Google Search

Custom Search

Friday, August 31, 2012

Ryan Lied, Boehner nearly cried, and Eastwood loses it: The 2012 RNC my take

The RNC is mercifully over with Mitt Romney accepting his hard fought nomination over tough contenders like Herman Cain and Rick Perry and...who the fuck am I kidding Mitt was the least worst of all the candidates, and that's saying something.

The Convention itself was filled with numerous WTF moments, like the ironic "We built it." theme that took place in a stadium built with 62% of public funds. To Ann Romney talking about love in an odd attempt to humanize her husband, as well as screaming out much the Romney's loved women. To Chris Christies's disappointing  speech that changed the theme of love to respect and the fact that he really wanted to set himself up for 2016. Of course there was also the fact that Mitt Romney himself, was hardly even mentioned during the entire thing, oh and we can't forget about Clint Eastwood yelling at a chair.

That's not all.

The Santorum speech was extremely odd, with a strange, and slightly disturbing emphasis on hands; but probably the strangest thing that I can think that happened was that Fox news, actually called out Paul Ryan for his lies during his speech. Sally Kohn called the Ryan speech an "Attempt to the set the world record for blatant lies." 

What kind of bizzaro world did I wake up in this week?

One thing I kinda figured would happen, was the near absolute lack of mention for our last Republican president and the Dark Lord of the Sith Dick Cheney. The only mention of former President G.W.Bush was from his brother Jeb, who in a not so shocking but equally wtf moment stood up for his brother by telling the crowd about how his brother kept us safe. Didn't he get the memo about the whole 9/11 thing?

One surprise I did have was the fact that Romney didn't even mention the war in Afghanistan.

I suppose I shouldn't have been too surprised, this fits in with the Republican strategy of "Lets not talk about our candidate (or our records)  but instead trash yours." narrative that the Romney campaign and the party as a whole have taken. I think in that respect they've certainly achieved their objective. Especially since Clint Eastwood is being talked about more than Romney is.

Then again who isn't entertained by the Eastwooding hashtag?

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The 2012 RNC: Whitest Convention Ever

The Republican National Convention is now in full swing in Tampa, despite hurricane Isaac that threatened to drench the area.

Upon watching the coverage of the convention I was struck by quite a site. An elaborate stage fully equipped with a debt clock and adorned with a sign that says "We built that." A dig of course at our President and his statement that was taken out of context, spun by the right wing media, and thrown back in his face.


Another thing that I noticed was in the crowd, it was a sea of white. There were also no black speakers, no black staff, just white...everywhere. Except a for a  poor camerawoman that was attacked.

There's a good explanation for that of course, the purpose of the convention being to formally nominate Mitt Romney who currently enjoys 0% of the black vote. That's right, zero percent. Nada, None.

So why attend a convention for a guy you obviously do not like?

There's a bigger problem here than just that. Romney wasn't even going for the black vote, automatically assuming that they will vote for Obama just because he is black. That's one reason African Americans are turned off by the Romney campaign and the Republican party in general, but there are many others.

The big part is the makeup of the party leadership. There are very few African Americans in leading roles. Yes I know about Michael Steele, who was former head of the RNC, and Herman Cain. There are actually a fair but small number of black Republicans, just not in leadership positions.

A good bet is because of the rhetoric we have been hearing, coming from the likes of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and some of the dishonest racially charged ads from the Romney campaign and super-Pac ads.

Santorum's famed blah people gaffe, is a great example of Republican politicians being too honest about how they really feel. He says that he wasn't going to say black but what other word would he have been trying to say? When you really think it about there's really nothing within that context he could have been trying to say that caused him to get tripped up.

Newt Gingrich also attacks President Obama with a racially charged attack by dubbing him the "Food Stamp President." The motivation behind this attack fits into the narrative that food stamps go to mostly lazy black people, which simply isn't true. There are simply more white people on food stamps than blacks, and not because either of us are lazy mind you, but because of the whole recession that nearly destroyed our economy. According to a recent report  the need for food assistance has increased 76% since the start of the great recession. A byproduct of millions of people losing their jobs.

Then there's the welfare ad, an homage back to the Welfare queen attacks by Ronald Reagan back in the 80's. Which is of course has been proven a blatant lie by every fact checker out there. Nonetheless the red meat thrown out there by the Republican establishment this election is just a continuation of the southern strategy that has worked well for the last 40 years.

We also have to take into account Romney's religion of Mormonism. Mormons believe that being black is a curse from god for Cains defiance. That the "Lamanites" (Sons of Cain) are not equal to that of white people. So one has to wonder if Romney himself believes that or not.

Now after saying all these things I have to keep it real. I know that not all White Republicans (& Mormons) are racist, I know that there are African Americans that believe in small government conservatism. I'm just pointing out how the current Republican racial dynamic is slanted towards trying to secure the racist white vote. This strategy is not only detestable, but it excludes an ever growing part of the population that would otherwise vote Republican.

There's one last thing I want to point out. How the demographics of the nation are changing.Which means white people will begin to become a minority in this country. I for one welcome diversity. We're all human beings after all. But unless the Republican Party finally abandons its racist southern strategy and begins to bring more diversity into the party,  the Republican party will become a minority party.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Dirty Politics: The GOPs lowbrow attacks

There has always been an innate nastiness to political rhetoric. From the muckrakers of the 1800s, to the McCarthyism of the 1950's. But never has it been so nasty, so distasteful and so divisive as it is today. It's also never be so normal. Normal to question the integrity of an entire party, Normal to ensure the failure of a President through legislative blocking, normal to project an image of a traitor onto a sitting president. And yet here we are, in 2012, being pummeled ceaselessly by political ads and rhetoric that not only lie, & obfuscate, but make it seem that the president himself isn't even an American citizen.

