Conservatives

GOP Response to Hurricane Irene: Take More Hostages

mikethemadbiologist — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:55:01 +0000

GOP Response to Hurricane Irene: Take More Hostages

They're getting pretty good at hostage taking, and it worked before. Alex Seitz-Wald reports:

Despite the devastation caused by Hurricane Irene this weekend, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today stood by his call that no more money be allocated for disaster relief unless it is offset by spending cuts elsewhere. The Washington Post reported this morning that FEMA will need more money than it currently has to deal with the storm's aftermath and is already diverting funds from other recent disasters to deal with the hurricane, but Cantor's comments suggest Republicans won't authorize more funds without a fight....

Cantor referred a bill the Republican-controlled House passed that approves $1 billion in disaster relief, which was financed by a $1.5 billion cut from loan program to encourage the production of fuel-efficient vehicles. But the need in the wake of the hurricane will likely greatly surpass $1 billion, and that spending package was supposed to be used for tornado recovery efforts, for which several hundred million dollars has already been outlayed.

The recent disaster in upstate New York, Vermont, and parts of North Carolina and Massachusetts show just how stupid and irresponsible imposing a de facto gold standard through spending caps is.

People need help, and we are artificially limiting the response due to false currency limitations. The ~$700 million Cantor proposes will only be a small fraction needed to repair the damage.

If the president and the Congressional Democrats don't call this what it is--morally degenerate hostage taking--then what damn good are they? They need to be partisan, since there is one side trying to be responsible and perform the basic functions of government, while the other (Republicans) is being irresponsible and cruel. If Democrats can't figure out a way to make this case to the American people, then they aren't worth our support.

Can we sue for political malpractice?

mikethemadbiologist Tue, 08/30/2011 - 03:55

Tags

Basic Human Decency

Conservatives

Democrats

and it doesn't have anything to do with the observation that Irene hit state that voted for Obama...

Political malpractice is the only kind of political practice there is.

Can we sue for political malpractice?

It's called an "election." I'm sure that the good people of Alabama (to name one) will hold the coon in the White House responsible and vote him out.

Why dont the republicans just come out and say - disaster relief is not a government function - States, fix your own damage.

Guess Irene didn't do enough damage in Cantor's state of Virgina for him to care.

ne kasirgaymis birader

so bad,so bad!

Getting Fired For Doing Your Job Well: The Everglades Restoration Edition

mikethemadbiologist — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:40:16 +0000

Getting Fired For Doing Your Job Well: The Everglades Restoration Edition

Sheril has the details:

That's what Florida Governor Rick Scott and the Republican-controlled Legislature just did. Embarrassing for Florida and a travesty for the Everglades.

They've dismantled the South Florida Water Management District-the state agency charged with protecting the Everglades. As The Sierra Club explains, this wasn't belt tightening, but an attack on science and more specifically an attack on Everglades restoration. Among the 280 employees laid off was Dr. Christopher McVoy, lead author of the recently published 576-page book Landscapes and Hydrology of the Predrainage Everglades.

So the scientists are doing some good, truly bipartisan work (FL governor Jeb Bush and President Bush supported the Everglades restoration) that makes the country a little better, and their reward is...getting fired.

We are governed by sociopaths.

mikethemadbiologist Thu, 08/25/2011 - 05:40

Tags

Conservatives

environment

Missing a closing tag for italics, I think.

Lays off people during a deep recession, check.

Dismantles a successful program, check.

Dismantles is because it doesn't fit their ideology, check.

Just mean in every sense. Double check.

Welcome to the current Republican party. We don't have a plan except to smash everything. Won't that be fun? (in the short term)

I am baffled by GOP politicians who think that they will profit after smashing everything in sight. When the Empire lies in ruins and the hungry mobs roam the streets, they can play their fiddles in their gated communities. Maybe they'll have enough money left in the bank that they can buy wind turbines from China and recharge their car batteries.

Someone submit this here:
http://thisiswhathappenswhendemocratsstayhome.com/

I'm not saying the decision was a good one, but labeling every political decision that goes against an environmental cause "an attack on science" is kinda lame. And I'm sure it won't cause a single right-wing voter who thinks belt-tightening is more important than wetland restoration to rethink their view.

The Left Does "Give a Fig About Science"--For Its Own Sake

mikethemadbiologist — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:55:25 +0000

The Left Does "Give a Fig About Science"--For Its Own Sake

By way of Matthew Yglesias, we read that,over at National Review Online, Kevin Williamson claims progressives only care about science as a way to wage culture war (yes, coming from movement conservatives, that's rich):

There are lots of good reasons not to wonder what Rick Perry thinks about scientific questions, foremost amongst them that there are probably fewer than 10,000 people in the United States whose views on disputed questions regarding evolution are worth consulting, and they are not politicians; they are scientists. In reality, of course, the progressive types who want to know politicians' views on evolution are not asking a scientific question; they are asking a religious and political question, demanding a profession of faith in a particular materialist-secularist worldview....

Evolution is a public question not because politicians have anything intelligent to say about the science, but because the question provides a handy cudgel to those who wish to beat the Judeo-Christian moral tradition into submission in the service of managerial progressivism. Perry should talk about that, not about alleged "gaps" in the scientific evidence, about which neither he nor his questioners nor the great majority of his critics nor the great majority of his supporters knows the first thing.

I don't think anyone asked Rick Perry or any other GOP candidate about the relative importance of neutral versus selectionist processes. Many people don't understand the technical details (that's why we have biologists), just as many people don't understand the technical details of building a light water reactor. But knowing a candidate's views on nuclear power in general, its pros and cons, does matter. Given the importance of evolution to biology, we do need to know if a presidential candidate is a creationist or not.

This week, I'm running some analyses trying to figure out how certain pathogenic lineages in E. coli evolved to determine where they came from (e.g., clinic versus farms), and, funny, I thought I was doing it to understand the spread of disease. When I'm not doing that, I'm using genomics to understand the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

The very same algorithms and computational tools that I use to combat infectious disease are the very same algorithms that other biologists use to understand finches in the Galapagos. Or how all those primates evolved, including us. You want to understand the evolution of MRSA--methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which kills more people than AIDS does in the U.S. every year--then you have to deal with all those damn dirty apes (and other primates). There's no a la carte service here.

