Absolutely DisKosTing

Like so much of what is spewed forth by Daily Kos (and posted on facebook), this image is mostly bullshit designed to trash a politician simply because he has an (R) after his name. That's not to say that many on the right don't do the same sort of thing to the (D)s, but this is the one that's currently pissing me off.

There are a couple of KEY points which this image is not being completely truthful about.

1. He didn't "propose" the bill in the usual sense we think of. In Massachusetts, where Ross is a state senator, they have something called "the right to Free Petition":

In Massachusetts all citizens have the right to petition the state legislature. This procedure is called the right of free petition. A citizen drafts and files a Petition and accompanying Bill. A legislator sponsors the Bill in the General Court. If a legislator disagrees with the contents of the Bill, he/she may indicate this by placing the phrase “By request” after his/her name.

If you take a look at the Bill here, you'll see that there is a "By request" after Ross's name. He has also stated that:

State government is not reserved solely for those who have been elected. It belongs to every citizen of Massachusetts. For that reason, when a constituent requested that I file a free petition on his behalf, I did so. While the proposal is not one that I support, I do support his right to participate in state government. This petition is now in the hands of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the democratic process will allow for it to be considered and voted on by the Legislature. (emphasis mine)

2. The picture makes you think that somehow this bill discriminates against women. It doesn't. The bill applies to both women AND men. Funny how they somehow forgot to put that part in, almost like they wanted you to think...oh, I don't know...that this guy is some kind of evil misogynist.

3. The picture leaves out two other very important pieces of information: it would only apply in divorces where children are involved and living with said parent, and it would only apply (based on the wording) to dates or sexual relations taking place within the house. Now those may not seem like important distinctions, but I think most of you are empathetic enough to put yourself in a concerned parent's shoes, and smart enough to see there's a great deal of difference between "a wife can't date or have sex during a divorce," and someone not wanting his or her ex to be getting busy in the bedroom while the kids are down the hall. Hell, I wouldn't want that happening, even if I was the parent getting busy.

I don't want the government in my bedroom, so I find this bill to be misguided, but I can see why a parent going through a divorce might want this in place. My feeling is that someone came up with this, thinking they were protecting children.

You can debate whether or not the bill is appropriate, but do it with all the facts, not the lies of both commission and omission that Kos is handing you. And don't kid yourself--they knew the truth. But that doesn't play into their narrative. They don't want you to revile the guy for creating a repressive, misogynistic bill (because he didn't). They want you to revile the guy because of his political party.

"And Rather Has The E-mails To Prove It!"

This just in from the fake television listings:

Tune in to MSNBC all this month for our special on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, "November 22, 1963: Does Anyone Know Where George W. Bush Was?" Hosted by Dan Rather.

It's Exactly The Same, Except It's Different

Saw this one on facebook today:

Those horrible, horrible Republicans! How could they do this?! I mean, it's not like the House leadership passed their own version of the VAWA, that was closer to the previous version than the one the Senate passed, which added some new provisions, right? Wait..they did?! Well, what the fuck, then, pink sign?!

Look, we all know that violence against women is awful. Domestic violence particularly so. That's why I find this graphic so vile--it uses this tragic topic for purely political purposes. It clearly implies that House republicans don't care about violence against women, and as a result, have decided not to renew this important piece of legislation. Well, here's the truth--the Senate added three new provisions for the new VAWA:

1. It gives Native-American tribal authorities expanded authority to prosecute cases of violence that occur on reservations.
2. It specifically bans discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgender victims by domestic violence organizations that receive federal funds.
3. It would raise the number of visas given to illegal aliens who are victims of domestic violence above the current cap of 10,000.

These are the sticking points for the House, at least as I understand them. I'll be honest--I don't really have any problem with any of them. I understand the apparent arguments being made against them. That they give undue authority to N.A. tribal police, that the law as written previously covers G/L/TG victims, so there's no need to single them out, and that the cap is there for a reason. I just don't see them as being as big of a concern as the House does. But here's the thing: if you want to have an argument on the merits of these additions, then HAVE THAT ARGUMENT! But to make people think that the House leadership just doesn't want to pass a VAWA, when in fact they've already passed their own version, is just disingenuous, overly partisan, and frankly, really disgusting. It's amazing to what depths people will sink when they feel the end (voting out republicans) justifies the means (creating some bullshit graphic that unfairly (and untruthfully) paints a picture of political opponents).

