Congress Literally v. United States: Coming In From The Cold Edition

So... I just realized I hadn't posted anything all summer, noting that my last post came on June 25th.  Let me just briefly go into what happened.  I lost my job three days after my last post, laid off, and suddenly I had to start paying attention to things I normally didn't have to pay attention to.  I expected the requisite tailspin, booze, offering to do demeaning sexual things for some rock.  We all knew the drill.

Truth of the matter, I've been very lucky so far.  My job allows me to freelance, and I've managed to string together almost non-stop work since my old company let me go.  Ironically, my old company is one of the places I've managed to keep some work going since the end of June.

I know people first-hand who lost their jobs that didn't have the same opportunities I've had so far, and I always have to remind myself that there's no guarantee my current string of luck will continue past my next booking.  But I'm always grateful that I had full-time employment through the worst of the economic mess now that we've passed through those tough times.  The country is firing on all cylinders, President Obama and Congress have worked out their differences to get these United States moving the way it should, and we're finally heading in the right direction.

Maybe I did go through that unemployment tailspin and got permanently lost on some crazy cheap hallucinogens cut with bleach and bath salts.

So here we are, a little over two years since I started writing here, and not much has changed.  Here's a quote from the very first post on July 25th, 2011:

...lets get to where we currently stand.  It's July 25th, eight days away from the August 2nd deadline.  The upside is that America loves countdowns, and this one is no different.  Bloomberg TV has a countdown graphic.  I expected the graphics to draw inspiration from the Times Square Ball that counts down the last ten seconds before the arrival of a new year - or course, replacing the ball with something phallic and having it move toward some orifice connected to American dignity and common sense.  But alas, it's just a clock.

You can swap out little details here and there (we're past one stupid deadline and speeding junk first toward another... everyone has countdown clocks), but the jackassery remains the same.  The highlights started with Texas Senator Ted Cruz, covered with the usual laughs by Jon Stewart over at the Daily Show:

I don't have a lot more to add except dammit Cruz, you can't open an indefinite empty-gesture filibuster by going full-Hitler.  Do people start marathons with a sprint?  Do people start sex imagining a super-model?  Hell no, you save those things until the end, just like going full-Hitler.  But Republicans and going full-Hitler is much like teenage boys and masturbating, so it's no surprise they have trouble waiting to get there.

Then came the inevitably-stupid-republican-perpetrated shutdown which led to the transparent and clumsy republican outrage at Obama for what they did.  And since the only thing this Congress can get done are photo ops, we got this ridiculous picture from Team Cantor:

Well shucks, I guess we have nothing better to do than sit across from empty symbolism and look constipated while Rome burns.  Truth of the matter is that even if every one of those empty chairs were filled with Democrats trying their damndest not to laugh, nothing would change, thanks to the brand of self-immolation today's Republican base pass off as governance.

So here we are, in our latest government "slimdown" as Fox News calls it, while they smile and contemplate that since no really feels the effects of this shut down, why all the fuss?  The Wonkblog over at Washington Post has a nice breakdown of the "fat" getting trimmed:

Absolutely Everything You Need To Know About How The Government Shutdown Will Work

So the CDC, the NIH, Immigration, Housing and Urban Development, the EPA, the Justice Department, the VA, the DOD, the Department of Energy, WIC - holy shit, is this going to be pervasive.  While Fox News takes the "well, it's been fourteen minutes since the deadline passed and everything's fine!" angle on this story, they do a genuine disservice to all those who will be affected as this self-inflicted political dutch-oven marches on.

But then again, the poor, the sick, veterans, kids, the environment, disenfranchised voters... these are groups the Republicans shit on anyway, so maybe the total shutdown furthers their agenda more than we realize.  There's a special place in hell waiting for some of these people, but until then, we have to suffer their actions.  Right now, I think we're at the place where a lot of the more civilized nations of the world pity our bumbling ineptitude.  At some point, though, they're going to realize we're actually acting like assholes, and that pity will morph into disdain.

Knowledge Of Any Type...Please Continue To Not Mess With Texas

There's been some things going on in the family realm that have kept me from devoting the attention I want to  here, but hopefully I can get back in the habit.  Despite not writing as much, I still enjoy following politics and such, following Slate's Political Gabfest, the daily Rachel Maddow Show podcast, Real Time With Bill Maher, Planet Money, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report (really touching tribute from Mr. Colbert to his recently deceased mother), my RSS feed that covers Fox, Drudge, CNN, Daily Kos, and some others.  At the end of the day, I find all of this fascinating regardless of which side of the debate I fall on.

So to try and ease back into things here, I thought I would do the equivalent of some light stretching here and luckily a couple of clips covering some recent batshit in Texas seemed like just the thing.  So, without further ado, a clip from the Rachel Maddow show and - surprise - it involves not knowing shit about ladyparts.  The twist???  This time it's a woman.

I thought the whole clip was worth watching just to appreciate the lengths citizens went to to get their voices heard, but really... thinking Rape Kits take care of the pregnancy that might have resulted from the rape.  Maybe these details aren't common knowledge for most people, but then again most people don't talk about them on public record or use these details as tent poles for political arguments justifying policy that could affect massive amounts of people.

Another recent moment of "not knowing shit about shit" came from Texas Representative Michael Burgess when he stated that fifteen week horndog male fetuses masturbate a little bit in the womb.

GOP Rep. Speaks Up For Masturbating Fetuses: ‘They Feel Pleasure,’ Why Wouldn’t They Also ‘Feel Pain’?

Does a fetus feel pain?  That is a legitimate question to consider when mulling over the enormously complex issue of abortion.  Why couch that part of the discussion in such a way?  I feel like Congress no longer appreciates getting to the point.  Watching televised hearings or sessions yields disproportionate amounts  of footage of leaders enjoying the sound of their own voice.  The problem is when you don't know shit, endless blathering gives you so many more opportunities to tip your hand of stupid.  Furthermore, a pox on whatever med school allowed Rep Burgess to become on OB/GYN... seriously.

Bill Maher had a great segment regarding Rep. Burgess and his claim:

Sticking with the Texas theme, here's one other clip from Rachel Maddow regarding the Supreme Court considering striking down parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Once again, despite a long clip, I decided to include the whole thing because the first part reveals that while we may think we're past voting discrimination, there are parts of this country that are not... at all.  Eighty-something voting stations down to twelve with minority districts ten times more crowded than white districts. Funny how those numbers just shake out.