So when a presidential candidate (actually, most of the candidates in one political party) makes pro-creationist noises, I'm bothered because he could get in the way of research. And because he's making it that much harder to train the next generation of biologists in all facets of biology. It's not about "demanding a profession of faith in a particular materialist-secularist worldview." The question is will the person, with whom the (scientific research) buck stops, interfere with biological research and the teaching of biology?

Before I go home from work, I don't ask myself, "Now, Mad Biologist, did you beat the Judeo-Christian moral tradition into submission in the service of managerial progressivism? No? Then get back to work! You're not done yet!" (besides, that's a lot of work. Someone needs to develop a machine to do that). Evolution matters to this Jewish* liberal because it's an incredibly powerful tool for understanding the biological world around us, as well as an accurate explanation of biological diversity. When that explanation happens to conflict with certain sectarian dogmas, that's a problem for those who hew to those dogmas, not the rest of us. Williamson is just going to have to cope with the fact that his party--and many of its elected representatives--has been taken over by people who are willfully ignorant (you thought you could control these lunatics, and now they turn out to be an embarrassment. Too bad. You reap what you sow).

Figure it out, or get out of our way. Either way, there's useful science to be done.

Using evolution, not creationism.

Update: Williamson doubles down on stupid, accusing Kevin Drum of incorrectly claiming that heritability is 'only' fifty percent. Ahem. And that's before we account for issues of genotype-environment covariation.

*This moderately observant 'Judeo' wishes to God (yes, liberals are allowed to do this too) that Christian conservatives would stop using us as a fig leaf for their own insanity.

mikethemadbiologist Wed, 08/24/2011 - 03:55

Tags

There are lots of good reasons not to wonder what Rick Perry thinks about scientific questions, foremost amongst them that there are probably fewer than 10,000 people in the United States whose views on disputed questions regarding evolution are worth consulting, and they are not politicians; they are scientists.

The problem with this view is that scientists are not policymakers, politicians are. Policymaking goes even beyond funding for research. Whem the overwhelming majority of republicans in Congress believe that climate change is a hoax, that has a huge impact on the policy direction of this country.

Republicans always seem to regard everything as a battle between "worldviews", whether it's capitalist vs. socialist or secular vs. religious. But the role of science in policymaking is not about whose worldview prevails, but on whether the the policymakers are basing their decisions on reliable information that is based on factual data. If a candidate's views on science is that it's just one among several worldviews and all worldviews are equally valid, that is something the voters should know.

If they want to know what the question is "really" about, it's this: "Can you change your ideologically-held position on the basis of evidence?" Because if they can't, then I don't want them making policy on energy, economics, climate change, education, public health, etc. Evolution and climate change are two pretty good proxies for that question - both rest on strong scientific foundation and both are opposed for ideological reasons.

But to be fair, it often seems to me that many of the more trolling people over at Pharyngula behave exactly in the way this Kevin Williamson sugests ;-)

I think that a simple question of Creationism vs mainstream science is a quick and dirty way of determining whether or not a president or legislator would look for materialist/secular solutions to materialist/secular problems. Would Mr. Williamson assert that Gov. Perry's prayer rally to fix the economy was the right approach?

It's the president's job to make good decisions based on careful analysis of evidence and understanding the world around him.

If someone is a creationist, as Perry proudly is, then it strongly calls into question their entire relationship with the entire category of everything we recognize as "evidence," on any subject, and how they could ever use any amount of any evidence to make any decision.

I'm with george w. and TTT on this: If a candidate (for any office) is creationist, they're either stupid, willfully ignorant, or willing to choose ideology over reality, none of which are traits that I want in a leader.

The topic of the question is irrelevant - it could be evolution, global warming, Bigfoot, healing crystals, Obama's birth certificate, or the shape of the Earth - the information conveyed by their answer is the same. Evolution and global warming are simply the most topical and widespread.

I don't just apply this to politicians, either - anyone who shows such obvious cognitive defects will lose at least some significant amount of respect from me, if not all of it. Our minds are literally the only thing that has allowed us to advance beyond being tasty snacks for the local leopard population. If we refuse to use them for such trivial reasons, we may as well go back to that state.

Asking such a question might result in getting a pretty good idea where the candidate stands on the problem of how evidence is applied to policy.

Do we address problems that really exist with solution that might be expected to work, or do we moralize about the creeping homosexual menace, and solve the problem by building a mud fence around Las Vegas?

So, uh, what exactly is "managerial progressivism"?

So, uhm, is it a huge problem if I believe in climate change out of "faith in a particular materialist-secularist worldview", rather than having any respectable grasp on the science?

It doesn't to a large extent matter, becca.

To those unbelieving in the science, there are STILL reasons to switch power generation away from fossil fuels.

And there's no need to revert to the false dichotomy of

1) Having a respectable grasp of the science
and
2) Having faith in a particular materialist-secularist worldview

because you can just, as you do with almost every event in your life, merely let the experts be experts.

I'm sure there are politicians on the left who use science only as a bludgeon because they don't really understand it. They're politicians, not scientists. If they're right then that's more a coincidence or their trust in scientists rather than their own critical thinking.

I still think that's better than politicians on the right who use science as either exactly equal to religion (scientists just GUESS at things and then you put your FAITH in them!) or an evil bogeyman that hates nothing more than unborn babies, Jesus and a healthy economy.

I can sort of see two sides to this
On the one hand, someone who rejects evolution can't be trusted to make evidence based policy - they have shown that if the facts conflict with what they want to believe, they will reject them.
On the the other hand, politicians tend anyway. How many of them are even willing to suggest considering an evidence based drug policy for example

"On the the other hand, politicians tend anyway. How many of them are even willing to suggest considering an evidence based drug policy for example"

One reason for this is that people keep voting in bigoted idiots anyway, if only to stop WORSE bigoted idiots getting in.

The old "the wrong lizard might win" argument.

"If they're right then that's more a coincidence or their trust in scientists rather than their own critical thinking"

But if they always go with the evidence of experts rather than guess wrong, then why is this a problem?