"Well, I Didnt WANT To Say That."

I wish that some of the writers out there would learn the difference between the terms "said" and "meant." For example, Greg Sargent, over at The Washington Post, who just posted an op-ed titled "Why Romney Keeps Attacking Things Obama Didn't Say." It's one thing to argue that Obama's "you didn't build that" quote means this or that, in which case you'd have to admit that if it means anything other than what the Romney camp is implying it means, then the Great Orator...well, screwed up. He could have said, for example, "you didn't build that on your own." Three simple words. Problem solved. What you can't do, however, is argue that's not what he said. He did. Period.

This is also not a situation in which the words have somehow changed. For example, Romney's quote "I like being able to fire people," an endorsement of accountability in private enterprise over lack of accountability in government, somehow (gee, I wonder how) became "I like firing people," as though he took glee in the actual deed. (Go ahead, Google "Romney I like firing people" and see how many people changed the wording.)Here, the words are actually changed, thereby distorting the meaning.

In Obama's case, as I said, you'd have an argument if he had said "you didn't build that on your own," and they cut out the last three words. But he didn't, and they didn't. And can we dispense with the bullshit idea that his "that" somehow referred to the "bridges and roads"? That doesn't even make grammatical sense. You'd have to say "those" because of the plural antecedent.

 So go ahead and argue what the words mean if you want, but what team Obama still hasn't addressed is who else deserves the credit for that business. I've pointed out before that he "borrowed" this idea from Elizabeth Warren, who was much more artful (and specific):

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. 

The thing she doesn't define, though, is "the rest of us," just as Obama doesn't say who the "someone else" is. The truth is that if you're going to talk about things built by the government, "the rest of us" must be "taxpayers," which means she's ultimately implying that about half the country is not really responsible for the country. It also--ironically--means that the people she's proposing raising the taxes on because they weren't responsible for building roads, etc., are the very same people whose taxes are responsible for...building roads, etc.

Just take government out of the equation altogether. If instead of having those business owners pay taxes to the government, which then used that money for various programs, the businesspeople used their own money directly for those same programs, would anybody question if they were dependent on someone else? It's like arguing that people who donate to charities should acknowledge that they're not solely responsible for those donations--the charity and the charity recipients also deserve some credit. The former because they collected and dispersed the money, and the latter because...well, because they're also people, I guess. The problem is, you could still have charitable donations without charities or recipients, but without the donors, the other two are sunk. And I think, ultimately, that's what's so disappointing (and revealing) to so many people about what Obama said/meant: he gets it backwards. What he ought to be doing instead of reminding taxpayers that they wouldn't succeed without government, is acknowledging that government wouldn't exist without taxpayers.

UPDATE: It's an interesting illustration of bias, I think when you look at the fact that over at Politicfact, Team Romney's claim that Obama said "You didn't build that" (which he did)? "False!" The claim that Romney likes firing people (which is not what he said)? Ehhhh..."mostly false."

Farleigh-Dickinson Poll Finds Dems Less Informed Than Republicans

 I've been wanting to write a post about the recent Farleigh-Dickinson poll, but haven't gotten around to it until now. I distrust polls in general, because when you start breaking them down, there's almost always some kind of bias inherent in them. The one in question is no exception. (Otherwise, why would I bother, right?) It proffers the claim that people who watch only Fox news are less informed than people who watch no news at all.

Well, they don't come right out and say that, but as you can imagine, that's what most of the liberal media and bloggers latched onto. For example, here's the headline at The Huffington Post:

Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers

And this one from The Nation:

It’s Official: Watching Fox Makes You Stupider

Of course, I have to point out that The Nation's headline is just factually incorrect. Even if the poll does find Fox News viewers to be least informed, a) being informed and intelligence are two different things, and b) correlation is not causation, and the poll shows no causation. Anyway, you get the idea. Most on the left were drooling over this. But maybe not so much by the time I'm finished...