I live in New Jersey.  Sure, we have a republican governor, but all in all we're mostly a left-leaning state.  Stories like these bring back things like the John Edwards' Two Americas and President Obama's "we're not red states or blue states but United States" kind of ideas.  There seems to be a division, and that division seems to involve knowledge.  I used to get a kick out of watching Bill Buckley on TV, the way he often leaned back and debated down the length of his nose.  He was a smart man and a conservative man.  Many public conservatives don't carry that intelligence and it shows in every batshit stupid policiy decision they make.

I want policies in this country to undergo rigorous debate to make sure we get the best idea we can moving  forward, but that process has been poisoned by the likes of Rep Burgess, Texas state Rep. Laubenberg, or US Rep Paul "Lies From The Pit Of Hell" Broun.  A crucial tenet of the Socratic method is making sure both sides are arguing from their strongest position.  In our current political process, one side does all right, and the other side has been mentally Tonya Harding-ed whole cloth, and the country as a whole is suffering for it.

Michelle Bachmann Declares She Won't Seek Re-Election, Jon Stewart And Bill Maher Seen Openly Weeping

Well, it's official.  Michelle Bachmann won't seek reelection.  She's bowing out, passing on the honor of representing her Minnesota district and allowing someone else to answer the call.  From the LA Times:

Rep. Michelle Bachman Says She Won't Run For Reelection In 2014

And here's the official video explaining her decision:

Yeah, it's almost nine minutes long and it's a rambling mess.  But she really wants you to know that she is totally not dropping out because she might lose a tough election or because her presidential campaign is getting investigated.  She then goes on to list her core beliefs and the things she will continue to fight against, including big government, gay marriage, and science in the 21st century.  She then goes even further to rattle off all of her many accomplishments while in office (REGIONAL AIRPORT BITCHES!!!), apparently running for office in a video announcing she is not running for office.

Some other highlights, crapping on Dodd-Frank, representing the US at Margaret Thatcher's funeral who used to work closely with REAGAN!!!  Let's see anyone else out there beat Bachmann's score of quasi-two in the Six Degrees of Ronald Reagan game.  Suck it Jihadist terrorists and I love you Israel.  Liberal media!!!  And the Obama administration sucks ass and Benghazi.  By the end, you almost forget the purpose of the video, her announcement that she's backing out of House politics but totally not because she might lose the election or because of the impending federal investigation.

What struck me the most was how much it must hurt to keep that kind of fake smile plastered on your face for nine straight minutes.  I also felt like the royalty free music looping incessantly was begging for death by the fifth minute.

You know, had she dropped a quick 90 second video announcing her decision not to run and thanking her supporters in a short, sweet, humble fashion, I never would have given it a second thought as to why she wasn't running.  Had she not spent seven straight minutes recapping her political batshittery, I wouldn't be left thinking Minnesota and the United States House deserve better leadership and here's hoping they get it.

So godspeed, Rep. Bachmann in your new life as a private sector lobbyist prostitute or a batshit think tank prostitute.  You mentioned your five children and twenty-three foster children.  I believe that you and your husband and loving parents and good people, but I firmly believe you didn't make the cut as a politician.

Bachmann's brand of right wing politics is the grease on so many ridiculous slippery slopes.  Here's hoping for a more moderate future in Minnesota.

Economists vs. The Facts (and Microsoft Excel)

One of my favorite go-to podcasts is NPR's Planet Money.  If my memory serves, Planet Money got its start in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse as a means to explore both the ongoing economic narrative as well as the causal narrative leading up to the crash.  What made Planet Money instantly appealing to me was the conversational approach used to convey information about possibly complex ideas.  Their listening audience is better off for tuning in to these efforts.

Having said that, let me go back one more step to my heady days as a college first year atop the hill at Hamilton College.  I sat there in one of my first courses, Intro to Macroeconomics, knowing full well that I had officially taken the first step in my major and therefore the most likely path my adult life would follow.  Granted, a few years later I would mic-drop that plan and decide on a different path for graduate school but that's a story for another time.  I still find economics fascinating - thus why I love listening to the aforementioned Planet Money - and sitting there in that macroeconomics class, I couldn't have been more excited.

So we start doing some of those basic supply and demand graphs and I remember going over the list of assumptions that needed to be in place in order for the basic graphs to work.  Assumptions like buyers and sellers have perfect information, or that supply and demand are independent.  At its most basic level, a supply and demand curve can't comprehend nuanced information, advanced economic mathematical procedures take care of that.  At the time, as I read down the list of assumptions that just didn't hold up in the real world, I smiled and thought to myself "this is a little bit of bullshit."  And I dove in.

Economics is not a precise science, or a hard science, but it doesn't do itself any favors when you hear stories like the one Planet Money recently covered in their 452nd episode released on April 19, 2013:

Episode 452: How Much Should We Trust Economics?

The story covers a very influential economic study released a few years ago.  From the article that accompanied the podcast:

Three years ago, Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff published a study that quickly became one of the most famous, most talked about economics papers since the financial crisis. It got so much attention because it answered a basic question everybody was asking: How much debt is too much? 

Reinhart and Rogoff looked at what had happened in many different countries over many years. And they found a what looked like a clear debt threshold: 90 percent. Average growth was much, much slower in countries with debt-to-gdp ratios over 90 percent. 

The paper got a lot of coverage in the press. Politicians cited it in the U.S. and Europe. 

Then, this week, a 28-year-old grad student and his professors published a startling finding: Reinhart and Rogoff had made a simple Excel error in one part of their study. The authors of the new critique also questioned other elements of the study and argued that, in fact, there is no debt threshold.

A lot of that European austerity going on preventing our neighbors across the pond from getting out of this global recession?  Reinhart and Rogoff's study frequently came up in policy discussions as support for the path Europe eventually chose.  Our own Rep. Paul Ryan, who keeps trying to give himself a nickname about being a numbers guy even though his numbers never add up, cited this same study as evidence that the rich and corporations need more back rubs while the poor need to be sat on harder.  Here's an article from PolicyMic that goes a little deeper into the flaws of the Reinhart/Rogoff study that Ryan loves so much:

Paul Ryan Budget: The Austerity Paper He Cites Is Full Of Holes

A number of oddities occurred in the Reinhart/Rogoff study.  First is the Excel error that I make all the time in my own adventures in spreadsheeting mentioned in the NPR quote above.  Granted, when I blow my spreadsheet, the only thing affected is my catalogue of my Marvel Comics and Magic The Gathering collections.  This study may have erroneously led governments down paths that have actually prevented economic recovery.  But as the PolicyMic article explains, there also seems to be some selective exclusion of data, and at the end of the day, the 90% hard conclusion the study arrived at doesn't to be such a hard conclusion at all.  From the PolicyMic article:

The first error of Reinhard and Rogoff is that they excluded data from their dataset with no explanation given. The years excluded were times in three countries: Australia (1946-1950), New Zealand (1946-1949), and Canada (1946-1950), which were the countries with high debt and solid growth. For example, the data for New Zealand in the paper's high debt data set changes dramatically, from a dreadful -7.6% to a respectable 2.6%. This is a 10-point error.