Conservatives: Still Disappearing African-Americans From the South

mikethemadbiologist — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 08:06:28 +0000

Conservatives: Still Disappearing African-Americans From the South

In this case, South Carolina. From Steve M.:

I was reminded of this when I glanced at Jacob Weisberg's Jon Huntsman profile in Vogue and my eye fell on this this har-har-har good-ol'-boy anecdote about a Huntsman campaign appearance in Greer, South Carolina:

Henry McMaster, the state's silver-haired former attorney general, then makes the political tenor of the room explicit when he rises to introduce Jon Huntsman in his thick-as-gravy drawl. "Some of you folks may remembah that I made a pledge that I looked forward to the day Democrats in South Carolina were so rare we'd have to start huntin' em with dawgs," McMaster intones. "It's come true! You cay-ant find any!"

Good grief.

Now, some of you will read this as racism -- in reality, what's left of the Democratic Party in South Carolina is mostly black. McMaster would have no trouble finding African-American Democrats in the state, but they're irrelevant to him. The only population that counts for him is the white Democratic population.

Sadly, this is par for the course:

What I've always found puzzling is that the argument on behalf of the Confederate flag always revolves around "southern tradition", "culture", "pride", "way of life", "history", or some other hooey. The huge percentage of blacks (between 15-40%) in the antebellum South--and the Jim Crow South too--are completely invisible. Yet how can you think of the South without black people?
So let's be clear: when these defenders of the American Swastika say "Southern", they actually mean Southern and white. Blacks, I guess, aren't 'real' Southerners. I guess Ralph Ellison's estate isn't going to go broke anytime soon. This is a subtle, but insidious, form of subjugation: the denial of the 'other's' existence.

But we're in a post-racial America and all of that. Apparently, African-American votes don't count as much.

I thinking maybe three-fifths?

mikethemadbiologist Sun, 08/21/2011 - 04:06

Tags

Conservatives

racism

The "Tea Party," "Religious Right," "John Birchers," etc. all go by different names but are really just the exact same group of people. We should start calling them "Confederates," which is who they really are.

Also see:
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/nationalism-and-us-debt-situ…

That's just disturbing.

Also disturbing is Huntsman's idea that lower corporate taxes and less regulation will fix things for you guys...

I'm not the owner of the site or of the copyrights, but it's very clear to me that this website is violating many copyrights. Is there a way I can report it under the DMCA? Thanks!.

Since you have nothing to do with the copyrights in question, no, there isn't.

You could always try contacting the owners of the copyrights in question, but be prepared to be be ignored.

Fair use, henry

LOL ... Commenting on a site about the sites alleged violation of copyright law, and particularly asking what can be done to report it and have the site creators penalized, makes one seem downright stupid.

For his next trick he might go down to where the enterprising gentlemen offer at-the-curb retail sales of recreational drugs and ask them if he might borrow a cell phone to report their illegal sales to the police. Call me ahead of time so I can set up the video camera to capture the fun. Assuming he lives, it might be quite educational.

kalbimdesin ama sen neredesin ?

"Apparently, African-American votes don't count as much."

Why with the proposed re-instatement of Jim Crowish voting requirements in so many southern states pretty soon black voters won't be counted at all.

Why Half of Americans Pay No Income Tax: It's the Subsistence, Stupid

mikethemadbiologist — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:14:42 +0000

Why Half of Americans Pay No Income Tax: It's the Subsistence, Stupid

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, in an attempt to win the craziness sweepstakes, has been proclaiming hither and yon that half of all Americans pay no income tax. Call me confused, but I thought Republicans wanted to lower income taxes? Maybe it has something to do with who those non-payers are?

Well, who are they? Let's see:

The number one reason should come as no surprise. It's because they have low incomes. As my colleague Bob Williams notes:

A couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.

Low incomes (or, if you prefer, the standard deduction and personal exemptions) account for fully half of the people who pay no federal income tax.

How foolish. Taxing people existing at "subsistence levels" builds character. Oops! Dropped my monocle! At times of moral crisis like this, I always like to ask myself, "What Would Reagan Do?":

And who took many of these folks off the tax rolls? Ronald Reagan. He pushed for the historic 1986 tax reform bill, and in a 1987 statement, he took pride in the consequences: "Millions of Americans with low incomes will be dropped from the Federal income tax rolls altogether."

I guess the new Republican ethos is to (further) punish the poor through taxation. Or something. OK, who else doesn't pay income taxes? Those damn old people:

The second reason is that for many senior citizens, Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes. That accounts for about 22% of the people who pay no federal income tax.

Those freeloading elderly living high on their maximum of $28,000 per year. Of course, if they're dependent on Social Security, they probably didn't pay in the maximum amount and thus aren't receiving full benefits. Weakling Ã¼ntermenschen! Speaking of Ã¼ntermenschen, the third group consists of households that want to provide for their damn kids! I'm sure Rick Perry et alia would argue they should have had abortions and used birth control.

[uncomfortable pause]

...moving right along, let's talk about those damn freeloading kids:

The third reason is that America uses the tax code to provide benefits to low-income families, particularly those with children. Taken together, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account for about 15% of the people who pay no federal income tax.

Taken together, those three factors -- incomes that fall below the standard deduction and personal exemptions; the exemption for most Social Security benefits; and tax benefits aimed at low-income families and children -- account for almost 90% of the Americans who pay no federal income tax.

The overwhelming majority of households that pay no income tax earn less than $50,000 per year. Do conservatives who prattle on about this want to raise the bottom half's taxes? Governor Perry executed an innocent man, so I wouldn't put anything past him. But someone needs to ask Perry if he wants the poor and the elderly to pay more in taxes (remember that poor workers pay payroll taxes regardless of how poor they are).

Because I don't think the majority of Americans are that far gone.

mikethemadbiologist Wed, 08/17/2011 - 04:14

Tags

Basic Human Decency

Conservatives

taxes

"Because I don't think the majority of Americans are that far gone."

Sadly a good number of people around here (SW Michigan + Grand Rapids) are that far gone. The common lines among them are that the people you mention are "gaming the system" and "living high from the rest of us".

I'm sure Rick Perry et alia would argue they should have had abortions and used birth control.

