rich that the middle class can not access. These tax cuts are a huge contributor to the Federal Deficit and our National Debt.
If you look at the Clinton years you will see that even with the increased tax rates and higher capital gains tax rates people still spent their money and invested in the stock market. The actual taxes are not the deterrent to spending as much as the perception of uncertainty. The rich will spend if they are confident in what is coming. If they are concerned that the economy will take a down turn they hold on to their money. This is the problem with Trickle down economics. It relies on consumer confidence. The poor will spend all of their money regardless of the economy but the rich like being rich and they didn't get that way by spending all of their money.
The Capital gains tax rate is one of the many tax loopholes the rich use to continue to expand the wealth gap. Until the middle class realizes that the deck is stacked for the rich they will continue to pay a much greater percentage of their income in taxes and watch the rich get richer.
State Aid and the Recovery
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a report out discussing the economy. Below I have listed an important paragraph from the report:
Cuts to state services not only harm vulnerable residents but also worsen the recession — and dampen the recovery — by reducing overall economic activity. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. All of these steps remove demand from the economy. For instance, at least 43 states and the District of Columbia have reduced overall wages paid to state workers by laying off workers, requiring them to take unpaid leave (furloughs), freezing new hires, or similar actions. State and local governments have eliminated 242,000 jobs since August 2008, federal data show. Such measures are reducing not only the level and quality of services available to state residents but also the purchasing power of workers’ families, which in turn affects local businesses and slows recovery.
I find this to be an important paprgraph becuase I agree with it.
Cuts to state services not only harm vulnerable residents but also worsen the recession — and dampen the recovery — by reducing overall economic activity. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. All of these steps remove demand from the economy. For instance, at least 43 states and the District of Columbia have reduced overall wages paid to state workers by laying off workers, requiring them to take unpaid leave (furloughs), freezing new hires, or similar actions. State and local governments have eliminated 242,000 jobs since August 2008, federal data show. Such measures are reducing not only the level and quality of services available to state residents but also the purchasing power of workers’ families, which in turn affects local businesses and slows recovery.
I find this to be an important paprgraph becuase I agree with it.
Hockey and politics
This might be a bit of a stretch as far as analogies go but I have decided election year legislative activities are very similar to the refs in the 3rd period of the NHL playoffs.
As our highly educated and worldly reader knows the refs basically swallow their whistle in the 3rd period of any NHL playoff game for fear of changing the outcome.
Similarly, it seems to be an accepted axiom that legislatively nothing important happens in the months leading up to an election because of the fear of changing the outcome.
Our elected officials have become so concerned about being elected that it has almost become a greater part of their occupation than actually legislating.
This leads to spineless legislation and obstructionist tactics that keeps desperately needed action from happening. Score one for Democracy?
As our highly educated and worldly reader knows the refs basically swallow their whistle in the 3rd period of any NHL playoff game for fear of changing the outcome.
Similarly, it seems to be an accepted axiom that legislatively nothing important happens in the months leading up to an election because of the fear of changing the outcome.
Our elected officials have become so concerned about being elected that it has almost become a greater part of their occupation than actually legislating.
This leads to spineless legislation and obstructionist tactics that keeps desperately needed action from happening. Score one for Democracy?
Monday, August 9, 2010
He's Sitting Right There, Paul!
Over the past few weeks, I've posted a few times about how the economy is lagging largely due to a lack of demand rather than for reasons that the Republicans and some pundits want you to believe (tax policy, regulatory uncertainty, etc). Moreover, I linked to a post by Barry Ritholtz where he sort of debunked a Washington Post column written by Fareed Zakaria where Mr. Zakaria espoused the idea that corporations are hoarding cash because of concerns over Obama's policies.
Well, some follow up to report from Fareed's own show. Yesterday, Fareed hosted a conversation with Robert Rubin (Secretary of Treasury, 1995-99) and Paul O'Neill (Secretary of Treasury, 2001-02).