In the center of this is a party that uses every dirty trick in the book to ensure a sitting president is not only defeated in November, but derided as a complete failure. Not only do they wish to tarnish the image of a sitting president, but they even went so far as to attempt to destroy his signature achievement, one that they came up with in the first place, one that would help millions of Americans, and one that they offer no replacement for.

I am of course referring to the GOP, a party struggling to find itself after the eight dismal years of George W. Bush. Who have found themselves being cascaded further right by its fringe elements. So far in fact that the moderate conservatives have been leaving the party altogether.

Over the weekend former Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, even went so far as endorse Barack Obama.

So as the fringe right continues to take control of the Republican party the attacks against the President, and the Democrats become even more nasty, and divisive. Now I do know that even Democrats can get nasty, I wont deny that, but I think in many instances the Democrats claims are usually backed up with facts, whereas   many Republican ads are completely made up.

Take the Romney Welfare ad that charges Obama with taking the work out of Welfare. Essentially saying that people on Welfare will no longer need to train for a job but instead; "They just send you your welfare check." This line of attack has been completely made up.

Even though the ad has been fact checked again and again being shown to be completely dishonest, Romney is doubling down by charging that the Obama welfare waivers are just an effort to shore up the base.

Which is funny because the wealthiest among us are receiving tons of corporate welfare in the case of subsidies, tax breaks, and oh yeah, bailouts.

That's not even close to being the nastiest attacks.

Rep. Allen West, from Florida in a nod to McCarthy accused most of the Democratic party of being Communists. Former Gov. John Sununu insinuated that the President doesn't understand America and is somehow foreign. Reince Preibus has said that the President looks toward Europe for his policies. All of them regularly call Obama and his policies "Socialist" and make charges that he wants to make America into Europe. The insanity just doesn't stop.

There is also the various Nazi references to President Obama, as well as comparing him to Stalin.


Of course a side effect of all this blind hateful rhetoric being thrown around all the time is that we've become accustomed to hearing the word Socialist, Communist, European being tossed around by the candidates and even the leaders of the Republican party. We've become desensitized to these labels that are frankly not even used correctly. Ask most people and they don't even understand the word Socialism, or even the word Liberal anymore. Fact is that Nazi-ism and Communism are complete opposites in theory. Nazi-ism is a very nationalist right wing idea, that espouses racial purity, anti-homosexual attitudes, anti-worker, anti-abortion, pro corporation, statist, and anti-civil rights themes.

Even worse are the charges of the president not even being a citizen, Trumped up by of course, birther king Donald Trump. He gets help from birther queen Orly Taites, and even Mitt Romney who claims to have made a poor joke to his base during a speech in my home state of Michigan. This rhetoric works quite well, in a 2011 poll 1 in 4 Americans think that Obama wasn't even born in the U.S.

But is it really the leaders who have lurched the party so far to the right, or is it the base?

That's a difficult question to ask, but no one can deny the base is responsible for electing these leaders. I remember during the debates, how the crowd was cheering about executions of possibly innocent people in Texas. How about during the video of the gay soldier serving his country being booed just for being gay and wanting to be open about who he is. Even worse is the subject of the man without health insurance, and how we should just "let him die" which drew massive applause. Then there's the Hank William Jr's, the bloggers, hell even a couple of my old friends from Facebook believe in this terrible stuff.

The question I have here, is what came first? The leaders spouting this crap, or the base influencing the leaders? Maybe it's both, or maybe its the coding, the language and the deluge of false information in the media.

The guns, god, and gays agenda of the right wing, wrapping all of those things up with patriotism and charge those who wish to regulate guns, keep god out of the legislature, and allow gays to marry as un-American, socialist, commu-nazis is an example of how the worst of American culture can be allowed to wield so much power in our government.

I don't however believe that the majority of  America is like this. In fact I can prove just how disgusted America is with all the nasty politics. The low approval numbers say it all. So maybe it's just a matter of time before the politicians start being civil again.

I think before that happens the Republican party may have to self-destruct. Maybe then it can regain its collective sanity and again become a party we can actually work with to solve the real problems facing our great nation.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

The Bain Files: a look into Mitt Romney

Before I start, I want to give full credit to the guys at Gawker for digging up this story. It's an amazing piece that shows just how the wealthy shield their money from U.S. taxes so that they pay more, and we pay less.

For weeks the media has been asking to see Mitt Romney's tax returns, to see just where he stores his vast wealth from U.S. taxation and as a result of that, just how much he actually paid in taxes compared to those who would be voting for him.

Although the Romney's have consistently said no to "You people" when it comes to the state of their finances;  citing that whatever they release is so bad that it will just give the Obama campaign more ammunition to use against them, despite that fear, just the fact that they will not even provide transparency has led to many people into speculating about what Mitt is actually hiding; if anything.

Just so happens it seems to be worse for him than any of us realized.

There is so much information in those Bain files and I can admit that it is too much for me to sit down and read at one time, I am not a tax guy, but I know a fraud when I see it.

I also happen to know a little thing about hypocrisy.

But what really has struck me is the fact that his investments in the Caymans were strictly made to avoid U.S. taxes.

"The Partnership is a qualified intermediary and intends to conduct it operations so that it will not be engaged in a United States trade or business and, therefore, will not be subject to United States federal income or withholding tax on its income from United States sources.... Under the current laws of the Cayman Islands, there are no income, estate, transfer, sales, or other Cayman Islands taxes payable by the Partnership." 

How can Romney make the case that he wants to invest in America and help American business when his businesses are all based in shell corporations that go out of their way to avoid U.S. taxes?

Another way Mitt has avoided paying taxes is using something called an Equity Swap, essentially an agreement to transfer the losses and gains on a particular asset or set of assets without actually transferring ownership. These help offshore hedge funds avoid paying taxes by disguising who owns the stock in order to help clients avoid a withholding tax. 

Like I said, I don't quite get how it works, but it's already seems pretty sketchy. 

So how is all this stuff actually relevant? 