Unfortunately, what they actually think is that poor people shouldn't have sex, ever.

remember that poor workers pay payroll taxes regardless of how poor they are

This, of course, is what people who demagogue on this issue want us to forget. That, and the fact that there is a maximum amount subject to Social Security tax. And that investment income (which poor people don't have) is not subject to payroll taxes. And that certain kinds of income such as capital gains (which poor people also don't have) receive preferential tax treatment.

Back to payroll taxes: These were increased substantially in the 1980s in order to prevent the Imminent Death of Social Security(TM). Rush Limbaugh, for one, has been conveniently ignoring this fact in touting Reagan's tax reduction efforts for going on two decades now.

I'm told some folks that work for cash when possible don't pay any tax at all except when necessary for assorted sales on retail goods. Can this be true?

Dave @4: I'm sure there are some people who try to do this. There may even be some who succeed; there is of course no solid evidence regarding these people. But just because they don't *pay* tax doesn't mean they don't *owe* tax. Felony convictions await anyone who is caught trying this. I am told that people who work in occupations where cash transactions are an unusually large fraction of the total--restaurant workers, taxi drivers, criminals (Al Capone did time for tax evasion, not for any other criminal act)--are particularly likely to be audited, precisely because they might cheat in exactly this fashion.

I wonder when he will turn his attention to the corporations that pay no tax?

"I wonder when he will turn his attention to the corporations that pay no tax?
"

When they stop creating jobs, duh.

"When they stop creating jobs, duh."

In the country or foreign jobs?

Most of the employment in a country is from the small business. Small businesses don't get most of the tricks to avoid taxes.

But then you don't read any economic treaties, do you, you just listen to what Fox says.

Step 1: Drive more people into lower income brackets
Step 2: Demonize those people for being in low income brackets
Step 3: Use the boogeyman of freeloading poors to help drum up support for policies that repeat step 1.

OK, I see that maybe post 7 was ironical in style.

NOTE to all those who go "You've been poe'd", you can't INTEND to poe. The poe is happening on the person making the OTT statement, not those who thought the OTT statement was the writers' genuine intent. That the originator was considered genuine is THEM being poe'd.

And you DEFINITELY can't deliberately go out poe-ing. That's just plain old trolling, even if it's a "good cause" trolling.

Just have to say, I need to bookmark your blog.

helo cevahir mecidiyekoy, istanbul sisli.
This, of course, is what people who demagogue on this issue want us to forget. That, and the fact that there is a maximum amount subject to Social Security tax. And that investment income (which poor people don't have) is not subject to payroll taxes. And that certain kinds of income such as capital gains (which poor people also don't have) receive preferential tax treatment.
istanbulshoppinges.

Placing (Tea) Party Over Country

mikethemadbiologist — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:55:57 +0000

Placing (Tea) Party Over Country

So the ~~Tea Party~~ Fort Sumter conservatives have sunk to new lows--they're celebrating the downgrade of U.S. debt (italics mine; video at the link):

Is the tea party happy that Standard and Poor's, the credit rating agency, downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time ever?

You'd think that was the case if you were in the crowd at a tea party rally in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, on Sunday morning. The Tea Party Express rolled into that northeastern city as part of its tour to bolster the six GOP state senators facing recall elections on Tuesday. But the most shocking moment of the event wasn't the vitriol spouted by tea party leaders, which has dominated news of the tour stops in recent days. Instead it was the cheers that erupted when one of the Tea Party Express' speakers described the recent downgrade as the tea party's fault.

Here's what happened: Midway through the Fond du Lac event, Florida talk show host Andrea Shea King took the stage. She told the audience that commentators were describing the downgrade of US debt to AA+ from AAA as the "tea party downgrade," laying the blame squarely on Congress' right-wing faction and its supporters. But rather than boo those who claim the tea party caused the downgrade, the 200 or so Wisconsinites in attendance cheered, sounding almost proud to be blamed for the downgrade.

These people never get to use the word patriotism again. Ever.

They have placed faction above the basic welfare and the good name and honor of the Republic. No doubt, many of these bozos were the same caterwauling bean sÃdhe who accused the anti-war left of hoping there would be casualties during the war (self-project much?). These are the same self-absorbed Palinists who practice the politics of the blood, who believe that anyone who is not with them is the 'other.'

And conservatives: you created this monster. You profited from it, and ignored it when it was convenient. This is entirely your fault. You can't blame the liberals for this one. Because your vaunted notion of personal responsibility should and must not be the sole purview of single minority mothers.

You own this. For once, do not stand atop the Overpass of History, lobbing cinderblocks into traffic. Fix it.

Because no nation can endure half Fox News and half free.

mikethemadbiologist Tue, 08/09/2011 - 05:55

Tags

Conservatives

"Because no nation can endure half Fox News and half free."

I'm going to have to make this my sig, if that's okay with you.

The worst part is, they just don't understand a goddamn thing they're talking about (I know, they're teabaggers, it comes with the territory). Woohoo, we get to have higher interest rates on loans and less investment in the economy! Also, I second Comrade Carter's statement, that's a brilliant quote.

*shrug*

The Progressives and the Tea Party are just flip sides of the same pig ignorant coinage to those of us out here still sane. It's your reality bubble versus their reality bubble, and the rest of us have to put up with it.

You can't blame the liberals for this one.

Blah blah blah. Yeah, circle the wagons around your preciousssss ideology, and ignore the fact that 60+ years of BS, corruption and sociopath politicians from both sides have brought us to this point.

If you ideologues really wanted to help the world you'd collectively fall on your swords.

useful entry thanks !!

berk:

Useless entry thanks!!

Go spam somewhere else.

OQO @3

Ah, a useless "both sides are bad" comment. No solutions offered, no suggestions of what might be better, blinkered to his or her own ideology. Nothing to offer, nothing to say, just desperate to avoid any possible blame.

Your ignorance is showing.

"You can't blame the liberals for this one."

Well, some liberals, anyway; Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Clinton (and various Clinton administration staffers), Lieberman (pseudo-liberal) come to mind off the top of my head as being helping hands in creating our current catastrophe. The long arm of the finance industry reaches across the political spectrum.

thanks useful entry

Oh yes I can blame the liberals for this one. I can blame all the liberals who stayed home and didn't vote in the 2010 elections. I can blame all the liberals who "protest vote" for some offbeat green party candidate.

