When I think of Republicans running this country, I nearly romney myself.
Even if I were the type to vote for Romney, this story alone would be enough to make me vote for someone else. It just boggles the mind. Rachel Maddow played a clip of an interview when this story broke the first time during his last run for President. His response? He laughed and said, "The crate was completely air tight. He loved riding up there. He got up there all by himself." A quick aside: Have you ever noticed how everything is a joke to him?
- Air tight? Really? You didn't even poke holes in the top so Seamus could breath? Nice save. NOT.
- Diarrhea is a sign of distress. It doesn't have to be the stomach flu. Dogs, and even people, will develop gastrointestinal distress during times of high anxiety.
- Most dog breeds are all about pleasing their owners. Irish setters are farther along the "What can I do to make you happy?" scale than others. How do you know Seamus "enjoyed" it up there? How do you know he wasn't just doing what was expected...since this obviously wasn't the first time.
- Even granting Ronmey's assertion that Seamus liked riding on top of the car, did Romney really think a twelve-hour drive was the same as a jaunt to the park? I like riding roller coasters, but I think it would cease to be fun long before twelve hours had past.
- I like what the reporter who wrote the original story for the Boston Globe four years ago had to say (as quoted by Rachel). He thinks people are missing the boat. The story isn't that Romney put the dog on top of the car. The story is that even after irrefutable evidence that Seamus was in distress, Romney just hosed Seamus off and put him back on top of the car. Don't you think most people would probably have relented and let the dog cram in with the rest of the family?
Think about it people. What does this say about how Romney treats those he deems beneath him? And if you think Romney doesn't look down on everyone who isn't in his immediate family…you're not paying attention.
From a friend's Facebook status:
Okay, I don't usually post political mumbo-jumbo, but this is, well you decide!
I thought we lived in America--land of the free, home of the brave, life-liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.
=from MSN news today=
"The court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty."
My comment to said friend:
The individual liberty argument is a red herring. Of course Congress has the power. Congress limits individual liberty all the time. No one is getting their panties in a knot about Congress deciding who can marry and who cannot. There are plenty who would be happy to have Congress limit the individual liberty of women to obtain an abortion--most of them the same ones who whine about being required to have health insurance. The question is does the state have a vested interest in requiring everyone have some kind of insurance (note: not a specific kind of insurance, just some kind of insurance.) The answer is arguably yes, which is why that question is never the one raised. And really, how many people do you know who opt to have no health insurance? Most people I know worry about not having health insurance.
I've been largely mum on politics for a while. That is due in large part to the fact that there is just too much asshattery out there. It's hard to decide what to write about. Here's a quick stab at a few recent events.
Birds of a Feather
I've recently started following BeggarsCanBeChoosers, an articulate, progressive writer in … wait for it … Texas. Recently he posed the question How Can a Moron Like Herman Cain Be Considered A Candidate for President in the First Place? I would respond with a question of my own: "Have you seen the company he keeps?" There's Mitt "I'm good-looking and rich so I don't need principles" Romney, Rick "Jus' doin' God's will" Perry, Michelle "Paul Revere was anti-slavery crusader" Bachmann, Ron "Living in the 18th Century" Paul, Newt "I still don't see that I'm a buffoon" Gingrinch, Rick "I'm obsessed with gay sex" Santorum, and John "The other Mormon" Huntsman. I mean, really. It just boggles the mind that the mind that the Republican nomination race is actually taken seriously.
Sen. Mitch McConnell was again quoted whining about raising taxes on "those who we are depending on to create jobs." So first of all the verb tense implies a future event. What the hell are the "job creators" waiting for? Republicans will starting talking about regulation and taxation uncertainties, but that's crap. That's always a consideration when doing business. Not just now. Not just when a Democrat is in the White House. Second, taxes on "job creators" are at their lowest in decades. And they still can't afford to create jobs? Bullshit. Finally, all the talk I've heard is about raising income taxes. Mitch doesn't pay his staffers out of his own pocket, right? So theoretically income taxes don't impact his or any other employer's ability to pay his employees. Not to mention the tax increase is miniscule. The last number I remember hearing was less than 1%. That's probably not even going to force McConnell to start shopping at Penny's. Oh, and have we forgotten that most of the very wealthy make their money in capital gains and not anything even subject to income tax?
I'm not sure what gets up my nose more; that Republicans keep repeating the same rubbish—all the while criticizing Obama for not bringing anything new to the table—or that the American public doesn't seem to have the brain power to think critically about these claims. Instead we have a bevvy of conservative parrots commenting on every forum in the web. "Job creators! Squawk! Job creators!"