It seems to me that Mr. Rubin's reputation is in the tank. Other than Alan Greenspan, I'm not sure any individual has suffered such a calamitous hit to their reputation as a result of the economic collapse of 2008 (Phil Gramm & John Thain may be other candidates - but I didn't think much of Gramm to begin with and I think John Thain is still largely anonymous to the public). Anyway, Mr. Rubin didn't have all that much interesting to say. However...
...Paul O'Neill proved to be VERY quotable!
Recall as I just stated, Fareed himself had written an article titled "Obama's CEO Problem --- And Ours" and yet Mr. O'Neill let rip with these comments:
PO: I must say I'm kind of amused by some of the conversation about companies hoarding $1.5 trillion in cash or something because I had a rule when I was in the private sector for 25 years including 13 running ALCOA and that is:
DON'T HIRE PEOPLE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY DEMANDING GOODS THAT YOU CAN'T PRODUCE WITH THE PEOPLE YOU ALREADY HAVE
so it seems pretty unrealistic to me to urge people to spend money unless there's a demand that they're not able to satisfy with their existing resouces.
FZ: And capacity utilization... the plants and factories are not at full capacity.
PO: Exactly. Until there's a reabsorption of that latent capacity, people are not going to build new capacity... why would you? It's crazy. It's not a charitable function... if you're running a business to say "oh my goodness, we have so many millions of people unemployed, I should rush out and spend my cash and hire more people".
Later in the conversation, O'Neill, once again just nailing Fareed (probably oblivious to it):
PO: So I think an awful lot of this conversation about (how) Wall St's upset with Obama... it's because people don't have something sensible to talk about I suppose. I don't think there's much merit to that conversation.
Then, O'Neill basically rips Robert Rubin right to his face (once again perhaps oblivious to it - but maybe not because he looked at him when he said it):
PO: And the financial community compounded the problem by securitizing this stuff (sub-prime loans and loans with little or no equity (down payment)), calling it 'AAA', putting it into cyberspace... it's no wonder that we cratered the world financial system. What we were doing was stupid!
(Note: Robert Rubin joined Citigroup after leaving the public sector and was reported to have pushed for the massive conglomerate to take on much more leverage and risk... i.e. they got deep into MBSs & CDOs with his encouragement).
So, there you have it. A former Republican appointed Sec. of Treasury keeping it real. Now, I will add that he stated that he was basically fired by George W. Bush for two reasons:
1) He didn't support the 2003 Tax Cuts.
2) He indicated he didn't believe there was any evidence that Iraq had WMD.
I don't know if he actually wants to be admired by liberals but - fuck it - I'll say it: I can't see any reason I'd rather have Timothy Geithner than Paul O'Neill.
Well, some follow up to report from Fareed's own show. Yesterday, Fareed hosted a conversation with Robert Rubin (Secretary of Treasury, 1995-99) and Paul O'Neill (Secretary of Treasury, 2001-02).
It seems to me that Mr. Rubin's reputation is in the tank. Other than Alan Greenspan, I'm not sure any individual has suffered such a calamitous hit to their reputation as a result of the economic collapse of 2008 (Phil Gramm & John Thain may be other candidates - but I didn't think much of Gramm to begin with and I think John Thain is still largely anonymous to the public). Anyway, Mr. Rubin didn't have all that much interesting to say. However...
...Paul O'Neill proved to be VERY quotable!
Recall as I just stated, Fareed himself had written an article titled "Obama's CEO Problem --- And Ours" and yet Mr. O'Neill let rip with these comments:
PO: I must say I'm kind of amused by some of the conversation about companies hoarding $1.5 trillion in cash or something because I had a rule when I was in the private sector for 25 years including 13 running ALCOA and that is:
DON'T HIRE PEOPLE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY DEMANDING GOODS THAT YOU CAN'T PRODUCE WITH THE PEOPLE YOU ALREADY HAVE
so it seems pretty unrealistic to me to urge people to spend money unless there's a demand that they're not able to satisfy with their existing resouces.
FZ: And capacity utilization... the plants and factories are not at full capacity.