The "Tea Party" nutjobs were already there; we used to call them "neo-cons". The only difference now is they gained more power by stepping into the electoral vacuum created when liberals "just didn't feel energized" last election. Had the 2010 electorate looked at all like the 2008 electorate, we wouldn't even be talking about these goofballs. But here we are....

You can't blame the liberals for this one.

Of course they can:

"It's her fault. If she hadn't tried to get away, I wouldn't have had to hurt her."

"The "Tea Party" nutjobs were already there; we used to call them "neo-cons".

That's an unhelpful simplification of recent history, if not actual revisionism.

Ive heard that term revisionism.Its bullshit.Here is why.History is constantly being updated,because we are finding out new things,making new connections,all the time.There is no set of facts that are settled(subjectively,that is)The reference set is the whole continuum of what actually happened in history.The set of known things by all persons currently alive,and at all knowledgeable is smaller than the aforementioned.When you tell uninformed people,who decided to stop thinking deeply about history something they didn't know-out comes the accusation revisionist.It must be very common.I heard it 2 weeks ago.

I'm sure they will blame the liberals (or at least the Democrats). After all, if they hadn't nominated Obama, and he hadn't had the gall to be, well, you know, BLACK, there probably never would have been a tea party.

Of course they're celebrating - most of the 'baggers are fundies and want an apocalypse.

Jason F., how about those of us who have voted Progressive or something like it for the last 40 years, and watched a majority Democratic house and Senate, with a Democratic President, fail to enact universal health care? Fail to clearly call out the GOP for their shenanigans for the last 12 years (with a few exceptions, like Frank and Franken)? And fail to discuss the one issue that overrides all others - global warming, the biggest existential threat to the planet since Chicxulub?

Richard Benton: Historical postmodernism. Sorry, but while we certainly continually learn about our past, that doesn't mean that it can't be misrepresented in ways contrary to facts. Claiming that kidnapped Africans and their children were happier as slaves is revisionism. This is exactly like modern anti-science. It is a true observation that the scientific community continually learns, and occasionally even replaces major theories. But global warming denialism, medical woo, Creationism, and Apollo moon hoax conspiracists are still wrong, very wrong, dishonest, and harmful.

Robert Jase: I was raised Southern Baptist, and this is exactly right. Reagan and Dubya both hinted that they would be OK with starting nuclear war, since they seemed to think that it would bring Jesus back.

Kermit,

What about it? I'm just as frustrated as others at how non-liberal the Democratic party has become and how Obama prefers compromise over actual solutions, but that doesn't equate to me staying home on election day or casting my vote for a green party candidate, both of which accomplish the same thing, i.e. make it that much more likely that a tea party whacko ends up getting the office.

One of the main criticisms of tea party types is that they value ideology over everything else, including pragmatism. We cannot make the same mistake.

thanks useful entry

nice entry

"but that doesn't equate to me staying home on election day or casting my vote for a green party candidate"

Then YOU are the reason for this:

"I'm just as frustrated as others at how non-liberal the Democratic party has become and how Obama prefers compromise over actual solutions"

Because WHY THE HELL should he care about your frustration when you are going to vote for them anyway? He doesn't have to do what YOU want, he has only to do what the Republicans want so he can woo them over.

YOU are the reason for your frustration.

But, because you can't face it, you decide instead to blame those who are making a difference.

PS You could, you know, tell the democrats that you're frustrated and unhappy and that if they don't change, you'll "protest vote" green.

If they don't want to lose, they'll change.

If they will never change, then why the hell do you vote for them?

"They Thought They Could Control" the Monster

mikethemadbiologist — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:03:22 +0000

"They Thought They Could Control" the Monster

Recently, I described how the out of control ~~Tea Party~~ Fort Sumter conservatives were created and encouraged. Athenae dispatches conservatives like David Frum who are SHOCKED that this could possibly happen:

I feel about this the way I feel about people who keep grizzly bears and gorillas and tigers as pets. They keep animals that outweigh them as pampered houseguests, feeding them raw salmon and steak and putting cute little collars on them and shit, and then are ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED when their "best friends" get bored one day and eat their faces.

I mean, COME ON. Did you really not think you'd be lunch at some point? It's one thing to know it and have a death wish. People jump out of planes. People do all kinds of shit they know is dangerous as hell and it's kinda sexy to live that far on the edge, but only if you know. If you've got yourself a degree in Advanced Self-Deception and you think it is going to be okay to keep a zoo animal in your living room because it owes you something for naming and putting a little hat on it, I don't even know what to do with you. That kind of idiocy exhausts me down to my bones.

It runs deeper than just foolishness: it is a textbook example of a Faustian bargain. Given the choice of exorcising the demons of segregation and Jim Crow from the body politic--and their perfidy does reach back that far--or aligning themselves with the most contemptible elements of society, so they could punch the Dirty Hippies in the face all the while enriching themselves, they chose power and prerogative over country.

They are not to be trusted. Just something to keep in mind as they temporarily align themselves with the Coalition of the Sane.

mikethemadbiologist Fri, 08/05/2011 - 04:03

Tags

Conservatives

Hmm. Requirements to be named trustworthy: Reliability (act consistently over time), Integrity (words and actions agree) and Honesty.

Nope, not Trustworthy.

And they never were.

Self deception? Empathy deficit? Incompetence? How can any mature person fall for the same trick over and over again?

I too am exhausted in my bones by the Stoopid. It burns.

Time to switch to Plan B for retirement: do you want to work the grill or the counter?

And Romney Just Scared Liberals Into Supporting Obama

mikethemadbiologist — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:13:07 +0000

And Romney Just Scared Liberals Into Supporting Obama

Guess who Mitt Romney picked as co-chair of his "Justice Advisory Committee"? Robert Bork. Yes, this Robert Bork:

Banning Porn, Art and Science : Bork also called for shrinking the size of the First Amendment until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. "Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic."

Here are some other blasts from the past:

Opposition To Civil Rights: One year before President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned whites-only lunch counters and other forms of discrimination, Bork criticized the Act as a moral abomination. "The principle of such legislation is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness."

And:

No Right To Contraception: In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that married couples have a constitutional right to use contraception -- a decision that was later extended to all couples. Bork called this decision "utterly specious" and a "time bomb."