There are a couple of problems I saw right off the bat. The sample is pretty small to represent the entire nation (1,185), and it does have a MOE of +/- 3%. I would also venture that most people would admit that among the cable news networks, Fox leans right and MSNBC leans left. Yet they include self-described Democrats who watch Fox and Republicans who watch MSNBC, with no indication of why those people were watching a channel they—at least on the surface—are opposed to ideologically. I think that’s important if you’re going to look at whether or not they’ve “learned” from watching. For example, if someone is watching for a news “watchdog” group, they’re watching for incidents of bias, not necessarily watching to glean information.  Should those numbers be included with these statistics? For example, on both international and domestic questions, conservatives watching Fox news scored better than "no news."

But more importantly, if you’re going to accept this as a valid examination of knowledge of current events, you’re going to also have to accept a few of the numbers that they buried. For example:

1. There are eight questions (nine if you count the a & b parts of K6). On all but two of them (K1, K3, K4, K5, K6B, K7, and K8), a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans answered that they “don’t know” the answer. On the other two (K2 and K6A), it was a tie.
2. A higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans got 0 domestic questions correct, and got 0 international questions correct.
3. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats (52%-45%) got 4 or more questions correct.
4. Finally, on every single question, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats chose the correct answer (unless I missed one myself, but you can easily follow the link and check me).

Given that a higher percentage of Democrats "don’t know" the answers to these questions, a higher percentage of Republicans got at least half of the questions correct, and—when looking at individual questions—a higher percentage of Republicans got the correct answer on every question, if one argues that this poll is an accurate representation of knowledge of current events, doesn’t one also have to then accept that when looking at their respective groups, Republicans are better informed about current events than Democrats? What other choice is there? If the numbers are valid in one case, they must be valid in the other.

Obviously, I’m being a little facetious about this (hence my own biased headline), but that’s the problems with this type of poll: people can twist the numbers into whatever conclusion they want them to reflect. At least until someone else comes through and twists them another way. You might say, those who live by the statistics die by the statistics. Or maybe better said, those who live by the statistics must live by ALL the statistics.

Location, Location, Location

So...what you're saying is that Bain is kinda like Bill Ayers' house and Reverend Wright's church?

Enrico Palazzo! Enrico Palazzo!

Chief Justice Roberts--I'm not buying that he's an evil genius and that somehow this is actually a win for Republicans (and non-republicans like me who are strongly against Obamacare). I think it's a huge loss. I think it's a horrendous decision, one that may speed up the bankrupting of our country, and I'm not sure what was going through his mind. He may have succeeded in putting restraints on the Commerce Clause, but as others have pointed out, what difference does that make if he gave them the power to do essentially the same thing through levying taxes? Others have speculated that he may have been trying to preserve the image of the Court. Again, I don't think so, but if that's the case, then I'm even more dismayed. The Court's job is to interpret law, not to worry about politics or their image. It's the reason that they have life terms, so as not to be swayed by those things.

Roberts said he was going to be like an umpire, calling balls and strikes, but I feel like what he did was to see a ball coming and change the strike zone, in order to "legitimately" call it a strike.

BTW: anybody know the film reference in the title?

It's All In How You Write It

This headline just in:

Racist Democrats Don't Care About Dead Hispanics, Walk Out On Attempt To Bring Those Responsible To Justice.

Over 100 Democrats walked out today as Congress attempted to bring contempt charges against Eric Holder, a man who has been withholding documents that could show just who is responsible for providing weapons responsible for the death of over 200 Mexicans, as well as that of a U.S. Border Agent. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had this to say about her choice not to pursue justice for the dead: "I thought it was so wrong that there was no question to take the opportunity to vote no."

In a letter released urging others to join them, those who participated in the walkout called the series of votes "appalling."