PO: Exactly. Until there's a reabsorption of that latent capacity, people are not going to build new capacity... why would you? It's crazy. It's not a charitable function... if you're running a business to say "oh my goodness, we have so many millions of people unemployed, I should rush out and spend my cash and hire more people".
Later in the conversation, O'Neill, once again just nailing Fareed (probably oblivious to it):
PO: So I think an awful lot of this conversation about (how) Wall St's upset with Obama... it's because people don't have something sensible to talk about I suppose. I don't think there's much merit to that conversation.
Then, O'Neill basically rips Robert Rubin right to his face (once again perhaps oblivious to it - but maybe not because he looked at him when he said it):
PO: And the financial community compounded the problem by securitizing this stuff (sub-prime loans and loans with little or no equity (down payment)), calling it 'AAA', putting it into cyberspace... it's no wonder that we cratered the world financial system. What we were doing was stupid!
(Note: Robert Rubin joined Citigroup after leaving the public sector and was reported to have pushed for the massive conglomerate to take on much more leverage and risk... i.e. they got deep into MBSs & CDOs with his encouragement).
So, there you have it. A former Republican appointed Sec. of Treasury keeping it real. Now, I will add that he stated that he was basically fired by George W. Bush for two reasons:
1) He didn't support the 2003 Tax Cuts.
2) He indicated he didn't believe there was any evidence that Iraq had WMD.
I don't know if he actually wants to be admired by liberals but - fuck it - I'll say it: I can't see any reason I'd rather have Timothy Geithner than Paul O'Neill.
Unions and the Republican evolution...ironic, I know.
I am not a big supporter of unions because it seems to me that today's union is more concerned about self preservation than making sure it's members and the benefits they receive are an asset to their corporation.
This leads me to today's example of Repubocrisy. Republicans have never been big supporters of Unions because Republicans tend to represent (see; are bought and paid for by) business and Unions are by in large a detriment to business (if you ask business folk). Similarly the current tactics of the Republican party are akin to that of a big union. Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure nothing happens and that the business of the Federal government is to do no business. They have an litany of tactics aimed at making the President and by extension Democrats look bad. The goal is to regain power in November. They don't care that their actions are directly leading to increased job losses and a stagnant economy because their aim is not to make sure the business of the Federal government is successful but that the Democrats take the blame for our current woes. This is the only way they can regain power. They have offered little to no ideas on improving the economy, health care, air quality, or immigration because every time they open their mouths we are reminded of how we arrived at this point in the first place.
One example is a quote from John Boehner recently where he stated "I think having a moratorium on new Federal regulations is a great idea,". Yes, it must have been too much regulation that lead to the BP oil spill and the collapse of the housing market.
Or how about Mitch McConnell who said "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue,". Apparently actually having diminished revenue is not evidence to Senator McConnell.
Republicans have become so entrenched in spin and double talk that they have actually evolved (or created by god since Barack Obama was elected) into a clone of one of the very entities they despise most.
This leads me to today's example of Repubocrisy. Republicans have never been big supporters of Unions because Republicans tend to represent (see; are bought and paid for by) business and Unions are by in large a detriment to business (if you ask business folk). Similarly the current tactics of the Republican party are akin to that of a big union. Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure nothing happens and that the business of the Federal government is to do no business. They have an litany of tactics aimed at making the President and by extension Democrats look bad. The goal is to regain power in November. They don't care that their actions are directly leading to increased job losses and a stagnant economy because their aim is not to make sure the business of the Federal government is successful but that the Democrats take the blame for our current woes. This is the only way they can regain power. They have offered little to no ideas on improving the economy, health care, air quality, or immigration because every time they open their mouths we are reminded of how we arrived at this point in the first place.
One example is a quote from John Boehner recently where he stated "I think having a moratorium on new Federal regulations is a great idea,". Yes, it must have been too much regulation that lead to the BP oil spill and the collapse of the housing market.
Or how about Mitch McConnell who said "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue,". Apparently actually having diminished revenue is not evidence to Senator McConnell.