This shows the type of character that Mitt Romney is, a ruthless businessman that does everything in his power to make every last penny. He's calculating, cold and efficient. He's willing to invest in things that he publicly opposes, like cigarette companies and casinos, and even a company that disposes of aborted fetuses.

So much for Pro-life.

All of this shows that Mitt Romney is as moral as the corporations he owns, not intrinsically good, not completely bad, but amoral. As Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks always says. Corporations are amoral machines, their only purpose is to make as much money as possible. So to is Romney, only out to make the most money the best way he can, and the only thing left for him to do in order to maximize profit, is to become president and ensure taxes on himself and his businesses are the lowest possible. He is the embodiment of the corporation.

So when you think about the election and where Mitt Romney's real motives lie you have to realize two things. It's not about leadership, it's not about America. 

It's about money.

In case you missed it you can find the Gawker Article here.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Todd Akin: Symptom of a larger issue

Yes, another post on Todd Akin, as if we didn't give this jerkoff enough attention already, but he's just the gift that keeps on giving.

Despite the stupid remarks he made about "legitimate rape" (as if there is such a thing) and his subsequent backpedal ultimately culminating in an apology ad for his blatant misunderstanding of human female anatomy. Mr Todd, "the liberal media is after me" Akin is still in the race for the Missouri Senate seat occupied by Democrat Claire McCaskill.

Yep, he's still running after being urged by both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to drop out, Even Fox news host Sean Hannity has urged Akin to drop out on his show.

So why the hell is the right wing eating one of its own despite the fact that the Republican party platform is right in line with Akins beliefs?

Because Akin has committed the cardinal sin of Republican politics, honesty.

This wasn't a gaffe, it was honest admission to how little Republican politicians in Washington know and care about women's bodies, and their rights to make their own decisions about them.

See the Republican party believes that women should have rape babies, and possibly die from unhealthy pregnancies. That's not pro-life, that's destroying one life at the expense of another.

They also believe that once a woman has that baby that she shouldn't get government assistance, cause, ya know, big government and all.

Republicans know that Akins' position is extreme, and extremely unpopular, which is why even though they believe the same thing they know it's politically toxic. Why else did Scarborough call his own party the "Stupid Party."?

Because as a Republican it's stupid to tell the truth.

That's why they run as progressives or outright lie, throwing out words like socialism, marxism and even comparing the Democratic party as full of freedom hating communists and nazis. While they continue to take positions that look more and more like 1930's Germany (anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-gay, anti-liberal, pro-war, anti-worker)

That's why demonization of the other party is a central tactic of the Republicans. "Obamacare will create death panels, Obama wants to raise your taxes, Obama wants to give your money to people on welfare who don't work." All of this shifts the focus away from their own massively unpopular policies, like cutting taxes for the rich, privatizing Social Security and making Medicare into a voucher system.

And they wrap it all up with words like "free markets" "capitalism" and "small government"

There's nothing small about a government that forces itself into a woman's Uterus.

But I guess that's not considered legitimate rape.

Flat Tax: Flatly Unfair

So I had an interesting discussion this morning with a conservative, a nice fellow overall but he had some rather poor notions about certain things our government is doing. Now I can go on about the poor things our government is doing right now but that's a different article for a different day.

Our discussion grazed the topic of spending, debt and welfare programs, specifically Pell Grants. As a college student and someone who doesn't have a full time job yet I depend on Pell grants to help offset the costs of college when I graduate. While talking about these programs that help the poor we eventually made our way into taxes. I mentioned to him that Mitt Romney paid only 13% in taxes in the returns that he has released, and under the Romney/Ryan plan he proposed people like Mitt would only pay a whopping 0.82% in taxes. This is only for people making over 1 million dollars a year and by dropping capital gains taxes to zero. Ultimately benefiting the richest among us at the expense of everyone else.

He preceded to tell me that I was mad at Romney for his success, and that taxing rich people is a "punishment" for their success.

I'm always astounded how a larger tax rate on millions of dollars is a punishment, I'd love to be in the position to be punished the way the wealthy supposedly are. Give me 20 Million and then tax me at 50%, who cares I'd still have 10 MILLION dollars.

If you can't live comfortably off $10 Million then there is something wrong with you, and it's not the tax code.

And after he uttered that little right wing talking point gem, he said something along the lines of; "and that's why we need a flat tax, so everyone pays the same."

Everyone pays the same?

I've heard this argument before, and it always bugs me, simply because it's a distorted version of fairness that is so simple, so easy to believe but in reality makes no sense and doesn't account for the massive inequality it would create. Just like other right wing policies I know of.

A flat tax is not a fair tax, and it's not something that works in reality, at least not if you want a strong middle class. It makes the poor pay more, and the rich pay less. The rates may seem fair, but the impact is disproportionate. The rich will simply get richer and the poor, poorer.

Not only that but the loss of revenue from the rich paying less will not be made up by the broadening of the tax base. This will lead to massive cuts in social programs that also impact the poor as they are the ones who rely on those programs.

Talk about kicking people when they're down, all so Mitt Moneybags Romney can get a tax cut?

Fuck that.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

The poor: Silent Minority

Today I want to share a topic that is rather close to me, Poverty. I choose to write about this because I am one of the 46 Million people who live under the poverty line here in America.

With the 2012 election season now in full bloom this is the best time to bring this issue to the forefront of our politics. Before I get into the politics and policy aspects of this, I want to share some of my personal story.

As a Michigan resident, I knew for a long time that we were the car making capital of the country. Detroit was the motor city, home of the big three. So much of our local economy was based on manufacturing, mostly car parts, but there were other industries too.

My first job out of high school was at Electrolux building refrigerators, my father worked his way up the ladder, from the factory to the office. From hourly to salary. No I didn't get any special treatment, nor did I want any. I worked as hard as any other person there. I was a temp for the summer, and ended up not getting asked to come back the next summer, (though I already had another job elsewhere) so it didn't bother me.