Now, clearly, I'm being facetious here, but does anybody think that we wouldn't be reading mainstream media headlines and stories exactly like this one if this administration had been a Republican one? Yes, I'm talking to you, MSNBC.

It's All About Who You Work For

Wow...that didn't take long. I see the media is already going after Rick Perry. This article from Time.com asserts that he once "Aggressively Pursued Federal Aid He Now Decries." How hypocritical of him...or is it?

I do think that there is a lot of hypocrisy out there on both sides of the aisle, but I'm not sure that these two situations are inconsistent, and therefore, not necessarily hypocritical. Today, Perry is running for POTUS, and part of that job would be to get federal spending under control. (Are you listening, Mr. Obama?) He should be looking out for U.S. citizens, and their future. Thus his current position on deficit spending.

This is an entirely different job than the one he held at the time in question. Back in 2003, Perry was governor of Texas. What was his job then? To represent the people of Texas. I don't think it's inconsistent in the slightest to say "hey, federal spending is out of control, and should be cut back...but as long as those programs are in place, I'm going to be damn sure to get benefits for the people I represent, because that's why they elected me." Turning that money down, or ignoring it only hurts the people he was elected to represent. Lobbying for it really only means he was doing a good job on their behalf.* It's no different than an individual saying "I think the welfare system is costly and inefficient and I think they could make some important changes; however, my family is in need and my primary concern is their well-being, so I will take the benefits." If that individual is put in charge of the welfare system eight years later, is it that strange that he or she would try to fix those issues from so long ago?

This is just Time trying to find some way to stem the flow of Perry's sudden popularity. Ultimately, though, the difference between Perry then and now? Simple--in 2003, he was representing a different group of people.

*full dislosure: I'm no Perry fan; I don't really know him well enough. I also hate lobbying and lobbyists and everything to do with that aspect of politics. But, as I said, as long as it's in place, I would expect my representatives to participate to the extent that they can.

Mmmmm.....Pie

Well, I'm glad to see that the AP is going after those hard-hitting Obama stories:


White House adviser spills secret: Obama loves pie!

Also, I'm sure, back rubs, kittens, and long walks in the rain.

"President Obama's going to talk to all the networks...."

except, you know...when he won't.

I love it when this administration gets all bitter and whiny about getting challenged by...well, I guess by Fox News in this case. And when I say "love," I mean "find it sad and a little pathetic." I mean, it's not as if other presidents were given a hard time by the media, right? Of course they were! Just take a look at the last 16 years, for starters.

I've gotta think that people--especially the independents--are getting sick of this attitude. If you're criticized for your lack of accomplishment, blame your predecessor. If you're questioned on your policies, blame the news organization that asks the questions. If people peaceably assemble to make their dissatisfaction known, pretend you haven't heard about them. It makes the president and his staff look petty and small and petulant. And they're not even very good at disguising it. Perhaps that's the "transparency" we were promised--transparent emotion.

This is the most frightening part of the piece, however:

Though Fox News has won the cable news ratings race consistently for years and is closing in on network news numbers, Axelrod and Emanuel both encouraged other news outlets to not treat Fox News as a news organization. 
"The bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way." Axelrod told ABC.

Granted, this story is from Fox news, but I just can't keep the phrase "TASS is authorized to announce" from popping into my head when I read about this kind of interaction between this administration and (the rest of) the mainstream media. "We don't just want to dismiss dissent; we want you all to dismiss it as well." the sad thing is, I'm sure CNN, et. al will be more than happy to do so.

The Easiest Test You'll Ever Take

Jealousy, Thy Name Is WaPo

So what if The Washington Post tries to marginalize Hannah Giles by making sure you know her father is "Doug Giles of the radical Clash Church in Miami," and that she "spent the summer learning about how to be a journalist from conservative media experts"? At least they're being consistant. I mean, we all remember all those WaPo articles that reminded voters of Barack Obama's Muslim father and stepfather, and his religious education at the hands of Reverend Wright, right?


(scratches head) Right?


Oh well, maybe they're just jealous.

What's Wrong With Us?