Republicans have become so entrenched in spin and double talk that they have actually evolved (or created by god since Barack Obama was elected) into a clone of one of the very entities they despise most.
Friday, August 6, 2010
BP gas stations see drop in sales
The Liberal media has made a concerted effort to point out how BP does not own the local BP gas stations and that the recent drop in sales at these stations doesn't really affect BP.
While I understand this, the reason I have skipped stopping at BP stations is because it is the only recourse I have for voicing my displeasure with BP. My hope is that these individual stations put pressure back on BP for their lack of sales. I want to send a message to the oil industry that those companies who take unnecessary risks will face some consequences when those gambles go bad.
I apologize to the local owners who bare the burden of BP's mistakes but I believe that making a point to the oil industry outweighs the 8%-12% drop in sales many BP stations are seeing.
While I understand this, the reason I have skipped stopping at BP stations is because it is the only recourse I have for voicing my displeasure with BP. My hope is that these individual stations put pressure back on BP for their lack of sales. I want to send a message to the oil industry that those companies who take unnecessary risks will face some consequences when those gambles go bad.
I apologize to the local owners who bare the burden of BP's mistakes but I believe that making a point to the oil industry outweighs the 8%-12% drop in sales many BP stations are seeing.
Republicans double dipping on concers over the Bush tax cuts.
I have heard recently that people aren't spending money because they are concerned about the possibility of taxes going up. I have also heard that we can't let the Bush tax cuts expire because it would lead to people not spending money and saving it instead.
Unfortunately you can not have it both ways. If people are already saving like the tax cuts will expire then we should just let them expire and start knocking down the national deficit. If people aren't already holding back then maybe people really aren't that concerned about the change in taxes.
This is dooms day thinking where we are damned if we do and damned if you don't. The only reason for all this rhetoric is to get the simple minded people out to the polls. Don't be fooled into believing this double talk.
Unfortunately you can not have it both ways. If people are already saving like the tax cuts will expire then we should just let them expire and start knocking down the national deficit. If people aren't already holding back then maybe people really aren't that concerned about the change in taxes.
This is dooms day thinking where we are damned if we do and damned if you don't. The only reason for all this rhetoric is to get the simple minded people out to the polls. Don't be fooled into believing this double talk.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Extremism is the wrong way to go if you really want change.
For some reason it seems that Republican politicians are going out of their way to show just how conservative they are. They do this by pandering to extremes of the Republican party. The problem is if you actually want things to change putting in extremist doesn't get the job done.
I would argue that currently the Republicans that are in office are already pushing way right of center and all they have done is water down a couple bills and paint themselves as obstructionist. They wouldn't have even been able to water down any bills if it weren't Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. The Michele Bachmann's of the world have done little to nothing to actually generate policy so by putting one of these extremists in power all you have really done is limited the effectiveness of your own voice.
Additionally, while the fringes of the party my like these candidates and get them through the primaries, in general there are more independents than Democrats or Republicans. They are independents because they fall somewhere in between not because the fall to far left or right. This means that your extremist will have a difficult time when it comes to the general election and by pushing too far to your wing, you will have made the path easier for the other party to win the seat you are hoping to occupy.
In the end legislation happens in the middle not the edge, so if you actually want change look to the moderates who build coalitions not to the extremist who divide.
I would argue that currently the Republicans that are in office are already pushing way right of center and all they have done is water down a couple bills and paint themselves as obstructionist. They wouldn't have even been able to water down any bills if it weren't Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. The Michele Bachmann's of the world have done little to nothing to actually generate policy so by putting one of these extremists in power all you have really done is limited the effectiveness of your own voice.
Additionally, while the fringes of the party my like these candidates and get them through the primaries, in general there are more independents than Democrats or Republicans. They are independents because they fall somewhere in between not because the fall to far left or right. This means that your extremist will have a difficult time when it comes to the general election and by pushing too far to your wing, you will have made the path easier for the other party to win the seat you are hoping to occupy.
In the end legislation happens in the middle not the edge, so if you actually want change look to the moderates who build coalitions not to the extremist who divide.