Hunting the rich
That's the headline on an "Economist" sitting out in the front office. I'm really tired of this as well. People aren't mad at the rich as much as they are mad at the corrupt. Some people are always going to have more money than others. That's just a fact of life. People are mostly okay with that, if you ask me. The real problem is the man behind the curtain has been revealed: not an all-knowing wizard, but a fraud. Everything conservatives have spewed as economic policy for the last 30 years has finally come home to roost. People haven't cared much about the income gap until those at the top who are controlling the economy drove it into a ditch then turned to the middle class and said, "You there. Pull that out of the ditch." Republicans preached trickle down economics as if those at the top of the economic food chain were rain makers, actually creating more wealth for all. Turns out they're just dam builders and now that we're in an economic drought they are whining about increasing the flow of cash downstream.
Billy Cosby comes to mind. "Mine! Mine!"
Heard this sound bite on the radio today and then found it over at Think Progress (quite easily I might add).
Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it’s slavery. We become slaves to government.
OMG. Really? What kind of mental contortionist act does it take to see ancient Egypt as a welfare state? That's Texas governor Rick Perry, now another clown in the circus that is the Republican nomination process. Well, soon to be anyway. You can see the video clip over at Think Progress.
How do you even address such phenomenal, unrepentant stupidity? And you know people will vote for him just because he's a "good Christian." That is if being a good Christian is bankrupting your state in the name of God. "Take what you can. Give nothing back," was certainly one of Christ's best lines. Wait maybe I'm getting him confused with someone else. No wait, being a good Christian means invoking God to defend your behavior at least three times a day. Or was it an hour? I mean, really. "By their fruits ye shall know them" is so passé.
You know, when I was a kid "taking the name of the Lord in vain" pretty much meant swearing. It's been some time now that I don't think God gives a rats ass if his name is a swear word. I mean, really? He's that insecure? If I were God, I'd be a lot more upset by whackadoodles like Perry who use my name to con people by telling them he's in my good graces, when really I think he's a first class asshat. But that's just me, I guess. I obviously lack insight into the mind of God on the matter.
I needed to get some files from a client today and the easiest way for him was to give me his GoToMyPC login info so I could copy the folder off his desktop. He happened to be on his computer at the time listening to Michael Savage. It's the only time in my life I have ever listened to Savage other than sound bites on news shows. I know enough about Savage to know I would find his political views generally despicable, and yet—on this particular occasion—I found myself thinking, "I think he's right."
He was making the same case I've made before, namely: The Republicans threw the 2008 presidential election because they knew their profligate spending would come home to roost during an economy on life support and they didn't want to have to catch that particular hot potato. He also posited that Republican "puppet masters" made sure it was McCain and not Romney because they were afraid Romney could win by accident. He basically said they knew McCain would screw it up because of terminal foot–in–mouth disease and of all the options available as a running mate, Palin was chosen to "cinch the deal."
I think he's right. I just hope their current strategy of fiddling while Rome burns backfires on them. They're counting on the economy staying sluggish and unemployment high to win in 2012. [Insert your higher power here] help us if it works. You can be damn sure it will be right back to "trickle down economics" if they do. And it will be a sad commentary on the collective intelligence of the American people.
No, these are not the symptoms of some new medication to control cholesterol. These are the symptoms of prolonged exposure to Michelle Bachmann and her unapologetic idiocy. According to the news spot on the radio this morning she says she knows how to create jobs: cut corporate taxes, eliminate capital gains taxes and rollback EPA regulations. "...she says voters 'must make a bold choice if we are to secure the promise of the future'" (NPR). I have to ask, "Secure the promise of the future for who?"
This spot came right on the heels of another spot talking about the sluggish economy and how we've definitely hit a "soft spot." Can we please stop blaming gas prices? What is the problem with the economy? It depends on middle class spending and nothing anyone is doing right now is inspiring confidence in the middle class. In fact, everything that is happening now is doing exactly the opposite.
First of all, the rich and large corporations do not need more money. Period. They have plenty. Newspapers aren't dying because they're being smothered by taxes. Corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy are at their lowest in U.S. history. So where are the goddamned jobs? Why hasn't that translated into higher wages? Because the whole premise of trickle down economics is a complete farce. American's know this. Forty plus years of lowering taxes hasn't helped them one bit. Republicans and their wealthy friends are no longer satisfied now with a slow transfer of wealth. Now it's an all out assault on the fortunes of the "little people." How do we pay for tax cuts to the rich (since our previous strategy of borrowing from China isn't working now)? By cutting services for everyone else. How do we solve the budget problems of the states? By hamstringing unions and making it easier to balance the budget by...wait for it...cutting salaries and benefits for the middle class and the working poor.