Don't get me wrong, I feel for Michael Jackson's family and friends, and I wouldn't deny his impact on popular music. But it's been over 24 hours of non-stop Jacko news (literally) on some news stations. On my local station, they even featured an interview--I'm not making this up--with someone who once went to one of his concerts.

It really disturbs me that most of the people I've talked to have no idea what I'm talking about when I tell them about a young girl dubbed Neda who was shot down in the streets of Iran while demonstrating for the right of suffrage. And yet, within minutes of Jackson's death Twitter and Facebook and television media were rife with information about it, and have been at it non-stop for over a day.

In a better world, we would all be overwhelmed by news coverage of Neda's murder. Scratch that. In a better world, Neda would still be alive.

More Poll Dancing

Sigh...another one of these. This time, it's a New York Times/CBS News poll, just in time to celebrate Obama's first 100 days in office. I'm not going to insinuate that this poll is untrustworthy because it comes from NYT/CBS, or because it's been linked to by articles singing its praises while all-but-ignoring its negatives. I'm going to tell you flat out that it's untrustworthy. How can it not be, when--for example--you notice that the percentage of Republicans is only 20 percent, compared to 38 percent Democrat and 36 percent Independent? That 20 percent is the absolute lowest percentage of Republican respondents in the included statistics, which go back to January of 1992. Is it really that surprising that Obama's approval rating went up 5% since February when the percentage of Republicans polled went down 6%, and Democrats went up 2%? I'm only surprised it didn't go up more.

It's also untrustworthy for questions such as this one:

Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

This is what's known as a false dilemma. You only provide two options, one of which is in some way unsatisfactory, thereby influencing people to choose the other one. "America: love it or leave it!" is a good example. Here, you'll notice that you only have two options as well: the first one, that things are generally going in the right direction, and the second, that things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track. See? If you don't think things are seriously wrong (an extreme), you are left with only one other choice--that they're going in the "right" direction. This question is horribly worded, whether through deceit or incompetence. Seeing as this is from NYT/CBS, neither reason seems all that unlikely. This question should either have been written with balanced options:

In general, do you feel things in this country are going in the right direction or the wrong direction?

or with more alternatives:

How do you feel things are going in the country: seriously in the right direction; generally in the right direction; generally in the wrong direction; seriously in the wrong direction?

Why would NYT/CBS do this? Well, I suspect that it was an attempt to show how great the new administration is doing. "Look," they could trumpet, "the public thinks things are going great!"

Unfortunately for them, those polled must really think things are sucking hardcore because even with the obvious bias built into the question, they still thought by a 50-41 percent margin that we have gotten "pretty seriously off track." Of course, this still didn't stop news outlets from writing glowing articles about the poll. The CBS News headline:

Poll: 100 Days In, High Marks For Obama
On The Cusp Of His 100th Day, President Enjoys High Approval Ratings On A Host Of Issues - But Few Republicans Are On Board

Oh yes, those high marks...like the 54% who had a favorable opinion of Obama, down from 60% when he took office, and the percentage of those who had an unfavorable opinion of him in the same time period, which doubled, from 9% to 18%. High marks, indeed. Oh, and don't forget the people who are optimistic about the next four years with Obama--they dropped from 79% in January to 72%. Again, you should remember that the percentage of Republicans is the lowest since '92, which should be reflected by an increase in Obama's numbers.

I could go on, pointing out that although 68% of people thought he was a "different kind" of politician, only 9% thought it was because of his policies*, or that one of the choices in the question asking how many of his campaign promises Obama would be able to keep was "all of them," which--considering he's already broken several of them--is impossible. I could mention that the percentage of people who think Obama will divide different groups of Americans has increased ten points since November of last year, which is distressing for a president who ran, partly, on the idea of unification.

What's obvious here is that NYT and CBS put together a poorly written, slanted poll designed to artificially inflate Obama's numbers, and when that didn't work as well as they expected, they wrote puff pieces on it, highlighting the good, burying the not so good. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. Even the NYT/CBS poll itself shows that the percentage of people who think the news media has "gone easier" on Obama than other candidates/presidents has steadily risen over the last year, from 24 to 40. 'Nuff said.