Myq Kaplan on Last Comic standing
I appreciated these jokes from Myq Kaplan on the most recent Last Comic Standing as they really illustrate the Glen Beck like thinking and justifications of some conservatives. The political jokes begin at :48 and end at 1:50 of the video.
Republicans long for the good old days...
Or at least they long for their own distorted view of the good old days. I often hear Republicans wax poetically about the good old days. "It was a simpler time" they will say. They seem to dislike change which is fine. The problem is their rhetoric often doesn't fit their actions.
Below is a graph showing the historical use of the filibuster.
As you can see the good old days are in complete contrast with the current Republican tactics.
Similarly the talk currently in how President Obama and his Liberal (Socialist) agenda are to blame for the partisan politics of today. Yet, somehow in the past, for programs that were easily more socialist than any legislation of the past two years FDR and LBJ were able to garner infinitely more Republican support than today's Senate.
So then I guess the last excuse for the unprecedented obstructionism from the Republicans is because this is how business is done and or course the divisiveness of today is only a reaction to the partisan ways of the Democrats in the past. Except:
Republicans always have some rationale for their irrational actions and if you believe them it's only because you haven't researched the facts.
The fact is Republicans only long for the good old days when it is convenient for them and these graphs show the clear Repubocrisy of that reality.
Below is a graph showing the historical use of the filibuster.
As you can see the good old days are in complete contrast with the current Republican tactics.
Similarly the talk currently in how President Obama and his Liberal (Socialist) agenda are to blame for the partisan politics of today. Yet, somehow in the past, for programs that were easily more socialist than any legislation of the past two years FDR and LBJ were able to garner infinitely more Republican support than today's Senate.
So then I guess the last excuse for the unprecedented obstructionism from the Republicans is because this is how business is done and or course the divisiveness of today is only a reaction to the partisan ways of the Democrats in the past. Except:
Republicans always have some rationale for their irrational actions and if you believe them it's only because you haven't researched the facts.
The fact is Republicans only long for the good old days when it is convenient for them and these graphs show the clear Repubocrisy of that reality.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The politics of politics
There is one area where I'm really glad Democrats are not like Republicans and that is their New York Mob mentality.
It was reported recently that Susan Collins was interested in voting for the state aid bill but she was leery of being the only Republican to do so. She is leery because of a long standing tradition in the Republican party of steadfast agreement even when there is disagreement. As President Bush famously said "You're either with us or against us". Make no mistake, this was not political rhetoric. This was a Republican Mantra to keep everyone in line and a waring to those who dare step out of line.
When Joe Lieberman broke ranks with the Democrats (and with the previous version of Joe Lieberman) how did the Democrats respond? They did nothing. They even left his committee chairs alone. While part of me wishes the Democrats had done otherwise I appreciate that they don't resort to thuggery to quell the voice of dissenters. This is after all, one of the foundations of our democracy and any attempts to limit this form of freedom of speech are deplorable.
It was reported recently that Susan Collins was interested in voting for the state aid bill but she was leery of being the only Republican to do so. She is leery because of a long standing tradition in the Republican party of steadfast agreement even when there is disagreement. As President Bush famously said "You're either with us or against us". Make no mistake, this was not political rhetoric. This was a Republican Mantra to keep everyone in line and a waring to those who dare step out of line.
When Joe Lieberman broke ranks with the Democrats (and with the previous version of Joe Lieberman) how did the Democrats respond? They did nothing. They even left his committee chairs alone. While part of me wishes the Democrats had done otherwise I appreciate that they don't resort to thuggery to quell the voice of dissenters. This is after all, one of the foundations of our democracy and any attempts to limit this form of freedom of speech are deplorable.
Republicans, Capitalism, Politicians, and War
I have a friend who works at the corporate headquarters of Dominos and when he was first hired he had to do many of the lower level jobs like making pizzas and delivering them. The idea was that you need to understand your product and your customers as well as have an understanding of how the business is run form top to bottom before you could sell the companies product.I believe this is not unique to Dominos and that many corporations do something similar.