My next job was at a union shop making truck parts, hitches and bumpers for the big automakers. I worked there a good few years making good money, but health problems related from the smoke ended that as I was fired for too many health related absences, they no longer accepted doctors notes from numerous visits related to breathing trouble. I was also in school then and when I lost my job I had to drop out and now I still have the bill to pay for that.

A couple of minimum wage jobs later I found myself in a non union plastic injection molding plant working for $10 an hour.

What does my work history have to do with poverty?

Quite a bit actually.

Not because I had been part of the working poor, I made enough money in those jobs by myself to stay just over the poverty line, but because those jobs have become less and less available now. Electrolux moved to Mexico, leaving 3,000 people without work, the bumper shop went bankrupt and was bought out by a foreign corporation who closed at least one the two shops in the area, and everywhere else factory jobs have  reduced pay and benefits for workers, often relying on temp services that pay minimum wage up to $8.25 an hour for the same work I was paid $10/hr for years earlier.

Not to mention my last job laid me off after I was hurt during work hours, I was making around $9 building pontoon boats. I like many there got the job through a temp agency. After being hurt, and laid off, I realized the only chance I had for a better future was to try college again.

So I here I am, a college student, racking up debt, living with my wife on $12,000/yr with $93 a month in food stamps, sure I could be eligible for more, but I would have to drop school.

Like many using the safety net to get by, I worked for a living, paid into the system, have had some hard luck and health problems that have forced me to retrain and retool, not to mention take on massive debt, and turn down further assistance in order to be successful in the future.

Yet according to the GOP people like me who are poor are simply lazy, we just want our welfare checks so we don't have to work.

This leads me to a very excellent encounter that happened last night when I had the opportunity to speak to Tanya Wells on Facebook. For any of you #Uppers fans out there, you may have seen the wonderful segment in which she shares her story about going from $100k a/year to just $18k due to the recession. After seeing her story I noticed that we find ourselves in similar situations, having to depend on student loans, and food assistance while going to school and having to turn down other programs so we can continue training in an effort to get good middle class jobs when we graduate.

We also felt the same demonization from the political class, from being called lazy on twitter and on other social media, or that we should just try harder to find work, despite the fact that its hard to even get a call back from prospective employers. (My last interview was a couple weeks ago, damned if I didn't try to impress him with examples of my work.)

We also spoke about getting the rest of us poor people to band together to fight for the benefits that sustain hardworking people like us who are trying to get that training to get back in the job market. That involves voting, and becoming more involved in matters of policy, as well as fighting back against the rhetoric of being called welfare queens, lazy, & people who don't want to work but stay home, smoke pot and collect handouts from the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I maintain honors in my classes and Mr. Wells, Tanya's husband is maintaining a 3.98 GPA!

It's these things people need to know.

So earlier I mentioned I would get into the policy aspect of poverty.

Well for starters the Romney/Ryan plan for the budget calls for cutting 62% of the funding for services that help people like me and Mrs. Wells, that includes food stamps, pell grants, and Medicaid. Not to balance the budget mind you, but for tax cuts for people like Romney. In fact Romney would benefit immensely from his own tax plan as he would only a pay a 0.82% tax rate.

So while the poor people like me, would bear the brunt of massive austerity, Romney would become that much richer. How does this happen?

Because people ignore the poor, we do not have money to contribute to superPACs, we do not have connections. It's also much easier to blame the poor for being poor, because people don't like to think they can become poor. People like to think "Hey I work hard, I won't lose my job if I keep working hard, those poor people didn't work hard enough so that's why they're poor, that wont be me." It's easier to demonize people than to fix the system, easier to be selfish than to to pay it forward and help those who need it.

Also take into account that because of Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich, many think the poor are just welfare queens, taking your hard earned money because they don't want to work.

This rhetoric works, it makes us turn on each other, while they shift more and more money to the top from everyone else, squeezing the middle class which makes them blame the poor even more. It's genius really, making the middle class and the poor fight while robbing us both to enrich the top.

This is why we need to stop fighting each other, and start protecting each other by ensuring safety net programs and encourage college training, and vocational schools so the poor can move up to the middle class, and the people who fall from the middle class can climb right back up. We can do this, we can afford it. After all we apparently can afford to subsidize oil companies that are the most profitable industry in the world right?

We also have to realize that we can all end up like Tanya and I, and only then will we elect those who will try to save the safety net for everyone.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

GOP War on Women continues

If anything shows how little, old white guys know about the struggles of women in America, it's this asshole. Todd Akin.

Twitter has exploded today from Akins apparent "gaffe" where he said "“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare, If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Wow, how ignorant is this guy?

This little gem came from a discussion on KTVI-TV where Mr. Akin had been explaining his no exception policy on abortion. Yep, another one of these pro-family idiots who think that making women bear rape babies as well as banning contraception will help America become great again.

This is idiotic. The GOP says they are pro-life and pro-family, but they pass policies that hurt families, and demonize single mothers trying to raise the children they chose not to abort. Which is it GOP? Would you rather those single mothers abort their kids or support programs that prevent pregnancy, or in the event of it happening, aid for the child in the form of food stamps and welfare programs that keep those kids out of poverty.

Forcing a woman to have the rapists baby is a punishment for the woman, and for the unborn child too. I couldn't imagine growing up knowing my father was a monster, and that my mother never wanted me. It's such a complicated situation and it shouldn't be the choice of the state whether or not she should have that baby. This is big government at its worst.

How the people could have ever elect this Tea Party dick bag is something I cannot ever fathom.

It just seems like the GOP only cares about children while they're in the womb. Fertilized eggs are people, corporations are people, but women are not. What woman could ever vote for these misogynists?

Thankfully many women are taking notice, and even choosing president Obama over Mitt Romney in polls taken, they know what is at stake, their freedom of choice and control over their own bodies is on the line. I may not like abortion, hell I don't know any Liberal who does, but it is and should stay a legal, safe choice especially under the circumstances of rape and incest.