* I find it interesting that they used the term "different," since depending on one's mindset, "different" could be a positive or a negative.

What Bias?

So I'm reading an AP article about an AP poll that shows just how wonderfully people think Barack Obama is doing as he nears his first 100 days. Here's a sample:

In a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future in the first 100 days of his presidency, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe the United States is headed in the right direction — compared with 44 percent who disagree.

Now there's a sign of objective journalism. It gets better:

Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence — Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" — has thus far buffered the president against the harsh realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges.

And these:

The AP-GfK poll suggests that 64 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance, down slightly from 67 percent in February. President George W. Bush's approval ratings hovered in the high 50s after his first 100 days in office....

Just as many people say Obama understands the concerns of ordinary Americans. That's a sharp contrast to Bush, who won re-election in 2004 despite the fact that 54 percent of voters on that Election Day said he cared more about large corporations.

Well...there you go. Everything will be fine. He's doing much better than that other guy.

Now far be it for me to expect the AP to include all sides of the numbers. Maybe they figured no one would be interested in reading the actual poll results. And few people probably will. Good thing I'm here to do it for you. Here's a few things I found...

First of all, the poll (like a lot of AP polls, I've noticed) isn't quite as balanced as you might think. Twice as many surveyed consider themselves to be Democrat (36%) as Republican (18%). When pressed, 10% of independents stated they leaned Democrat and 9% stated they leaned Republican. That means we end up with 46% Dem. and 27% GOP, if my math is correct. That becomes important, not only because the group polled is woefully unbalanced in favor of the left, but because the AP article implies that everything's copacetic. Do the numbers bear that out? Let's see...

A larger percentage does think the country is on the right track, but just barely--48% as compared to 44% who think we're on the wrong track. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1%, which seems to me to make those numbers pretty darn close. And since the political makeup of the group isn't close, those numbers don't seem as favorable as the AP would have us believe. For example, if everyone who claimed to be/lean Democratic was behind the president, and all those "no affiliation" people split evenly, I would think the numbers would be around 60/40 that we're on the "right track." The fact that it's actually a dead heat doesn't inspire me.

What about approval ratings? That is split about 60/40, which is what you'd expect; however, one thing is notable: Obama's approval rating has gone down 10 points since January, and his disapproval rating has doubled, from 15% to 30%. And more importantly, the number who strongly disapprove has tripled from 7% to 22%! Does that sound like "a sign that Barack Obama has inspired hopes for a brighter future" to you? Yeah, me neither.

More nuggets:

• More people disapprove than approve (57% to 38%) of the way congress is handling things.
• Obama does get a majority who approve of the way he handles the issues, but most of them break down along that 60/40 split.
• One thing that surprised me was that 65% said that they disapproved of the job the Republicans in congress were doing with the economy, with 39% strongly disapproving. I guess it makes sense if Republicans aren't voting along party lines, but I still would have thought the number would have been a little lower, considering they're outnumbered in both houses.

To be sure, there are some positive results for Obama here, but are they enough to warrant the glowing interpretation from the AP article, especially since the current Rasmussen poll says 57% of likely voters think the nation is heading in the wrong direction? (I couldn't find the breakdown of those polled.)

Bow...Wow!

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

A photo of President Obama apparently bowing in front of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is stirring a royal-size controversy.

The photo and a video were largely ignored by mainstream media outlets but created outrage in some quarters.

Look, first of all, I don't really care whether it was a bow or not. If I hadn't read that it goes against protocol or tradition or whatever, I wouldn't have known, honestly. That's not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The issue here is the fact that the Obama Administration thinks we are a bunch of idiots. It was a bow. It was clearly a bow. It wasn't even questionable in the slightest. He couldn't have bowed any deeper if he was tying his shoes. If the administration had just said "Ooops, it was a blunder, a mistake," no one but Hannity would have cared. But they didn't. They tried to pass it off with one of the most ridiculous explanations/excuses I've ever heard: that it was because the Saudi king was short. Not only does it make me angry for insulting my intelligence, it makes me cringe because it's so lame that it ranks right up there with "the dog ate my homework."