So there have been countries with high debt that still managed economic growth that the Reinhart/Rogoff study just left out.  Which kind of begs the question initially posed by the Planet Money podcast... how much should we trust economics?  After listening to the podcast and reading up on what happened, my thoughts on economics remain unchanged.  It's not a hard science, it may be better suited to exploring the past like a detective might than for creating predictive models, and like any research, it needs to be handled honestly.

In this case, there's the simple Excel error - fine, things like that are going to happen.  That's one of many reasons why most journals in academia require a peer review for potential articles.  The Reinhart/Rogoff study was never submitted to peer review before publication.  There is a process in place to help people receive the best in current research, it just wasn't followed in this case.  It wouldn't surprise me if Reinhart and Rogoff felt like they were on to something pretty significant and topically relevant, then got a little sloppy and rushed in their enthusiasm to get their insights out to the world.  In that rush, Reinhart and Rogoff ignored the process that keeps our information honest.  The Excel error is just forehead-slapping incompetence, the omitted data feels like something different.

To answer Planet Money's question, I don't think economics needs to be trusted any more or less, we just need to be more vigilant concerning the human element in research we base policy decisions on.  Policy decisions cannot be taken lightly at any step in the process.

I'll let Stephen Colbert take us out.  Both he and Planet Money present all of this in a much more entertaining fashion than I ever could:

CNN vs. The Facts

As everyone already knows, Boston suffered a cowardly attack during its annual marathon held on Patriot's Day in that fair city.  Three people lost their lives, two young women with bright futures, and an eight year old boy with his whole life ahead of him.  Grievous injuries, such as amputated limbs and shrapnel wounds, affected scores of other spectators.

In the immediate aftermath, we saw heroes.  People right there on the scene immediately running to help, tearing down the barriers as fast as possible, to start getting immediate medical attention to those affected.  There is Carlos Arredondo, known as the guy in the cowboy hat immortalized helping a man who had just lost both legs.  It takes a ninth grade level of cleverness and some time on the internet to plant the bombs that devastated the Boston Marathon.  I'm not sure that ninth grade level of cleverness lets you fully realize what it means to have the full weight of a nation brought to bear against you, inspired by the victims and heroes created by those blasts.

In the days following, many people turned to CNN to keep tabs on the investigation, and here's what they got for their efforts:

I think the word that best describes this is "Shitstorm."  "Clusterfuck" also comes to mind, as does "completely unprofessional and embarrassing, insulting journalists everywhere."  I can't put it any better than Jon Stewart already did is this clip so I'll just leave CNN to wallow in its own waste.  I wasn't watching the television coverage, but I did follow it through their website.  Here's what I saw... first up:

Not really a headline, but they ran with it.  It was later followed up by this gem:

I'm starting to wonder if CNN actually understands the words in their headlines because the bulletpoint completely refutes what's above it.  It seems like people in the know are all on the same page about the details, the only reporting that differs is CNN's own.  And here's me watching all of this happen (I've used it before, but it perfectly captures so much):

I even wanted to give CNN that poke at the end just to see if it was aware on any level how crazy it seemed.

In other news, the Senate voted down a bill to expand background checks, 54-46.  Now if you look at that vote and ask how come the higher number lost... then you'll understand that the Senate is as fucked up as this bill not getting past.  To go along with the issue, perpetually tone deaf Sen. Rand Paul dropped some of this wisdom:

Rand Paul: Obama Using Newtown Victims As 'Props'

It's always nice to see Sen. Paul thinking he has his finger on the pulse.  I'm sure a parent who lost a child to gun violence suddenly making it his or her mission in life to fight back against the forces that had a part in that child's death seems less likely than a President using grieving dupes, but that's Rand Paul for you.

Obama called this defeat "round one."  I hope that's true... I hope this fight pushes on somehow without turning into a castrated embarrassment of legislation, but Congress has trained us to expect castrated embarrassments so thoroughly that I'm not sure I can see the alternative.

Bravo, Senate.

Make Sure To Leave Room For the Canned Food

When it comes to gun-related tragedies such as what happened in Newtown, the NRA and gun manufacturers count on people having extremely short attention spans in order to maintain the status quo.  And luckily for the NRA and gun manufacturers, politicians really are the perfect blend of forgetfulness and cowardice as we hear that gun measures proposed in the wake of the Connecticut massacre are slowly dying because of the noblest of reasons... career politicians are fearful of losing that "Career" status.

Truth of the matter is that not all parts of the country see gun issues the same way.  Connecticut gets hit with an unspeakable gun crime and they go all in on reform, but I'm curious what would happen if these kinds of things happened in a much more 2nd Amendment hardcore red state?  Would Texas really consider the kinds of reforms passed in Connecticut if a suburb of Dallas experienced what Newtown did?  Would those hypothetical Texas parents lament the lack of armed teachers in the school or would they go after the gun ownership process as well?

It's pure navel-gazing (as is, I guess, 99% of the internet), but I wonder because guns illicit weird responses from people.  I stumbled across this article during my daily internet-ing:

Ammo Manufacturers Producing "24 Hours A Day" To Match Demand

This isn't the first time I heard about recent ammo shortages.  And with all the downer talk about the effects the embarrassingly stupid sequester has on our fragile economy, it's refreshing to read this:

Hornady ammunition, makers of some of the most popular self-defense ammo for concealed carry applications, explained it this way: "We are producing as much as we can, much more than last year, which was a lot more than the year before, etc. No one wants to ship more during this time than we do." 

The demand for Hornady's ammo is so great that they've "added presses, lathes, CNC equipment, [and] people and space." They are producing many popular items "24 hours a day" and "several hundred employees work overtime every week" to make as much ammo as possible.

Or this:

Supplies of 9mm, 45 acp, 40 S&W, and .223 are scarce in the marketplace, and where they can be found, they are being snatched up by desperate consumers as they are unloaded off trucks at stores like Wal-Mart & Gander Mountain. 

We've all seen movies where there is some outbreak and society crumbles and there's the scene where someone unloads relief supplies off the back of the truck while desperate hoards try to remain civil despite their desperation.  That scene is actually happening right now with gun ammunition, but here's the part that's batshit nuts:

During panics in the past, gun owners bought up all the ammo they could; during the current panic, even people who don't own guns have been buying ammo for the gun they might buy in the future. At the same time, first-time gun buyers have not only been buying guns but also every bullet for it they can find. 