Oh, yes:

No Constitutional Protection for Women: Bork also claimed that the Constitution does not shield women from gender discrimination. In Bork's words, "I do think the equal protection clause probably should be kept to things like race and ethnicity."

When I lived in Virginia, I used to remark that the choice was between the de facto Republican (i.e., the Democrat) and the segregationist. Now, I get to choose between a Rockefeller Republican and a batshitloonitarian--or, worse, a craven opportunist pretending to be a a batshitloonitarian.

Ugh.

mikethemadbiologist Thu, 08/04/2011 - 06:13

Tags

Civil Liberties

Conservatives

religion

The more I see of Mittens the more I think he isn't pretending.

On the other hand, if the economy is still this bad in November 2012, chances are better than 50-50 that Obama will lose the election. For all his faults, Mitt Romney is the least insane Republican candidate thus far. Alone among Republican candidates for the nomination, he doesn't provoke the visceral fear that, for instance, the prospect of a President Palin or a President Bachmann does.

I'd hate to see a democrat like Obama losing the election without actually trying democratic ideas first.

The solution is for Obama to admit he's a Republican and run for the Republican nomination next year, leaving the Democrats to nominate an actual Democrat.

Well, at least he contradicted himself between the first two quotes.

Bork was also the guy that Nixon got to fire special prosecuter Archibald Cox after the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General both refused.
He did Nixon's dirty work nearly 40 years ago; surely he'd be perfect for any of today's republican ratbags.

I suspect he is pandering to the teabaggers. But it will still make a great political ad. Who he he advices him on judicial issues is as fair game as it gets.

Let us also not forget that he was also for healthcare before he was against it.

The solution is for Obama to admit he's a Republican and run for the Republican nomination next year, leaving the Democrats to nominate an actual Democrat.

i approve of your suggestion and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

"...I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness."

Then we can expect a swift demobilization from the Drug War?

Interesting. Bork is the only person in recent history to have failed in a bid for SCOTUS. Let's watch Romney's campaign implode as he alienates everyone except the far right...

Orac@2

On what basis would you argue that Romney is less crazy than Huntsman?

Thanks for that blast. I had forgotten what a walking brain fart Bork was.

Yes, this seems to be the emerging choice: a) Obama, who has in many key areas continued the very same policies we complained about during the Bush years, and b) and a Republican candidate who would also continue those policies, and in addition be even more regressive on many social issues. With an outside chance of c) a protest candidate with no real chance of election.

I for one would like to see a viable third party, but that isn't going to happen overnight. To make a third party means organizing, developing a coherent platform (in contrast to the Tea Party), building an infrastructure of operatives and donors, attracting candidates for elections in sympathetic districts. A third-party president with no support in Congress would get nothing done; you have to build from the bottom.

Tell party (a) that you have noted they are not worth voting for.

Party (a) isn't going to all the trouble of campaigning in the hopes of LOSING to the greater evil party (b).

If party (a) doesn't change, then you're never going to get anything other than right wing and that rightwing is going to move further and further to the right until you realise that you've been played for a sucker.

Consider the worst case: party (b) wins.

However, that won't last long. They're incompetent and even malign. This is not a stable government.

Consider the less worse: no clear winner. With both sides lacking power to push through laws, you have no different an outcome than if you voted for (a) except now you have shown that you are to be counted.

Consider the best: party (a) changes.

Voting for the lesser of two evils merely delays the day when you get the greater evil.

Do your descendants a favour: fight the growth.

Do your descendents a FAVOUR

Oh, so you're not an American? Great, you can stop presuming to know how we ought to make our voting decisions.

We American liberals actually have to live here. We and our kids and our families depend on this infrastructure, on these social services, on these government programs. So we can't always indulge in Quixotic protest votes if they actually run the risk of making our lives clearly and materially worse.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice some principles in order to keep some of them--and you learn to settle for that when the alternative is to lose EVERYTHING. We American liberals learned that in 2000, or at least, those who were paying attention did.

Worst-case scenario: party (b) wins. However, that won't last long. They're incompetent and even malign. This is not a stable government.

Meant to include this in my "you're not American" post. Because that is BEYOND a worst-case scenario--it's a catastrophe. It's supposed to be a sign of hope that we'd have a non-stable, incompetent, malign government? How are we supposed to live during the time that it does last? If we lose our jobs, will pure perfect ideals pay our utility bills?

Thanks to idiot protest votes in 2000, we had "Party B" control our entire government for 6 years. They bankrupted and destroyed our economy, at this point looking like it's for keeps. They missed all the warning signs for 9/11, and then responded to it with a frivolous war in the wrong country that destroyed our military capacity and moral standing as well.

But that "didn't last long"--it was only 6 years! When Party B lost power, all the dead were revived and the jobs came back. Right?

It's easy to be glib when it isn't your job, your family, and your friends on the line.

"Because that is BEYOND a worst-case scenario--it's a catastrophe."

TTT doesn't understand worst-case scenario.

You see a worst case scenario is bad. It can even be a catastrophe.

"Thanks to idiot protest votes in 2000, we had "Party B" control our entire government for 6 years."

So you survived *6 years*.

"They bankrupted and destroyed our economy, at this point looking like it's for keeps."

And Party (a) is continuing to do the same things party (b) did in 2000.

So you decide you have to vote party (a)???

"Sometimes you have to sacrifice some principles in order to keep some of them"

And the road to hell is paved in them.

So you survived *6 years*.

That's right, I forgot from the Skepchick-elevator thread: you have Asperger's. So, just take my word for it that the people I mentioned above who died in 9/11 and Iraq didn't survive.

Ah, so since you can't actually continue your diatribe about how bad you've had it since you HAVE survived 6 years of it and want to vote in a party that is doing the same thing again, you decide that you don't HAVE to answer because, well, um, you'll get back to us on that, won't you.

"the people I mentioned above who died in 9/11 and Iraq didn't survive"

Well, no, BY DEFINITION they didn't survive.

However, you're wanting to vote in a party that is still doing it.

This indicates that you don't mind the dead in Iraq.