But what should we expect, I guess. This is the man who spent years in Rev. Wright's church, but didn't pick up any ideas from him. This is the man who worked with Bill Ayers, but...you know...didn't really know him all that much. This is the man who played the race card to tell us that his opponent would play the race card. This is the man who told us he would lower taxes for most of us, knowing all the while that thanks to energy tax increases (among others) we'll likely pay more taxes overall. This is the man who ran on a platform of hope and change, and so far, has given us very little of either. This is the man who said he was going to raise our status among the world, who not only couldn't find anyone to translate a single word to Russian correctly, but apparently couldn't give a thoughtful gift to a world leader if his life depended on it. Why wouldn't he try to float this idiotic explanation past us? We've bought all the other ones.

And where is the media? Where are the pundits who came out of the woodwork every time George W. Bush so much as pronounced something wrong? Where are the people who criticized the decision to go into Iraq because "hey, most of the hijackers were Saudis!" Where's their outrage over a president who bows to a Saudi King? Where is Michael Moore with his baseball hat and camera? The same Michael Moore who argued so vehemently about Bush's connections to the Saudis. Where is he? I would think he ought to be able to make one of his typical "documentaries" with all the half-truths around Obama. Questions about his birth, his early schooling in religion, his connections with...unsavory characters, many of whom I've mentioned above. And now the bow.* C'mon, Michael, where's your working man's persona now? Hell, I'll even give you the name: Hussein. It practically writes itself.

Again, I don't give a shit about the bow. Do it, don't do it; I don't care. I just want a little consistency in the way we treat our leaders. And if you're going to lie, at least do it with a little style, a little smoke and mirrors. Photoshop the image, doctor the video, but "the king is too short" sounds suspiciously like "the Emporer has no clothes on," if you know what I mean.

* I'm not saying I believe all of those things about Obama. I'm just saying that Moore never seems to worry too much about the truth in his films, so why start now?

Now There's Something You Don't See Every Day: A Hypocritical Liberal

Yes, the title drips with sarcasm. I just ran across this from Bonnie Fuller. Fuller has never been one to let little things like logic get in her way, but this one was a bit much. I don't have anything against Michelle Obama. In fact it's hard to think of anything I care about less than her biceps. But I have to take issue with a couple of things.

First of all, most of what's there is just an ad hominem attack. It translates roughly to "against the man." That's when you attack the person rather the view the person holds, generally because it's usually easier to attack the person. The idea is that if you can prove the person unacceptable in some way, people will assume the person's position is unacceptable, too. Fuller here goes after David Brooks of the NY Times, calling him a "sore loser" and speculating that he has "girly-man arms" and is just jealous. Again, it's easy to attack a person. I could, for example point out that Michelle Obama at times looks a little like she might be a guy in drag. Or that at other times, she looks like a younger version of Aunt Esther (LaWanda Page) from "Sanford & Son." ("Barack, you fish-eyed fool!") But I wouldn't do that.

The other thing that irks me about Fuller is that she goes on to talk about Michelle Obama's place as a female hero:

Because if there's one thing this country needs right now besides a strong and principled president instituting change, it's a superhero, and the non-sexist American public will take a female one.

There's a long history of strong female warriors in Western culture, from the goddess Athena who was a wise warrior (how Michelle-like), to the the Brit chick Boadicea, to young French babe, Joan of Arc, to Queen Elizabeth 1 to tough bicepped protector-mom, Sarah Connor in Terminator to Xena, the Princess Warrior to ... WonderWoman.

So...let me get this straight. Fuller is championing the strong, female warrior.

Really?