Just what do these people think will happen?  Not sure what paid ad you'll get in the upper right portion of your webpage should you click on the article link above, but here's a screenshot of what I saw:

Nation-wide Gun Grab Soon?  No, not at all, but a most bizarre Venn Diagram overlap seems to be occurring in the world of guns.  Here are the overlapping subheadings of these circles:

Gun Owner
Possesses Some Disposable Money
Paranoid
Has Some Storage Space To Spare
Gullible To Claims Made By People Trying To Sell You Shit

It's kind of odd, if you really think there is going to be a nationwide gun grab soon (assuming that means the Liberals are coming to take away your guns), why would you dump a lot of money into something that you are about to lose?  Seriously - this is the only time I'm probably ever going to say this - listen to Glenn Beck.  Stockpile gold.  The government isn't going to take it away like they apparently will guns in your paranoid fantasy, and it's really worth something.

We all know that more and more guns are being sold in this country to a smaller and smaller group of people, which means there are people out there stockpiling weapons to some degree.  Which is ironic because the government doesn't really pay that much attention to gun ownership until you stockpile them... so you're apparently super-arming yourself in case the government comes, which they would only do because you are super-arming yourself.

There are some Quixotic parallels to be made here with these hoarding gun owners here in the U.S., except that in Don Quixote, he armed himself so he could go attack the windmill.  Gun owners here arm themselves so they can look through drawn blinds suspiciously at the windmill, and should the windmill come, they are prepared to hold out indefinitely against the windmill siege.  Now don't misread my intentions here, I'm not calling for you weapon hoarders to Nut Up™ and take the fight to the windmill.  Like most reasonable people, I sincerely want you to realize you're trying to stare down a windmill like a crazy person and come back to rational society.

Sadly, for some in this group, I feel that's never going to happen because I think they secretly hope the Government does come for their guns so that they get their chance at the armed standoff.  I feel like some of these people glorify in their heads the image of them in a firefight defending their second amendment rights.  Or if not that, they secretly hope someone breaks into their home and gives them the opportunity to kill a fellow human being...

I think I'm starting to see why these folks are so against background checks that so many others are for. These folks are fucking crazy and might not pass some of these checks.

Paul Ryan vs. What People Want

I guess credit where credit's due to Rep. Paul Ryan for putting ideas down on paper and potentially creating a starting point for a national debate?

Paul Ryan Unveils $4.6 Trillion Plan To Cut The Deficit

Again, first off, I'm not sure why this guy is the person anyone looks to for important policy decisions:

Truthfully, my tastes in music can be pretty crappy, too... but I don't like Nickleback.  While this picture has been around awhile, I feel like it's important enough to always keep it fresh in our collective memory.  That being said, looking over the specifics of his proposal, I feel like we're listening to a skipping record.  Or for the kids out there - I actually have no idea what glitch of the new millennium creates the same effect as a skipping record.

So going over specifics, essentially privatize Medicare, go to a two-tiered flat tax system, eliminate the corporate tax, repeal Obamacare, Growth™, and of course, increase defense spending.  It also states that fixing this country's long-term financial solvency requires the passing of the Keystone pipeline.  Not sure why that specific measure solves our ills but might as well tickle the conservative junk while putting a list together.

Here's why his budget is kind of bullshit and it doesn't take a PhD in addition and subtraction to see that.  First, seriously... we have to increase defense spending beyond what we spend now?  Not even lock it in at current more-than-the-next-umpteen-countries-combined levels?  We have to eat social program cuts to make room for more defense growth?  Privatizing Medicare by giving subsidies to seniors to go get reamed on the open insurance market because they are exactly the group of people it makes no financial sense to insure?  And while doing this, taking away the power any large purchaser has to pressure prices downward?

Paul Ryan understands the political sensitivity surrounding Medicare:

"The other side will demagogue this issue. But remember: Anyone who attacks our Medicare proposal without offering a credible alternative is complicit in the program's demise," (Ryan) wrote.

Of course, anyone who votes for his budget is also complicit in Medicare's demise since he want's to privatize it away. 

Beyond that, the Ryan plan specifically builds in a 3.4% increase in government spending each year that will be covered by an ever growing economy that Republican estimates predict.  I think Republican estimates have a rather poor track record in recent history, and while past outcomes don't necessarily predict future outcomes, it should make us question their methods for analyzing data.  Growth is a proven tool for balancing budgets, it's what allowed President Clinton to successfully achieve a budget surplus back in the day, but it doesn't just happen and it's never a guarantee.

I'm not saying Ryan doesn't have a point, our government spending is pretty nuts, and some of his points definitely have economic reasoning behind them regardless on whether you agree (like eliminating the corporate tax rate and simplifying the tax code - although who knows if bullshit loopholes are a part of this simplification or if it's just a ploy to get the wealthiest tax payers into a lower bracket).

I guess what I'm saying is that Rep. Ryan isn't sincere in stating his point.  Like many politicians in both parties who address the federal budget, Ryan's math won't work.  Part of why it won't work is because balancing the budget is secondary to pushing his conservative agenda, which leads him down paths that don't really make sense.  His budget also isn't truly something that fits the nation as a whole, just a slim constituency in wealthy and/or defense circles.  I bet Ryan would give hot oil massages to deficit spending if it meant repealing Obamacare, outlawing abortion, giving the wealthy tax cuts, and making it rain for the defense industry, and I bet he wouldn't be too concerned if the United States as a whole went down the toilet in the process.

Obviously I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I see a budget as a plan to figure out how to afford what it is you want and what many people want in this country amounts to safety nets and infrastructure.  Good schools, well-trained and adequately staffed police and fire departments, roads and bridges, broadband internet, affordable health care, affordable educations, and a defense strategy to protect us from outside harm.  There's also multiplier effects from government spending that can create more growth in the long run, a key to Ryan's plan, but proven methods to accomplishing growth (especially now that the cost of incurring debt is essentially zero) seem repulsive to the conservative nature.

What bothers me about the Ryan budget is that all he's doing is slashing social programs to make room for his pet projects and ideas.  It's privatization uber alles regardless of whether privatization fits the problem.  It wouldn't feel quite so disingenuous if I could believe this truly marked a starting point for debate.  But given how Republican Congressional politics often reminds me of stubborn toddlers, the "my way or the highway" brinkmanship that's sure to follow makes this initial offering even harder to swallow.

The phrase "good faith" no longer applies to Congressional Republicans, and I fully expect the ensuing budget debates to be one of those laughing and crying at the same time tragedies.  