How the Tea Party Monster Was Created

mikethemadbiologist — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 08:07:37 +0000

How the Tea Party Monster Was Created

One of the things to remember about the Tea Party Uruk-hai ~~who run the Republican Party~~ make up the shock troops of the GOP is that they were manufactured--just like the orcs in the Lord of the Rings. Comrade Driftglass explains:

Conservatives built this monster.

It didn't just wander out of the woods one day, or land here from another planet. The Wingnut Base -- whatever teabagger, Colonial Williamsburg camouflage they're sporting this week, and however hard the media tries to pretend they aren't who we know they are -- was manufactured by the Conservative Movement to win elections. Made right here in the U S of A out of spare parts left over from the Segregationist South, Right-wing fundamentalism, Bircher paranoia and general Archie Bunker pig-ignorance.

Conservatives built the unholy thing, programmed it, wounded it up and sent it out to do their bidding.

And everyone knows it. David Brooks knows it. David Gregory. Tom Friedman. David Frum. The goofs at the "No Labels" freakshow. The entire GOP Brain Caste.

Everybody.

This is the same monster that never gave a shit that Reagan/Bush were running up historic deficits, or sold weapons to terrorists to finance illegal wars. The same monster that hunted and impeached Clinton. The same monster that completely looses its shit over "activist judges"...right up until five of the most malignantly activist judges in modern history put their candidate in the White House and gave corporations the right to buy elections.

The same monster that cheered on George W. Bush's serial, catastrophic betrayals and failures while it called Liberals "traitor".

The same monster that dutifully gets its opinions from Rush Limbaugh, its "news" from Sean Hannity and its Jebus from Pat Robertson.

And everyone knows it.

...Nixon would of course be considered a filthy Commie Liberal by the monster his strategies created and would have to carry Pat Buchanan in front of him like the Ark of the Wingnut Covenant if he wanted to get into CPAC.

And everyone knows it.

Everyone also knows that calling your Conservative member of Congress isn't going to budge them, because your Conservative member of Congress owes his or her job to the monster.

Nothing short of an extinction-level event is going to change the monster's course or ferocity: it is quite mad in exactly the way its designers intended. It has no capacity whatsoever to correct or even recognize its own madness, which means it is never going to recover.

So please stop trying to reason with it.

And here is a case study in how the psychiatric wing of the GOP, the batshitloonitarians, and the theopolitical right were enabled:

In the spring of 2010, GOP Speaker of the House gave some fatherly advice to a fellow conservative facing a primary challenge and a series of increasingly bizarre questions from constituents. Boehner's advice was a distillation of twenty years of tactics from the rational, but increasingly cynical Republican insiders who had up to that point survived the rising tide of weird that has destroyed so much of the Party's core.

He gave the advice to Rep. Bob Inglis, one of the young Turks of the last great Republican wave in 1994. Inglis asked Boehner what he should do about committed Republican constituents who were repeating to him some wildly inaccurate crap they had heard on TV, radio, and the Internet. Inglis described some of the encounters:

"They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'"

And the best one:

"I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow."

Boehner's advice was to give them platitudes and let them be, "I would have told them that it's not quite that bad. We disagree with him [Obama] on the issues." Don't confront them or try to correct any of the dangerous lies they were repeating. Don't try to lead. Inglis was stunned by the advice.

...Boehner is typical of this bunch. His ambition long ago overwhelmed his good sense. His reasoning has been that he gets to keep his very good job, no matter what happens to yours, so long as he carefully patronizes the nutjob fringe. Throughout the rise of the Tea Party he remained convinced that he could manage the mob. Republican politics in our time is drowning in the delusion that we can harness the lowest tactics to achieve the highest ends. In other words, the Party is controlled by people blindly convinced that their own success is what's best for the country.

While that's a good description of Boehner, this is nothing new for Republicans: there was a reason they made pilgrimage for decades every presidential election to segregationist Bob Jones University--and it wasn't to laud them for their innovative curriculum.

They are finally reaping what they have sown. Unfortunately, they're taking the rest of us down with them.

mikethemadbiologist Sun, 07/31/2011 - 04:07

Tags

Conservatives

At least Victor Frankenstein made a good-faith effort to undo his mistake.

At least Frankenstein's moster was literate and well-read.

Tea Party furious as they learn September 11 facts.

"Placate / Ignore them" up until the point that their numbers in the House are big enough that one of them gets nominated for Speaker's spot. Boehner's ambition / ineptitude may bite him in the ass if a coup is achieved. People worry about "What if a Prez Bachman/Palin" -- but what if a Teatard slimes it's way in to the Speaker's position?

And Bob Inglis was defeated in the GOP primary for not being crazy enough.

I am going to steal Teaparty Uruk-Hai. Best description of them yet. Created entirely and only to destroy the world or men to put their dark overlords in charge. Who will happily destroy them when it becomes necessary.

There is a reason that Biologists should not discuss politics, because that is the hand that feeds them.

My father served in Occupied Germany where he met my mother...who had (like everyone else who wished to avoid disappearing in the middle of the night) been in the Hitler Youth. She had lots of odd ideas about Genetics and I really think that one of the reasons I became a biologist was just to counteract her batshittery. I attended George Mason University, a school with a reputation for Conservative politics and learned not just the name of every plant and critter but Economics, Policy and Politics. Because. You can't do Biology very well until you understand that some fuzzy headed demagogue will pray the wrath of God down upon your project if your results call into question his or her favorite bit of woo. Results and evidence-based prescriptions are no longer enough. To operate as a professional you must also have a grasp of the political realities.

They will always be Tea Baggers to me. Why?

Because if you view early clips of them on YouTube, with their hats festooned with tea bags etc, they proudly called THEMSELVES Tea Baggers.

It drives them nuts now if you call them that. Watch as they accuse you of using sexual innuendo. And then laugh heartily as you explain that they CHOSE that name.

Because if you view early clips of them on YouTube, with their hats festooned with tea bags etc, they proudly called THEMSELVES Tea Baggers.

They meant it in the Urban Dictionary sense, too -- at least until liberals started pointing at the "Tea bag Obama!" signs and snickering.