I just have to ask: where was this sentiment when another strong female was running for vice-president? I mean, arguably, Sarah Palin fits the definition of strong female warrior much more than Michelle Obama does. Palin quite literally could bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, and never, never let you forget you're a man. (Admit it, you were singing along with that.) And yet, Fuller was one of Palin's most vehement critics (again, mostly ad hominem attacks). She even went so far as to criticize Palin's running for office because--good heavens!--her daughter Bristol might end up in the spotlight. This is supposed to be evidence that Palin running for office proves she is a bad mother. Can you imagine?! A president or vice-president's child in the spotlight?! It's a good thing that never happened to the Bush twins, or Chelsea Clinton, or Patti Davis, or Ron Reagan, Jr., or Amy Carter, or Susan Ford (who had her prom in the White House!), or Tricia Nixon, or Julie Nixon, or Luci Baines Johnson, or Caroline Kennedy, or John John Kennedy, or even Magret Truman. And that's just the presidential children...

I'm always irked by those who swear up and down that they are feminists, damn it, and yet are so willing to lay down those principles when a strong woman comes along with whom they disagree ideologically. Fuller is one of the worst kind of hypocrites--one who, at her core, truly believes she isn't one.

All The News That's Fit To Ignore

I'm sure by now that you've all seen the video of poor Henrietta Hughes asking President Obama to help her escape her homelessness. What I find really telling is his response:

"We're gonna do everything we can to help you, but there are a lot of people like you..."

It's a brilliant, sensitive answer that says...absolutely nothing.

"We"? Did Henrietta ask someone in addition to Obama for help? Who is this "we"? Maybe he means the "we" who will have to pay the taxes for some of the programs he's supporting. And notice that he says that this mysterious "we" will do everything we can to help. Well, if "we" can't do anything, then "we" won't do anything, right? Doing nothing is perfectly consistent with his answer. It's a non-committal committal. In fact he tries to weasel his way out of doing anything with his next statement: "but there are a lot of people like you." Translation: there are a shitload of people as fucked as you are, so don't expect too much from me. Then he gives her a kiss. Boo-boo all gone.

It looks like Henrietta did get a house to live in. A Florida representative's wife agreed to let Henrietta and her adult son live in a house she owned. And this is where I get pissed off. I read maybe a dozen reports about this and not one of them pointed out the fact that it was a Republican representative's wife who helped Ms. Hughes out. Not one. In fact, I noticed over at HuffPo, some of the comments criticizing those "selfish, greedy Repubs." Apparently they didn't know the whole story either. If anyone out there has seen a version of the story in which they actually identify Nick and Chene Thompson by their political affiliations, please send me a link.

This all begs the question of whether or not the media would have been so quiet about Thompson's politics if the parties had been reversed.

Ultimately, though, I find this to be an excellent example of one of the differences I see between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are always talking about how they're going to help you, usually by getting someone else to pay for it. The Republicans step up and do it.

Oh, Enough Already!!

What is it about Sarah Palin that bring out the assholishness in people? I used to find Andrew Sullivan interesting to read. Now he just seems petty and a little pathetic. Especially when he can't find anything else to write about other than whether or not Sarah Palin was lying about how she named her daughter Bristol.

First, I have to say: who gives a shit? Pssst....the election's over.

Second, although he's big enough to correct himself with an update, he just can't let it go, adding a second update saying "on the other hand, many readers have written to say that Palin was highly unlikely to have known of ESPN in high school. It was only founded in 1979 and became widely known only in 1982." Really? That's the best you can do? Well, seing as Palin was still in high school in 1982, I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. In addition, it wouldn't surprise me that someone who was interested in sports broadcasting (in fact, Palin eventually got her bachelor's in communication) might just know about a 24-hour sports broadcasting network. But that's just me. I think "highly unlikey" is a huge stretch, and either a show of bias or a lame attempt to save face. I don't find it unlikely that a graduating student interested in profiling for the FBI might know about Quantico and the Behavioral Sciences Unit, even before CSI became "widely known." I don't find it unlikely that a student interested in the historical Jesus might have read a few books on the subject, even before The DaVinci Code became "widely known." And I don't find it unlikely--especially not "highly"--that a student interested in sports and broadcasting would know a little something about ESPN before it became "widely known." Frankly, it sounds like Palin did more research coming up with her daughter's name than Sullivan did for his post.

Yeah, I said it.