A friend of mine posted this propaganda piece to his Facebook page saying, "This video is an interesting look about what would happen if we taxed the rich and large corporations to help us pay for the $3.7 Trillion budget we are going to spend in 2011." First of all, no, it's not about taxation. For crying out loud, the video is titled "Eat the Rich!" Nothing like a little blood spatter to distract from the fact you're making a completely irrelevant point. No one has ever said the rich should bear sole responsibility for the deficit. But there's a flip side to this argument as well. The rich can't spend their way out of our economic mess either. They simply do not have the spending power. Ironic isn't it?
Let's face it folks, the current state of our economy is directly related to corporate greed. It's directly related to the very rich and narcissistic idiots like Bachmann for whom entitlement issues is just barest surface of personal failings that make them believe that $100 million will make them happy if $10 million hasn't. The banking industry didn't engage in risky and unethical practices in order to pay their taxes. And who has borne the brunt of consequences of this behavior? The middle class. Those who haven't lost their homes have seen their equity evaporate and are so far underwater their homes have no value. Pensions and retirement savings are gone. And we wonder why spending is stagnant and why Republican calls for decreasing taxes on corporations and the very wealthy all the while cutting benefits and services for everyone else aren't inspirational.
I must admit I have been extremely frustrated with the apparent lack of Democratic will and ability to take back the debate, to point out the blatant misinformation that is being perpetrated as fact, to do more to let the middle class know, "Hey. We've got your back." Sometimes, though, I wonder if this isn't a fairly accurate metaphor for what is going on on Capitol Hill.
I've had a lot of deep thoughts lately. Someday, I might get around to getting them written down, but in the mean time, a bit of light humor from Cognitive Dissenter:
“Mommy, what will I be when I grow up?”
“Oh my dear, you can be anything you want, even the President of the United States. If you're a Republican, that is.”
“What's 'the President of the United States'?”
The rest of One If By Land, Two If By Sea. Blah blah blah.
Don't you dare give me any crap about "family first." That was nothing more than a narcissistic stunt designed to let everyone at the game know he is super duper important. If it were really family first, you'd adjust your schedule around your son's ballgame. If that's not an option, you do what every other parent does who can't get time off for a game/play/concert. You suck it up and you miss it.
His spokesman said there was "nothing inappropriate" about the Governor's use of the State helicopter. Only if the cost of that little stunt went onto his personal credit card. What are the odds of that, do you think? About nil? I wonder how much that ended up costing tax payers? Fiscal responsibility my ass.
I like the idea of The Rapture. I believe it’s the best idea God has ever had. I was personally disappointed on May 21 when it became apparent that someone had made a slight calculation error. Ah fetch! I thought to myself when all of the Utah legislators (state and federal) were still here.
What I’m saying is can I vote for The Rapture to happen? Is there an online petition I can sign in support of the Chosen Saints being taken up to Heaven?
I know that at least one is a requirement for being a Senator or Congressman in this country, but I'm always stunned when it's on such unabashed display. The measure to end tax subsidies for big oil failed in the Senate. Among the Democrats who voted against the measure was Mary Landrieu from Louisiana.
You would think, because of this (Menendez) bill, that the big oil and gas companies are getting all the subsidies, making all the profits, paying no taxes, and the rest are suffering. Nothing could be further from the truth. (cnsnews.com)
Persecution complex much? I don't remember anyone ever saying the money would be given to other industries because they are suffering. I don't remember anyone ever saying big oil pays zero taxes. You should go that link and read the rest of her whining about the persecution of oil companies in our nation. What I do remember being said is that when one single company is recording 45billion in profits, the industry as a whole could stand to lose their 2billion in tax breaks and subsidies, especially when the country is running so far in the red.
This line would be funny if it weren't so insulting. "It will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny." (http://landrieu.senate.gov) Again, I don't remember anyone ever saying the measure was about lowering gas prices. How does that statement even make sense? You're going end subsidies for big oil and that's somehow going to translate into lower gas prices? It's a transparent, lame attempt to defend an indefensible position. She's not fooling anyone. She should just say it like it is, "Big oil funds my political office. I cannot vote for this measure." If big oil was lining anyone's pocket in her state besides her own, Louisana wouldn't be ranked 47th in per capita income. If she can't say it like it is, she should just STFU.