Why No Nation Can Endure Half Fox News and Half Free: House GOP Believes Pell Grants Are Welfare

mikethemadbiologist — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:24:17 +0000

Why No Nation Can Endure Half Fox News and Half Free: House GOP Believes Pell Grants Are Welfare

A vote to resolve the debt ceiling political crisis failed last night because House Republicans--who hold a majority in the House of Representatives--opposed the bill. Here's a major reason why--Pell Grants, which are federal scholarships for low- and lower-middle income students:

House conservatives who have stalled legislation to raise the national debt limit are angry that it includes $17 billion in supplemental spending for Pell Grants, which some compare to welfare.

Legislation crafted by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to raise the debt limit by $900 billion would directly appropriate $9 billion for Pell Grants in 2012 and another $8 billion in 2013.

This has shocked some conservative House freshmen who say they were elected to cut spending, not increase it. Some House Republicans think of it as being akin to welfare.

That's the polite version. A couple weeks ago, a Republican congressman explained the imaginary construct in the GOP's collective psyche that enables such cruelty:

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) has compared Pell Grants to "welfare".
"So you can go to college on Pell Grants -- maybe I should not be telling anybody this because it's turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century," Rehberg told Blog Talk Radio in April. "You can go to school, collect your Pell Grants, get food stamps, low-income energy assistance, Section 8 housing, and all of a sudden we find ourselves subsidizing people that don't have to graduate from college."

There was a time when such delusional justifications for greed, avarice, and cruelty were considered embarrassing, even beyond the pale. I never thought aspiring college students would become the new 'welfare queens.'

Given the cost of tuition, not to mention 'student fees' and housing, even at the least expensive schools, Pell Grants don't cover the full cost of college, which is one reason why lower-income students graduate at lower rates: they can't afford to remain in school. The maximum grant award is $5,550 per year, which, on average, only covers one-third of the cost.

The good news is that Democrats, for once, held the line. Apparently, there are depths of moral degeneracy to which even they will not sink. If they had any brains (nope), they would be pounding the Republicans over this. (and note to President Obama: you do not negotiate with people who believe college scholarships are welfare).

This is what happens when a destructive self-reinforcing ideology is allowed to fester--intentionally so.

We can not endure half Fox News and half free.

mikethemadbiologist Fri, 07/29/2011 - 03:24

Tags

Basic Human Decency

Conservatives

education

Wow, this even rivals the cuts in disability benefits for war veterans. The term "rapacious ass munch" is merely a mild euphemism when faced with this degree of putrescent ignominy.

The other villain(s) in the story are the for-profit "education" institutes. The ITT Techs, DeVry, Kaplan, U Phoenix etc., expend a great deal of effort to recruit Pell Grant recipients, and provide assistance to them navigating the paper trail. Of course all they want is the money, and they care little about providing real education. It is their drop-out rate that inflates the ugly numbers. Yes there is some Pell Grant fraud, every government largesse suffers from some graft. And in this case, the majority of it is aided and abetted by these institutions.

It is clear at this point: Republicans are anti-American. They are actively working to hurt our nation's future, our military, our standing in the world, our economy and all but the wealthiest citizens. We need liberal candidates to stand up and start saying this during campaigns.

The real villains are supposed 'not for profit' institutions of "higher learning". That's where the vast majority of students are, and the fact that they average 55-65% graduation rates strikes me as a strong sign they've earned a "D" or an "F". And that's not even going into their graduation rates among pell grant recipients.

Furthermore, unlike the for-profits, the traditional universities are producing just enough token success stories that people can believe in class mobility. Ultimately, the universities keep the non-elites complacent, believing that if they can just get an education, they can pull themselves up from their bootstraps and succeed. Their role in society is to prevent the youth from rioting in the streets. Fear of youth revolt ala Egypt is motivating the democrats, not compassion for the poor.

If the US government wanted, it could require that any university that receives aid serve X% of students who are pell grant eligible, and then require that in order to actually receive maximum aid, they actually graduate X% of those students. The failure of the government to have done so should be a clear indication that the point of pell grants is not to provide an opportunity to lower income individuals, but to provide universities a subsidy to keep those individuals occupied.

I remember a discussion on healthcare at one point, which I think summed up the whole reason America is stuffed.

The Republicans in the discussion argued that single payer, although it was cheaper, more efficient, seemed to produce better results, was wrong because why should they have to pay for their neighbour's heart op?

In other words, you have a significant segment of the population that would rather pay twice as much for something, than have their neighbour benefit for free.

It was at about this point I realised that America is doomed. Not because of that singular issue, but because of the loathsome, scumbag idiocy that forms one half of its political paradigm.

This plays out on state politics. You have states which pay more into the fed than they get out, being whined at by the freeloading bums of the red states because they dare ask for some of that money to upgrade their infrastructure.

There is no fellow-feeling in that part of America. There are just sociopaths and, perhaps more sickeningly, people who want to be sociopaths trying to be the first ones to the carcass.

@ becca: creating a required % graduation will not make the students better, it will just make many insitutions award degrees to folks who should have flunked out.

MissouriMule- if you cannot help your students better get better, you must get out of education

Posted by: becca | July 29, 2011 2:46 PM'

Passing is ultimately the responsibility of the student.

When it comes to the Reps fondness for spending "cuts, we might look no further than Wisconsin's own Mr Sneak Attack Walker. When questioned before the US Congress about whether his budget actually reduced spending, it took him two times dancing around the question before he answered "no." Reps like spending cuts for the social welfare of American citizens because it's funds that can be shifted to other "more important individuals."

Well, at least the utter selfishness and greed is no longer held behind false pretenses. Of course that is about as comforting as when Hitler finally marched into France.

Still, it gives one hope that with the true colors finally flying that those hiding their heads in the sand will at last wake up and stand united against.

Wait, nevermind, the Duchess of Cambridge has bought a stunning new dress. News at 11!

If Republicans are cutting Pell grants, that means they want more people on welfare.

Here's the answer to the 'liberal hunting permit':

The Conservative Containment Device.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/12/klipsch-headquart…

I't the slow creep of fascism (unless someone has a better word for it) This all stems from the same ideology rebranded time after time called free market, reaganomics, fascism or whatever...

cutting government revenue, spending more on military and wars, cutting education, healthcare, while increasing Corporate Welfare...

it's not just crazy it's a disaster!

If Republicans are cutting Pell grants, that means they want more people on welfare.