#laughingstock

In case you haven't been following the news, or just thought the latest headline couldn't be current and must have been some mistake that recycled old bullshit, we're about to collectively punch ourselves in the groin... again.  You think after we, as a nation, iced down our junk after all the past punches we gave ourselves, we'd want to stop.

And you would be right.  We, as a nation, do want to stop.  But there's about seven hundred people in Washington D.C. who don't share our sentiment.  Ironically, they are the elected officials we've sent to Washington in order to do the exact opposite of the things they actually do.

Here's a nice recap of what those seven hundred people have done to us all this time:

CNN Explains: Sequestration

The basic idea here is when Congress pulled the bullshit move of holding our debt ceiling hostage, the deal struck to avoid that particular punch to the junk involved $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years.  Half the cuts come from social programs, the other half from defense.  The cuts were considered so widespread and ill-conceived that people in their right mind would never let them go through.  A Congressional "super-committee" convened to get down to brass tacks and finally get these economic stalemates behind us.  Sure, Congress as a whole couldn't get their act together but certainly this bi-partisan sub-section could.

Nope, they failed as well, dooming us to a fate that could only be avoided if Congress would just admit their plan is stupid and shouldn't be carried out.  But like two primates pounding their chests and flinging their own feces, the democrats and republicans have focused their attention not on the problem, but on the messaging.

"The Messaging" is one of those phrases that makes me throw up a little.  President Obama takes his side of the argument to the masses, giving rally speeches and meeting with state governors to get everyone to start yelling about how much this sequestration stupidity will needlessly hurt.  The president had his former republican congressman FAA head hit the circuit to talk up the damage.

LaHood: FAA furloughs will be necessary if sequester takes effect


Here's an example of the GOP's response:

Sorry, Republicans. #Obamaquester didn't do the trick. You're still losing sequester blame game

First, I have to get this picture out there from the Daily Kos article I just linked.

Here's a lot of what irks me in a nutshell.  First, a shameless photo op involving the stereotypical "standing together."  Second, the hashtag desperate rebranding of sequestration into the "we really hope this stupid made-up word catches on" Obamaquester (for what it's worth, the stupid made-up word didn't catch on).  Third, the doomsday clock for dramatic effect.  In the end, all the sound and fury signifying nothing isn't getting us closer to a solution, it's making sure one side smells slightly less worse when they crawl out of the sewage.

What's also interesting via total sadness... news sources are now covering the reaction to the story instead of the story itself.  It feels very postmodernist or "meta" but it also feels like a disservice.  That Daily Kos piece wasted ink on covering polls that tracked who the public perceives to be more at fault while dressing down the fact that just over 90% of people asked basically blame Washington.  Apparently the 10% with "no opinion" means that politicians must have been sampled as well given their lack of enthusiasm for solving the sequestration problem.

All of the political toilet flushes occurring right now dance around the fact that we have only a few days left before we are forced to eat our own bullshit perpetrated by these D-level drama clowns you see in the picture above.  Many current Congressional republicans should not be in office... they don't deserve the jobs they've been entrusted to.  Just look at the recent Chuck Hagel "Friends of Hamas" accusations that recently got kicked around.  Or this piece from the Rachel Maddow Show about Senator Ted Cruz and some of his cohorts:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's a long clip but worth it in my mind.  The shorter version comes from the New Yorker article that inspired the above clip:

Is Senator Cruz Our New McCarthy?

Essentially, Senator Cruz fabricates bullshit about someone and then demands that person responds to the damning bullshit allegations.  It got so bad when Cruz was questioning Hagel that even some fellow republicans thought Cruz veered off the path too far.  We deserve better representation to solve the real problems our country faces (and to not fabricate fake problems to distract from and compound the real ones).

Also, let's not forget that Congress wasn't in session - at all - last week... the last full week before sequestration kicks in.

What's tricky in this case is that both sides have a point.  Republicans want government spending to stop spinning out of control.  A lot of politicians talk about how that needs to happen and it never does, not in a smart, meaningful way (two things the sequestration isn't).  Republicans and Democrats both lack the stones needed to carry through on efforts to get our government budgets under control.  But a new breed of Republican is now taking over in Washington, and what they lack in smarts, they more than make up for in dedication to the idea that government is too big and wasteful.  The sequestration is their chance to finally have something happen that they truly believe in.

Of course, never mind that one of the easiest ways to shrink the national debt is through economic growth and the sequestration will most likely accomplish the opposite.  Sweeping the legs out from under a fragile economy may accomplish some degree of government fiscal restraint, but I bet the overall effect will push Tea Party elected officials further from their goals.  It's possible that borrowing interest-free and reinvesting in massive amounts of infrastructure projects would prove more successful even though it might seem counterintuitive on some rudimentary level.  

I don't know when it became required for elected officials to strap on blinders when approaching a problem, but here we are.  In the classic 1993 film, Rising Sun (based on the novel by Michael Crichton), Sean Connery says:

The Japanese have a saying, "Fix the problem, not the blame." Find out what's fucked up and fix it. Nobody gets blamed. We're always after who fucked up. Their way is better. 

I whole-heartedly agree.  Can we finally solve a problem instead of jumping through hoops to fix the blame?  Will the media please stop worrying about "the optics" or "the messaging" and get back to the business of holding Capitol Hill morons' feet to the fire?

The End Is Nigh... Again: The Gay Marriage Edition

Stumbled across this blog post over at Head Heart Hand (via the Free Republic forums).

Prepare For Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is coming to the United States.  It's not a matter of if, only when.  As the blog post starts off pointing out, England and France have recently passed gay marriage legislation and the author, Prof. David Murray over at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, sees the same inevitability coming to our shores.  In this post, Prof. Murray lays out six steps for "minimizing the carnage."

1. Prepare our children 

Most of us try to protect our children from sexual information until they are mature enough to handle it, without delaying so much that they end up hearing it first from someone else. We also want to lay a solid foundation of teaching them about God’s beautiful design for sexual relationships before eventually explaining the various perversions of God’s order. 

That privilege – of waiting until our children are old enough and of presenting the beautiful before the ugly – will be increasingly denied us by the normalization and display of homosexuality in the media, in schools, and in the malls. This is going to be tough, but we will have to teach our children much earlier and about much more than we would ordinarily choose.

I don't really have much to say on this one because part of being a parent is deciding what to teach your children when.  It's not my place to get between someone and his or her child, just like it's not someone's place to get between me and my children.  But I do feel like there might be more pressing perversions of God's order than two abstract people of the same sex wanting to get married.  Truth be told, I expect the issue of Gay Marriage will have very little impact on the child's day to day life unless the kid is gay, and then she gets to sit there and listen to Dad talk about how she's a perversion to God's order.  Granted, I'm assuming a young age for these kids (where presumably a lot of this might just go over their head except for the part where two abstract people are bad), but Prof. Murray states very young ages might be the right time given where we're headed as a culture.  Regardless, it seems like making sure your kid doesn't get hooked on prescription pills, or make an underaged sex tape, or drive drunk, or blow off school, or fail to use birth control responsibly would take precedence over two unrelated dudes who want to go to city hall and get some paperwork.