I thought of this while listening to "On Point" on NPR last night with host Jane Clayson talking with guests author David Finkel and Army Captain Matt Gallagher. What struck me is the disconnect between the civilian leadership and the men and women in the service. I had this realization after a caller talked about his time in Iraq and how after a time he was just fighting to make it home. He was fighting to make sure his friends survived. He was still doing what he was told but the mission given to him seemed to become secondary to making sure he and his comrades lived another day. The guests talked at length about how disheartening the whole process was and how beaten down our soldiers were by the end of their tour.
It made me think of a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower where he said "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
I think the solution to keeping America from getting involved in more win less wars like Iraq is to have anyone who votes on or is involved in the decision to go to war, be forced to be embedded with combat troops for a year. This would combine some ideas from capitalism with politics for a more informed government. I think this would lead to an renewed commitment to exhausting all possible political solutions before putting more good young men and women in harms way.
I thought of this while listening to "On Point" on NPR last night with host Jane Clayson talking with guests author David Finkel and Army Captain Matt Gallagher. What struck me is the disconnect between the civilian leadership and the men and women in the service. I had this realization after a caller talked about his time in Iraq and how after a time he was just fighting to make it home. He was fighting to make sure his friends survived. He was still doing what he was told but the mission given to him seemed to become secondary to making sure he and his comrades lived another day. The guests talked at length about how disheartening the whole process was and how beaten down our soldiers were by the end of their tour.
It made me think of a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower where he said "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
I think the solution to keeping America from getting involved in more win less wars like Iraq is to have anyone who votes on or is involved in the decision to go to war, be forced to be embedded with combat troops for a year. This would combine some ideas from capitalism with politics for a more informed government. I think this would lead to an renewed commitment to exhausting all possible political solutions before putting more good young men and women in harms way.
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) vs Republican Obstructionism
In response to the START Treaty agreed to by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Senate republicans have started their own treaty known as STOP or Stopping Obama with Propaganda.
The START treaty is an agreement between the US and Russia to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles by 30%. This is the conclusion of a goal set forth by Ronald Reagan, however, since it was actually completed by President Obama is has now become objectionable to Republicans.
Their stated opposition suggests that they don't understand the treaty since their concerns over future technologies are explicitly exempt from the treaty. This implies that these Republican Senators are either uninterested in actually understanding the treaty or ,more likely, they are just going to arbitrarily block anything the President supports. Proof of this is the litany of former Republican officials have testified for ratification of the treaty including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, James Baker and George Shultz, as well as many senior retired military officers who were responsible for U.S. strategic nuclear forces in the past.
For people who claim to care about the opinions of our Military, they have shown a propensity for ignoring them when the Military recommendation does not match the Republican talking points.
I find the Republicans unyielding petulance in the ratification this treaty to be one of the most reprehensible acts they have committed since it not only weakens our foreign relations but also makes America and it's allies less safe, all in the name of scoring political points.
The START treaty is an agreement between the US and Russia to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles by 30%. This is the conclusion of a goal set forth by Ronald Reagan, however, since it was actually completed by President Obama is has now become objectionable to Republicans.
Their stated opposition suggests that they don't understand the treaty since their concerns over future technologies are explicitly exempt from the treaty. This implies that these Republican Senators are either uninterested in actually understanding the treaty or ,more likely, they are just going to arbitrarily block anything the President supports. Proof of this is the litany of former Republican officials have testified for ratification of the treaty including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, James Baker and George Shultz, as well as many senior retired military officers who were responsible for U.S. strategic nuclear forces in the past.
For people who claim to care about the opinions of our Military, they have shown a propensity for ignoring them when the Military recommendation does not match the Republican talking points.
I find the Republicans unyielding petulance in the ratification this treaty to be one of the most reprehensible acts they have committed since it not only weakens our foreign relations but also makes America and it's allies less safe, all in the name of scoring political points.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Sarah Palin wants you to celebrate the 20th anniversery of ADA
This post illustrates one of my favorite truisms about Republicans which is that they can't put themselves in someone elses shoes.