Because when you take a woman's right to make decisions for her own body, you take away her freedom, and her dignity. And that alone is worth fighting to protect.


So Akin immediately came out with a back-pedal of his legitimate rape comment, but I'm thinking the damage has already been done to this guys prospect for election. He'll be running against Claire McCaskill for the Missouri Senate seat in November, if he doesn't bow out that is. I'd actually like him for him to run, because he'll most likely lose, and lose hard, and if he somehow wins then well...Missouri apparently will deserve the misery this guy will bring. Sorry guys, but if you let these people in by staying home...

This is why it's so important to get out and vote, especially with so much on the line. We cannot let another year like 2010 happen where these TeaParty extremists can get in and bring our women back to 1850.

Another awesome fact about Akin is that apparently he's worked with now VP Paul Ryan to redefine rape, making this election even more crucial.

The thing is, that Akin is not a minority in the GOP, at least according to Democrat of California Jackie Speier. She's pretty sure that most Republicans think the same way as Todd Akin and Paul Ryan; that abortion should be illegal no matter the circumstance.

It's this anti-choice attitude in the Republican party that has led to extreme bills like the personhood bill, saying that a fertilized egg is a person with full constitutional rights, and that abortion is murder and so is emergency hormonal contraception. They also feel normal hormonal contraception should be banned as well as the IUD. The effects of these bills if passed would throw women back into the home as they would no longer have the freedom to choose when they want to have families, it throws up barriers to work and essentially puts them back into the home, "barefoot and pregnant", just what some of the good ol' boys want.

I cannot stress how important it will be to vote, even if you don't like the other person, just remember, it could be worse. You could end up with Todd Akin

Lyin' Ryan: Why the GOP goldenboy, is a hypocrite.

One week, it's been one week since the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's VP choice, and just like Sarah Palin, it seems Ryan has not been well vetted.

Which is why videos like this have been showing up lately.

Videos like these show how much Ryan was railing for stimulus during the last Administration to help his own district. There have also been letters to the energy department where Ryan asks for money from the stimulus to help create jobs.

I thought Paul Ryan hated stimulus. Apparently only when Barack Obama does it.

There are numerous articles and videos of Paul Ryan calling Keynesian economic measures a failure, and waste. Yet because of these measures and despite the debunked myths spread by the right. the economy dug itself out of a free-fall.

These Republicans just keep getting more brazen in their absolute hypocrisy. Yesterday Paul Ryan even made a nice trip to Florida to speak to some seniors, seemingly guaranteeing their Medicare benefits while throwing everyone under 55, under the bus. That is a Mitt Romney style pander, he learned from the best. What is worse about this, and Chris Hayes pointed this out on his show, that Medicaid under Romney/Ryan would be massively cut, and those same seniors he pandered to today, often rely on Medicaid to cover what Medicare does not.


Paul Ryan is hypocritical in others way too. He once touted Ayn Rand as someone who got him into politics and helped form his belief system, as well as having his Catholic beliefs influence his policies. Both of which are absurd. Ayn Rand, was an Atheist, no problem there right, except that Paul Ryan is a Catholic, who believes that his religious morals should be a bigger part of government. Especially on matters of abortion and contraception. Which is completely the opposite of Rands view on religion.

Rand even states that, “[Faith] is a sign of a psychological weakness. . . I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire, above the evidence of what your mind knows.  That’s what you’re doing with the idea of God.”

When people began to point him out on his hypocrisy Ryan began to run from Ayn Rand, saying that he didn't know her philosophy until later and complete disagrees with her objectivism.

So what about his Catholic beliefs? You know the moral center of his policies. Like feeding the poor, clothing the naked blah blah blah. Surely he calls for increased benefits to help the poor like food stamps and unemployment insurance and medical care right? Except he doesn't. His plan cuts 62% of funding for programs that actively help the poor, and shifts the money cuts for people like Mitt Romney, who would pay a whopping 0.82% tax rate on his $20 million fortune.


His budget is so out of step with the beliefs of the Catholic church that there are a group of Nuns,  have called his budget "immoral".

Go get him nuns.

So if Paul Ryan doesn't lead by his faith in the Church, or his so called admiration for Ayn Rand, who does he work for?

Those who pay him. The Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, and other super rich people who have nothing better to do than figure out ways to make more money off the backs of the poor and middle class.

At least there's good news for Paul Ryan, he has made a friend of Mitt Romney, who he shares so much in common with, at least after they both lose badly in November they'll have plenty of time to go Jet Ski-ing together, hell maybe Ryan can get Romney on the P90X program. Move over Arnold, here comes Muscle Mitt.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Mediscare? GOPs new lie

We all know the senior vote is extremely important, especially in key states like Florida. And we all know that there is one thing seniors left or right care about. Medicare.

One of the most popular of the new deal programs in existence. A long with Social Security, Medicare has always been in the forefront of issues with senior citizens. It's popular because it works. Since its inception medicare has always been a guaranteed benefit for those who have worked hard all of their lives and have been old enough to qualify.

With the inclusion of Paul Ryan on the Romney ticket the campaign has refocused onto "entitlement" spending, most notably Medicare.

What astounds me about this is that Romney and Ryan see this as their winning issue.


Yes, it's true. Romney and Ryan are now casting themselves as the saviors of Medicare, protecting it from the evil Obama and his socialist "Obamacare". Never mind the fact that Medicare IS socialism, but I digress. The thing about the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare is nothing short of completely changing it, not for seniors of course but for people like me who are not yet seniors.

To back up their role as the saviors of Medicare they have sent out surrogates, like Tim Pawlenty and John Sununu (that is a fun name to say) to spread the new talking point that Obama stole $716 Billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare.

Without even touching on the racial angle of this obvious lie, I want to explain first why it is such a boldface lie.