2. Prepare to love 

Though Christians are often accused of hating homosexuals, homosexuals harbor far more hate for Christians than vice versa. They really do hate us in a way I’ve never seen in any other group – way more than radical Muslims or even the secular humanist and communist groups of the 1970′s to 1990′s, and that’s saying something. They are our self-declared enemies and want to see our beliefs, words, and actions criminalized. They want to shut down our businesses, render Christians unemployable, and incarcerate our preachers. 

In response, we must love them. 

That’s going to be one of the hardest things we will ever do, as most of us will never have encountered such personal enmity from anyone. But we must beg for the spirit of Christ, who prayed, “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.” We must graciously and gently good-news them and good-deed them, while being unflinching in our moral convictions. 

We don’t need to prove our spiritual manhood by condemning homosexuality in every sermon and prayer. Keep the focus on the saving love of Christ, no matter how tempting it is to get into constant condemnation mode. Remember, there are probably homosexuals in most of our congregations. Try to win them, not beat them.

This point seems all over the map.  First, I'm not sure homosexuals hate Christians the way this article claims.  Homosexuals don't kill in the name of homosexuality, they don't blow things up under the same pretense, but they are probably tired of seeing Christians butt into their homosexual perverted lives with signs and protests. I think what homosexuals might want most is to be left alone as normal people.  What makes them angry, I imagine, is how a lot of fundamentalist Christians actively try and block that goal when it doesn't impact their lives in any way (unless you believe Katrina was punishment for New Orleans debauchery... then yeah I guess homosexual sin might impact you).

So the question becomes, what form does your love take?  Does it take the shape of leaving them alone, being respectful and courteous in day to day interactions, and keeping your religious beliefs to yourself unless it somehow is appropriate to the moment?  Or does it come in the form of you very sweetly holding up signs and protesting civil benefits completely outside the church's jurisdiction with very real impacts on their lives (like denying half the couple health care usually afforded to a spouse) available to straight couples?  Do you condescendingly quote "they know not what they do?" to the homosexuals' faces with a loving smirk?  Or do you just beat the shit out of them, sometimes within an inch of their lives?  These are many forms of "love" that homosexuals have received from Christians.  Gay couples have probably had enough Christian love for the moment.

The real question here is would you teach your child to stand up for a gay kid getting bullied by a crowd?  That's the kind of love I could see Jesus dishing out, but it's never the kind of love I hear about in the news.

3. Prepare for jail 

I doubt most politicians really want lots of otherwise law-abiding citizens jailed for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or for preaching that homosexuality is wrong. Many do, however, want to create a climate of intimidation that will deter Christians from doing such things. If the UK pattern is a model – and it looks as if US campaigners are using the same playbook – they will pass “hate-crime” legislation, press charges against us, shame us in the media, stigmatize our businesses and churches, threaten us with the loss of our children, and impose substantial fines, all in the hope to scare us into silence. But when none of these things move us, the legal penalties will intensify until eventually some of us, maybe many of us, will end up going to prison for it. We’d better get ready for that inevitable reality.

This point seems melodramatic, but maybe this is where things are headed... except for the part where preaching homosexuality is wrong gets you jailed since we have pretty open freedom of speech laws.  I think it belittles the victims of hate crimes to throw that phrase up in quotes, and it might push some people into some tough spots (like the Oregon bakery mentioned), but it also protects us from slippery slopes we've already been down, like the following:

Or:

The real question is just what actions are you planning to take that gets you imprisoned?  And how do those actions fit with the second point of love?

4. Prepare for betrayal 

This is going to be a sifting time. Some Christians will cave. Prominent preachers will compromise. Famous Christians will distance themselves from believers who have fallen foul of homosexual campaigners. “What’s the point in going to jail? We can still preach the Gospel without ever mentioning homosexuality. We must be wise….etc.” There will be major Judas-type disappointments. The mighty will fall. But many humble unknown Christians will suffer honorably and beautifully and know the blessedness of being persecuted for righteousness sake.

I guess I would fall into the camp of Christians that have already caved, as many probably already have, but not because of hypotheticals like questioning the value of going to jail.  It's because of things like the Golden Rule and not seeing a point to pushing my spiritual life onto someone else.  Beyond that, I thought this article might have some relevance here:

What Does The Bible Really Say About Homosexuality

I thought it was an interesting read that explores the seven passages that constitute the entirety of the Bible's coverage of homosexuality.  There's probably a lot to say just on that article, but I'll let it stand on its own and just point out that Christians have a tendency to take parts of the Bible that they want and ignore or explain away the parts that don't fit anymore.  It's very much possible to teach the Gospel without ever mentioning stoning your unruly children.

5. Prepare a refuge? 

This great nation was founded when a group of persecuted believers fled religious persecution to find and enjoy freedom of religion. It’s beyond ironic that the very same pilgrims would be among the first targets of this new “religious” persecution if they were alive today. If the current trajectory continues, we will look at one another and ask, “Where can we flee to?” Perhaps a State will come forward that will stand up to this tyranny and offer refuge to thousands of moral and spiritual refugees, aliens in their own land. Maybe another Mayflower will be required, perhaps many of them, this time to sail away from these shores in hope of finding freedom to worship and serve God according to His Word. But where to? Where is left? Russia? Which brings us to…

There's plenty of Islamic extremist groups that could also welcome you, but some of these extremists might kill you for being Christain.  Beyond that, this point feels more like hyperbole than anything else.  I'd be curious what persecution Prof. Murray feels he experiences, then he might want to compare that persecution to the legal obstructions and hardships gay couples experience every day.  Apparently that persecution Prof. Murray feels is growing to the point where he sees a possible need to leave the United States.  His point ignores the separation of church and state that evolved from the desires of those original persecuted pilgrims.  Our founding fathers had the wisdom to understand that freedom from religion falls into the same basic category as freedom of religion.  It might be considered ironic that Prof. Murray wants to impose beliefs through legal channels in ways similar to what inspired the original pilgrims to set sail in the first place.

And finally...

6. Prepare for eternity 

The Bible makes clear, and history backs it up, that when a people goes down this route, it’s close to it’s end. It has run out of moral ground, it’s already over the cliff, and falling into the holy wrath of God. As country after country passes gay marriage laws, the end is coming closer and closer. If the USA falls, how far behind will God’s judgment be? The time is short and shortening. We need mercy, we need prayer, we need to plead with our family and friends to flee the coming wrath by fleeing to Christ the only savior of sinners – yes even homosexual sinners – that will come to Him for salvation.