The only reason Sarah Palin cares at all about the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) is because she has a son with Down Syndrome. While it is human nature to have a higher interest in something when you have a personal experience with it Republicans are the only ones that completely modify their political beliefs because of this association.
The ADA was a Democrat led effort and had 100% Yea votes by Senate Democrats while only 87% of Senate Republicans voted for it. Put that into today's toxic obstructionist Senate and this bill would have needed a sweetheart deal to Ben Nelson and a back rub for Olympia Snowe to get passed.
Even some of the Yea votes from republicans were only done after they tried to water down the bill to exclude certain businesses because they felt this was unfair and damaging to business. While there seems to be no lasting affects to business from this legislation, that doesn't stop current Republicans from using this same argument to shoot down funding and legislation for the less fortunate.
So while I'm not surprised that Sarah Palin would support the ADA any more than I am that Dick Cheney is OK with gay marriage I certainly wish they had compassion for these minority groups without needing the personal example to understand their plight.
The only reason Sarah Palin cares at all about the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) is because she has a son with Down Syndrome. While it is human nature to have a higher interest in something when you have a personal experience with it Republicans are the only ones that completely modify their political beliefs because of this association.
The ADA was a Democrat led effort and had 100% Yea votes by Senate Democrats while only 87% of Senate Republicans voted for it. Put that into today's toxic obstructionist Senate and this bill would have needed a sweetheart deal to Ben Nelson and a back rub for Olympia Snowe to get passed.
Even some of the Yea votes from republicans were only done after they tried to water down the bill to exclude certain businesses because they felt this was unfair and damaging to business. While there seems to be no lasting affects to business from this legislation, that doesn't stop current Republicans from using this same argument to shoot down funding and legislation for the less fortunate.
So while I'm not surprised that Sarah Palin would support the ADA any more than I am that Dick Cheney is OK with gay marriage I certainly wish they had compassion for these minority groups without needing the personal example to understand their plight.
"I'm Pro Life and an NRA member!"
These are two things that I don't want to hear from my gubernatorial candidates. Not because I'm against this stance (which I am) but because it really has no bearing on their job. Bill Clinton didn't get elected because he could play a mean saxophone, he was elected because he had good ideas on the issues of the time.Similarly a Governor will have little to no affect on the second amendment to the constitution or the supreme courts decision on abortion.
For some reason we have become so polarized in this nation that all we need a persons thoughts on one volatile topic to decide who the best candidate is. It is a sad commentary on this country that in these difficult economic times of near 9% unemployment we are so easily divided by an issue that the politicians we are voting for have no influence on.
For some reason we have become so polarized in this nation that all we need a persons thoughts on one volatile topic to decide who the best candidate is. It is a sad commentary on this country that in these difficult economic times of near 9% unemployment we are so easily divided by an issue that the politicians we are voting for have no influence on.
United Arab Emirates to block Blackberry
U.A.E. is concerned about the excessive privacy that Blackberry affords its users and is asking to have access to communications made on Blackberry units in an effort to root out terrorists.
This is awfully similar to some of the provisions of the Patriot Act which I personally have had serious reservations (to put it mildly) about since it's inception.
The funny thing is that the main proponents of the Patriot Act were Republicans and the main proponents of the current U.A.E. ban are Arabs.
I'm glad to see we have finally found something that Republicans can agree with Arabs on.
This is awfully similar to some of the provisions of the Patriot Act which I personally have had serious reservations (to put it mildly) about since it's inception.
The funny thing is that the main proponents of the Patriot Act were Republicans and the main proponents of the current U.A.E. ban are Arabs.
I'm glad to see we have finally found something that Republicans can agree with Arabs on.
Monday, August 2, 2010
I Have Nothing To Add To This
Let's not forget this douchebag, Tim Tebow...
...whose habit of wearing bible verses on his face sends a powerful message...
...and that message: I'm home-schooled.
--- Bill Maher
...whose habit of wearing bible verses on his face sends a powerful message...
...and that message: I'm home-schooled.
--- Bill Maher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