Sununu says that it takes from seniors and cuts their benefits. Yeah, not really. Instead this $716 Billion is from projected cuts in the amount of over-payments to hospitals insurance companies that would have been made. The ACA actually limits over-payments and instead makes insurance companies and hospitals take less in Medicare reimbursement. They agreed to this because of the influx of new patients from the Mandate. But those pesky details never get in the way of a good lie.

So let me say this again, no reduction in benefits, decreased spending from no longer overpaying insurance companies and hospitals for your care, and other small cuts to eliminate waste.

On the other hand you have the Ryan Plan that turns Medicare into a voucher system (for those under 55) which will shift the burden of costs onto future seniors, like me.

I sincerely hope the current crop of seniors consider their grand kids on Nov, 6th, and send Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan a little message

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Libertarians: GOP drones minus the culture war

It was only a matter of time until I came after the Ron Paul revolution. It's kind of sad because in quite a few ways libertarians are an ugly breed of both Liberals and Conservatives, shunned by Liberals and existing as the red headed stepchild of the conservative movement and yet, people my age seem to find them so endearing.

Libertarianism marries the best of the free thinking Liberal ideas of gay rights, anti-war, pro drug legalization, and get rid of big brother watching you and stay out my business sentiment. Because what Liberal enjoys being watched by the Government and harassed for no reason right? It also combines the worst of conservative top-down economics that have killed our economy, stalled wages, and polluted our air and water (see fracking) for 30 years.

The Libertarian premise is simple, cut taxes, cut government, let everyone do what they want, and somehow magically everyone becomes responsible, altruistic, wealthy and super happy.


Libertarianism is actually quite a selfish doctrine. The main tenet is about advancing the self and nothing else, no collective roads or bridges, everyone is out for themselves. If you Fuck up then its your fault, your responsibility, and if you need help that's just too bad because why should I give up what's mine to help you? Taxes are considered a punishment on everyone, and therefore should be as low as possible, for everyone.

Yeah, just what Exxon Mobil needs; another tax cut.

Libertarians believe that you alone have the power to make your own destiny as long as you work hard. If you succeed you did so because you were awesome, you work harder then others, you were smarter, and you had no one to thank for your success but you.

Let me a blow a hole in that load of BS

You do have the power to succeed, but you only learned what you needed to know to succeed by going to a school, maybe a public, maybe a private school. But you had a teacher that also went to school, spent his or her money on college to learn the things they ended up teaching you. Sometimes those teachers used their own money to provide supplies, sometimes they spent time with you after school to help you with those pesky geometry problems you had a hard time with. Sometimes they even inspired you.

Now we also cannot forget the school itself, built with the pure evil that is socialism. Its socialist buses picked you up from your house for free. The school had free water fountains, and heating in the winter. If you were poor you had free lunches. Remember those monkey bars you played on all the time? Socialism.

Odds are you lived on a street with a paved road that allowed you to get to your first job. You had electricity from power lines laid by the government, you had clean running water from public aquifers that you could drink and bathe in. You had inspectors making sure your food was not toxic or infected with E. Coli. If you own a business that uses the Internet, you should thank the Federal government for laying the foundation for it.

All of that stuff helped you survive, and thrive, so you could focus on learning and working hard to get where you are today. It's a collective effort, everyone gets the same basic foundation in which to succeed, of course people are more successful due to the effort they put in but we all have to pay for these simple things like roads, bridges, schools, firefighters, cops, teachers, food inspectors, power lines and all the other infrastructure we use.

The argument from Libertarians is "Why punish people for being successful." I ask, how is paying more taxes on having more money a punishment? If you have more money you're already better off than someone with less, so if we take a fair amount from someone with a larger income, and use it to help someone who has less live a better life, or become successful himself then what's the harm. It's not as if we ask millionaires to give up all their wealth in taxes, they're entitled to a large share of the wealth they earned.

But, and here's the but, the wealthy have more, and have used more resources to get wealthy. So why shouldn't they pay more? If you ask someone who makes 20 million a year to pay 5 million, they still have 15 million, that's an incredible amount of money. More than enough to survive extremely comfortably. Even if you ask them to pay 15 million out of 20 million in taxes, they still have 5 million. Compare that to the guy who makes $60,000 a year. That is over $4.4 Million a year more that the rich guy still has compared to the middle income guy. That is roughly 73 times more money a year that the wealthy person makes in the same amount of time. And that is even after taxing the shit of the rich guys initial 20 million.

Let that one sink in

After seeing those numbers I don't understand how anyone can see that a progressive tax system on the wealthy is punishment. Hell I wish I was rich, I'd gladly take that punishment if it meant I made 73 times more than a middle class wage earner!

Libertarianism is nothing but a right wing tool to bring in those people who uncomfortable with the GOPs culture war but want to continue the economic policies of more tax cuts for the wealthy and more deregulation. So why are so many kids my age enthralled at this? It's all about messaging, you tell these young college kids that they're awesome because they worked hard and tell them that they'd be rich if only the government would get out of their way. Throw in some stuff about Pot, and why they shouldn't have to help the lazy (poor) or the people who didn't save for retirement (seniors) and you get all these 20 somethings who can't wait to willingly fuck themselves over in the future because they think they know it all.

Well played Ayn Rand, well played.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Should The Presidency Require Business Experience?

In a word, No.

In two words, fuck no!

Let me explain why this makes no sense to me.

Conservatives argue that in order to be a good president that you must have a background in business, and some even say you need military experience.

That's utter crap, here's why.

Government is not a business, it doesn't run as a business and it shouldn't ever be run as a business. See people tend to forget that a government is really a contract between the government, and the governed.

Business however is different, it exists to make profit, usually by providing a good or service in exchange for something of value. They're not really similar at all.

To prove my point I turn to the founding fathers.
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
John Adams: Thoughts on Government, 1776

I love that quote.

Business exists to enrich the owner of said business, or as John Adams says, the private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.