... the End of Times trump card.  Just in case you haven't been persuaded by Prof. Murray's points yet, just know that disagreeing with him will speed up the arrival of the apocalypse.  So how about you not be an asshole and bring about the end of the world by supporting gay marriage? 

My favorite line here definitely has to be "If the USA falls, how far behind will God's judgement be?"  You know, I could probably argue that the USA has already fallen in a number of more meaningful ways.  Not to harp on the subject, but just a few months ago we had twenty first-grade kids shot to death.  L.A. cops just wrapped up a manhunt for someone off on a shooting spree that the shooter claimed was motivated by deep-seeded corruption in law enforcement.  After that, L.A. cops found a woman's body in a hotel water tower.

We mistreat harmless children but call it a reality TV show and it's cool.  We have multiple reality TV shows that take dumps on marriage or follow teen parents... and then we follow the teen parents in gossip magazines reinforcing who knows what?  We make Kardashians and Hiltons rich.  We drop missiles from drones, we execute mentally disabled inmates, we elect representatives who then actively undermine our method of government...  

We've already fallen in the ways appropriate to our changing times, just as society has always found methods to fall in its own way.  And it's not that we fell, but got our religious act together only to fall again.  We're still falling and it makes you wonder if it's not really falling at all?  

For most of us, life is hard work.  For those of us lucky to be born here in the United States, it's much easier than in many places, but we still insist on self-imposed hardships.  Went broke from medical bills and your life was ruined?  Yeah we could do something about that but let's not.  More people die here from gun violence than anywhere else in the world?  Let's not touch that.  Two people love each other and want to be legally recognized as married and enjoy the same benefits but happen to both be dudes? Eat some Deuteronomy, gay couple!!

Really, the only point needed on Prof. Murray's list was the second one, applied much more broadly.  I would love to see what could be accomplished if we could recognize all of our fellow citizens as an integral part of society's team.  Somehow, I don't feel Prof. Murray's suggestions pass the WWJD test.

Right Person For The Job Edition

Elizabeth Warren finally got into her first hearing on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and thanks to this Gawker article, we get to see how it went.

Elizabeth Warren Puts Bank Regulators To Shame In First Senate Hearing

Here's the actual video:

So that's an example of what happens when the person with the right qualifications gets matched up with the right job.  This isn't some typical junior Senator testing the waters in the big boy pool with an outstretched toe, this is a banking expert looking at representatives of a flawed system and asking "Just what the hell are you doing?"

Here's what happens when you don't match up the skill set with the position, and in my bias, sometimes the Republican way (like anti-government Tea Party-ers getting elected to government or anti-UN Boltons becoming our Ambassador to the UN).

He is Representative Paul Broun, a physician, who chairs the oversight sub-committee in the House Science Committee.

An old favorite, but I think this clip begs the question... should he be allowed to keep his MD credentials if he's declaring in public that embryology falls under the Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell heading.  I'd be curious to watch Rep. Paul Broun MD question someone on a committee...

Broun: We currently spend XX millions of dollars on research to map God's divine miracle, the human brain, just like we did with mapping God's divine cookbook with the human genome.

Scientist: Uh... I'm sorry, what?

Broun: I'm just saying that's a lot of money just to prove what we already know.

Scientist: I'm not sure what you mean, where is this heading?

Broun: To the pit of hell.

Scientist: I'm sorry, what?

Broun: You heard me.  To Hell's pits.  How do you respond?

Scientist: Respond?  I want to laugh but that feels somehow out of place.

Someday, I hope my children's children live in a country where the right people for governing are encouraged to contribute their public service in a system that doesn't drive away all hope or reason.  I wonder what country that will be and when we immigrated?

They Deserve a Vote Edition

Last night was the first State of the Union of Obama's second term and truth be told, it felt very similar to everything we've heard before, but there was one section that truly felt like a genuine, heartfelt moment.

Of course it was about gun control, the political topic that's been at the forefront of our national discussion since the tragedy at Newtown.  Put simply, President Obama stated that gun control measures should get the chance to be put to a vote, not killed in committee or filibustered or what have you.  He listed off names and places familiar to us, all affected by gun violence.  He told the personal story of Hadiya Pendleton, a star-student and band majorette who performed at President Obama's inauguration and then was shot a killed a short time afterward.

It was a simple, heartfelt, logical plea.  Even if people vote no on these measures, the victims of gun violence deserve the ideas to at least get voted on instead of dumped into the clogged toilet that often is Congressional politics.

While I absolutely agree with the President, I feel like "They deserve a vote" has such a wider application.  How many times has legislation that could have really helped people been filibustered for what seemed like arbitrary reasons while laws like the sequester deal get passed?  Or, Mr. President... why was the public option not even discussed at all during the health care debate despite widespread support across the country? We can only get something done when it's the equivalent of stabbing our own leg with a fork, or when it's stopping the bleeding from the last fork we stuck in our other leg.

Moving on... I know it's more complicated than how I'm about to present it, but that's where the fun is after all.  I get a weird kick out of seeing the President talking about paying our bills on time, not acting like coked-up celebrity train-wrecks at the national level, giving all kids a chance, and helping the middle class, and then watching Republicans sit there with sour looks on their faces.  I imagine that's the exact face the Grinch would make if he walked into a Target in early November and saw a Christmas display.  If there was ever a universal cause out there, it seems like it would be children, but nope, Republicans still manage to bring the full dyspepsia to the State of the Union.

Again, I know it's more complicated and in this case I don't even know who the person was that the broadcast cut to, but the woman disgustedly shaking her head while the President talked about getting a fair pay law going was also oddly fun.

There's some things I don't get about republican politics, namely the overwhelming desire they have for the economy to grow and the total unwillingness to look at domestic programs outside the military or bridges to nowhere that could make that happen.  Republicans must be like political super-tasters.  Investing in infrastructure, day care for our kids, technical research camps in economically depressed parts of the country, and getting jobs back home through tax reform seems all right to a layman like me, but it must actually be political cilantro to Republicans the way such ideas repel them.

Of course, I'm operating from the position that Congress wants to get stuff done that their constituents, nay, the very foundations of our democracy demand!!!!  Like how voting in this country is put to shame by the voting infrastructure of American Idol.  Voting is literally the first step to our whole process and we can't get it even in the ballpark of right.  If political slogans had any interest in accuracy, we wouldn't have "Forward" or Mitt Romney plagiarizing Friday Night Lights, we'd have "It's Time To Stop Sucking."