What I am saying is if government is ran by a businessman, and is run like a business, it wouldn't favor the common good, it would work for the interests of a few people, a few wealthy, powerful people.

That's called an Aristocracy.

Another difference between government and business is how they work. Businesses are run by a CEO, usually put there through a board of investors (this is obviously in the case of a large business) Those investors let the CEO do what he needs to do to make money and will not usually interfere too much so long as the business is profitable.

Government works through a careful system of checks and balances so no branch gains more power over the other, there is no de facto leader in a government as each branch depends on others in order to get things done. If the business loses money it cannot function, and must downsize or run the risk of not being able to pay its stockholders, creditors and workers. Government however is able to run a debt and continue, not indefinitely of course but nonetheless it can function while running a deficit without going under.

Of course it's best to run make a habit of running deficits, which is why we have taxes, unlike business. I think Mr. Hamilton addressed this one...
"As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine."
Alexander Hamilton: Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801
So why shouldn't business experience be required to be president as Mr. Romney had once said? Because they are different. They are run differently and have different goals and ways to get there. One should never run government like a business, one should never even consider it, and one should most definitely NOT merge government with business.

I think there is a word for that.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Why Trickle Down equals Trickle Dumb

Of all the cracked out, nutty ideas that have been floated from the right wing, supply-side "voodoo" economics has to be the one that makes the least sense. Let's break down the simple premise here. Supply side economics simply states that if you give more money to people who are already fabulously wealthy, that will somehow cause the wealth fairy to sprinkle riches all over the rest of society and we'll all be happy. I'll tell you one thing, for the last thirty years we've been sprinkled with something from those at the top, and it ain't wealth.

The whole idea that continuously cutting the tax rates for the people at the top 1% of the wealth spectrum and how that will somehow create more wealth and increase governmental revenue is whole lotta bullshit that only a third grader will think is a great idea.

Here's why. Rich people do not create jobs.

Okay, now that you have gotten out of the way of any shrapnel that came from conservative heads exploding around you I will explain how things actually work.

Rich people are a consequence of capitalism, not the source.

In our system of capitalism businesses are successful because they provide a product or service to the people. The consumer decides the value of the product or service through choice, they will buy it if the product is worth the price, if not they will go to a competitor. In our society choice is the greatest tool and the consumer is the greatest asset.

Businesses can produce widgets to sell all day, but if no one has the money to buy them, that business will fail. That is why the middle class is so important, the middle class holds up the top and keeps the bottom from falling out. When the middle class has disposable income it can use to buy products and services those businesses that provide them reap the reward, that in turn puts money into government coffers through progressive taxation that fund roads and bridges, schools and firehouses, teachers, cops, firemen, post office workers, well you get the picture. It helps keep all those people into middle class jobs, which feeds this circle of wealth.

What happens when you take that wealth out and shift it to the top? It just sits there for the most part. Yes some of it gets donated to good causes, some of it used to buy things like Yachts, but most of it sits there, usually somewhere in the Caymans. It literally leaves that closed circle of wealth I described above. That's a big problem, less wealth in the system means our roads and bridges start to fall apart, teachers and firemen get laid off and the poor get essential services cut, and government debt soars. Sound familiar?

Now if you're a conservative reader that is still reading this far, first off, Kudos to you. You're probably saying "Silly Lib, poor people don't create jobs. *snort* I want to say that is one of the most simplistic, idiot statements that comes from the right. Ever heard of a guy named Bill Gates? He didn't start rich, he was an innovator, built computers in his garage, and he sure wasn't getting capital gains. Yet I'm pretty sure most of you are reading this on a machine with Microsoft Windows installed.

Henry Ford wasn't rich, Thomas Edison wasn't rich, but they all had another thing in common, they created something which led to jobs. The rich candle makers didn't innovate, they wanted to keep selling candles, the light bulb replaced those candles and therefore created new jobs, because light bulbs led to lamps, fluorescent light bulbs and whole world of new stuff that also needed people to make them, poof, jobs!

Henry Ford created the mass assembly line and good paying jobs, therefore allowing regular people to buy his cars, which made him quite wealthy. History is replete with regular people with an idea that challenges or replaces an older idea and creates a tidal wave or new jobs and innovation.

Few of those people started out wealthy, and few of the wealthy innovate and therefore, create jobs.

So why are we as a nation rewarding those who don't create new jobs, or innovate and create new ideas and are already extremely rich off older ideas and have no reason to change the status quo?

Because big business has bought those who create tax policy, this is why regular people with new ideas are crushed. Why solar and wind and other "green" energy technologies are underfunded and constantly derided by the corporate media and the right wing. I've heard of many stories of regular guys in their garages creating cars that will run on water or have created their own bio diesels or even converted their cars into electric powered vehicles. Yet they are constantly crushed by a business and state that is profiting massively off keeping things the way they are.

Supply side is an effort to take from everyone else what the person taking it already has a lot of, it's literally Romney-hood.

Obfuscation Nation

With the Romney/Ryan campaign now fully underway and with the excitement for campaign politics renewed in the press, I just want to note once again how many are forgetting about the issue of Mitts tax returns and how much of his money he is hiding in the Caymans. Luckily my good followers on Twitter as well as many others have not forgotten to press him on the returns, lest he gets away with shifting the focus away from his most likely absurdly low tax rates and the possibility that he received amnesty for illegally hiding his money in Switzerland.

This whole campaign shift just serves to remind me of how much politicians in general hide from public scrutiny. These days we know so little about the people in power or who want to be in power. We have super-pacs that are not required to disclose donors leading to unlimited dark money going to campaigns from who knows where. Eccentric & often shady billionaires like the Koch's sinking millions of dollars into right wing causes, think tanks and bribing foreign governments. 
Not to mention the huge amount of Koch money that went to Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

What we live in today is an era of dark money, shady billionaires, and bought politicians. A blip in the news cycle last week showed just how much influence Goldman Sachs has on even the Obama administration. Goldman testified before the Michigan senator Carl Levin about how the emails showing that Goldman execs knew they selling toxic crap securities to customers that were packaged as good deals. Yet Goldman denies wrongdoing for its role in the 2008 housing bubble crash. Though Goldman denies any wrongdoing for its role in selling a "shitty deal" to investors they still paid a $550 Million fine for it.