Of course, part of the State of the Union tradition is the response, and of course I mean Ted Nugent's reaction.

Ted Nugent Slams State Of The Union.  Why Did He Rip GOP, Too?

A couple of quick things... first, here's Mr. Nugent's response to last night's State of the Union:

My reaction? I’m not allowed to do that because I’m supposed to keep my pants on.

I know he's trying to make a joke here, but that's what Mr. Nugent brings to the table.  He's loud, bombastic, over-dramatic and a far cry from an intellectual.  So I'm always unclear why he's part of our national discussion except for the fact that he presents himself like a white trash reality TV star.  But there he sits on the board of the NRA, which hopefully is finally getting ostracized into the background noise as we speak.  One other funny but sad observation from that article:

As Slate’s perceptive Dave Weigel noted Tuesday, “If Nugent joined the Republican caucus, he wouldn’t even be its most conservative member."

On a related note, how about Chuck Norris?

These two are a joke, and Chuck Norris internet memes are tragic because they celebrate a moron.  Let Mr. Norris and Mr. Nugent fade away, they don't belong in our political discourse.

As for Mr. Rubio's response, I'm not sure it was actually connected to reality some of the time.  What he claimed President Obama's speech said is not quite what I heard literally five minutes earlier.  He talked about Obama-care's burden on business, but I know companies have skirted providing benefits to employees whenever they can, not because it might be marginally more expensive now, but because benefits have always been a real chunk of change, regardless of the system.  For a while, IBM had a plant where I lived in Upstate New York that relied on - essentially - full-time temps at the lower levels specifically to avoid providing benefits.

Mr. Rubio also spoke about the small business engine that elevates the middle class as if it was mutually exclusive from infrastructure investments.  Small business will not fix bridges or get the country wired for high-speed internet, but they will certainly benefit from such investments.  Can't have a thriving small-business atmosphere if our big government is doing its part to strengthen the workforce or providing the law enforcement that prevents said small-business from getting robbed...

The "no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather" comment was also fairly precious.  First, last year, our Congress dived to a new low for passing legislation.  Never mind passing these made up job-killing laws, our dysfunctional legislative branch isn't passing anything.  Second, there's a real difference between controlling the weather, and realizing we impact the weather.  The implied smirk and head-shaking at how stupid Democrats are for thinking
 the government can control the weather ignores the fact that no Democrat is stupid enough to make that suggestion.  Mr. Rubio, you have to do better than junior-high-debate-team straw men in your national moment in the spotlight.

Having said that, drink of water aside, at least he managed not to come off nearly as stiff as Gov. Jindal two years ago.  And he managed to look at the camera, which was more than Michelle Bachmann accomplished three years ago.

The End Is Nigh

I figured I better get another post in quick in case I got plastered by a speeding bus on the way home tonight... just wanted to make sure my last recorded thoughts on the internet didn't involve jamming dildos everywhere.

Having said that, my dildo Clint Eastwood post got triple the number of hits, so it sounds like the people have spoken.  I'm rebranding this little hangout to Baby Bump Watch Wardrobe Malfuction Kimye Weekly, so get ready to gossip!!!  Who did what now on last night's American Idol/Real Housewives of Minneapolis/Bachelor? 

Not really, I thought I would start with something a long time coming that will finally come to pass  in early 2014:

Hispanics Will Soon Surpass White Population In California

Always the show-off progressive attention whore part of The Union, California will become one of a handful of states with a "Minority Majority," meaning the Minorities will be the Majority of the population which is just nonsense and we should just call Caucasians The Minority like the word means.  But there it is.  According to the article, Caucasians will make up just 37% of California's population by 2020 with that percentage dropping as time marches on.  Interestingly, the article mentions a prediction that California will have fifty million people there by 2060.  New Mexico and Hawaii also have Minority Majorities, but what does that mean for politics?

Not much since California's in the bag for whatever Marxist Socialist candidate the Democrats throw our way, but let's take a look at Texas.

On The Records: Texas 1 of 5 "Minority-Majority" States

According to that article, the non-Hispanic white kids under the age of five are outnumbered 2.2 to 1, meaning in a few short election cycles, things are going to get very different in the Don't Mess With State.  Texas will hopefully be a state in play sometime in the next few decades.

Obviously that can't make the Republicans too comfortable, so they have a two-pronged attack lined up.

The first prong is called Pandering:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Nuevo Deal
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Basically, lip service about immigration reform after years of spitting in the face of minorities.

Second, Cheating:

Rig The Vote

Five states had been considering legislation that would have awarded electoral college votes based on Congressional districts.  Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, five states that you never hear about during a presidential election, had considered such legislation that would have -

heavily favor Republican presidential candidates — tilting the voting power away from cities and toward rural areas — and make it more likely that the candidate with the fewest votes over all would win a larger share of electoral votes.

Because who wants the majority to win in a democracy?  Had such measures been in place for the 2012 election, we'd be looking at President Romney, winner of the electoral college and loser of the popular election.  In 2016, we'd have a re-elected Romney, again winner of the electoral college and loser of the popular election.  In 2020, we'd probably have another republican two-term president who once again won the electoral college and lost the popular vote.  And because the Republicans gerrymandered the congressional districts in 2010, they'd probably still be in a position to renew those gerrymandered districts in 2020, continuing this stupidity for another ten years.  Sure gerrymandering sounds like a fun thing flappers did in the 1920's, but it's a serious threat to our way of governing.

One great factoid from that article:

Paul Bibeau, who writes “a blog of dark humor” from Virginia, points out a numerical oddity about the effects of the Virginia law that turns out, upon reflection, to be more stinging than funny: “This bill counts an Obama voter as 3/5 of a person.”

That is because, as Talking Points Memo says, “Obama voters would have received almost exactly 3/5 of the electoral vote compared to their actual population — 30.7 percent of the electoral vote over 51 percent of the popular vote.”

Luckily most of those five states have been shamed into pulling back on these electoral college ideas, but I for one don't want to have to rely on Republican shame as the last line of defense for fair elections because I could see that disappearing with the "right" people getting elected (s'up Tea Party?).  Look at Michigan, just about the shittiest Republican behavior there is... they're moving forward with their electoral college ideas.  It may not pass, but it feels like even money that it does given the Michigan state government's tendency to puke on all things democratically decent.

Luckily, these threats to our democracy have not at all raised the important questions that should be kicking around.  Why do we have an electoral college still?  Why do politicians get to set voting districts instead of independent councils?  Why are we unable to remove these unbelievably obvious splinters from our way of life?

A picture is worth a thousand words, the Politics Edition.