Who the fuck pays a fine if they didn't do anything wrong?

Eric Holder, the AG for the Obama Administration denied finding what they did to be wrong and therefore will not prosecute Goldman Sachs, so according to Holder, lying to investors, packaging bad securities, and helping to crash the economy is perfectly legal so long as you pay a token fine (They can easily afford it, since they made billions off it and through free money from the Fed) I should note that Goldman Sachs was one the largest contributors to the Obama campaign in '08, but has jumped ship to support Romney and Ryan.

This is an example of how another veil thrown onto those who have the money and power to placate the people. Thing is, the people aren't stupid, we're catching on to how things really work, and we're going to try and put a stop to it.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Let the Medicare attack ads begin

Now that the Ryan pick has been confirmed, like I said last night Liberal pundits are high-fiving each other all over the country. Ushering in a direction to this campaign with Romney saying that his campaign will be focused“American aspirations and American ideals.”

It's a big change from talking about Bain and the economy, or hiding from his tax returns. It's no secret the Obama campaign has been hitting him on his time at Bain over and over, like the Joe Soptic ad that talked about his wife dying from cancer because they didn't have health insurance, as well the many good paying middle class jobs that were lost while Romney and Bain walked away with millions.

The Ryan pick in my opinion is the result of a desperate need to change the narrative in the media, to Medicare, where they can hit Obama back for his supposed $500 Billion in cuts to Medicare in the ACA which is crap that easily debunked the non-partisan CBO. It does make for some good politics though, going after the Tea Party "get your gubmint hands off my Medicare" crowd, which is ironic at its best.

Another reason I think for the Ryan pick is that it shifts the focus off of Romneys tax returns, after today few people will be talking about what is in his returns because they will be so focused on this VP pick.

That's not to say this isn't important, choosing Ryan like I mentioned will change the narrative, whether it works in Romneys favor is yet to be seen, but Ryan like Romney has a bunch of baggage that can and will be scrutinized.

Lets start with the fact that Paul Ryan used Social Security to help him get through college, and now he wants to privatize it so that Wall st. can get richer. Wow, big surprise. He wants to turn Medicare into a coupon that does not automatically change in value if healthcare prices increase, that's not saving Medicare that is shifting the cost the seniors while giving them lip service. We'll continue that Paul is Ayn Randian follower who gave out copies of Atlas Shrugged on Christmas. (Thank goodness I'm not on his Christmas card) Ayn Rand is famous for being a staunch libertarian but not so well known for taking Social Security and Medicare benefits near the end of her life. How fucking hypocritical are these assholes? Talk about burning bridges.

The Ryan plan cuts government spending, by a lot. It also repeals the Affordable Care Act, which has been gaining popularity since the supreme court decision upheld its constitutionality. Like I mentioned it changes Medicare into a coupon, privatizes Social Security, lowers corporate taxes, and promotes drill baby drill.

The plan is awful, it takes from the poor, and the elderly, and gives it to oil companies and corporations.

Lastly I think the Ryan pick is there to excite the conservative Tea Party base. Ryan has been a rising Tea Party star in the House and is the perfect person to unite the Teabangelical base with the moneyed establishment. It also gives the Romney campaign some help overcoming the trust issues conservatives have with Romney. Before the Ryan pick conservative voters only backed Mitt because he was the anti-Obama, they never trusted the one who implemented Romneycare in Massachusetts which then became the model for Obamacare. They never trusted the "I will be to the left of Ted Kennedy on LGBT issues" Mitt Romney, and the Romney who was in favor of not overturning Roe v Wade, combine that with the fact that 68% of independents polled say that Mitt Romney represents the rich.

This is why both sides are thrilled about the Romney/Ryan ticket, it gives the Obama team ammunition to use (and lots of it) while giving Romney a chance to change the narrative as well as excite the base and help ensure high turnout on Nov. 6th

Friday, August 10, 2012


We'll see if it's true when Mitt officially picks his VP tomorrow at 9am. I of course will be asleep, because it's Saturday and I'm lazy. There is a lot of speculation that it is going to be Paul Ryan. Let me tell you how much of a disaster this would be. We'll start with the extremely unpopular Ryan budget that turns medicare into a coupon, that doesn't change in value even if prices go up, causing seniors to pay more out of their social security checks that he also wants to take away. Guess grandma is SOL if these two get in office. The plan also cuts taxes on...*drumroll* the rich, wow who didn't see that one coming? It's also a budget buster, exploding the debt and deficit while causing massive cuts to be made into food stamps and other social programs. All to give massive tax cuts to people like him and Mitt Romney. No wonder he wants to choose Ryan.

These two have more baggage together than a Kardashian on vacation. One of them would have to ride on the roof of their campaign bus with all the baggage stuffed inside. Let's call this VP pick for what it is. A distraction, plain and simple. Mitt is supposedly picking a young Tea Party "Young Guns" let's go get that government and take away your food stamps distraction. So many Tea Party people and Fox News pundits have a weird conservative man crush on Paul Ryan and they can't wait to gush at all hours over him on the Sunday shows and beyond. What topic will get left behind? The tax returns, bravo Mitt, you might actually deflect from the tax return controversy but I think you're getting out of the frying pan and into the fire if this is your choice. Hey no problem with me, hell if it's true I'll be opening a bottle of my best (cheapest) champagne.

Still if it's true I wonder how the voters are going to see this selection of someone who wants to kill grandmas medicare benefits? The Fox spin machine will be in full swing I think. Romney has been getting his ass kicked in the polls lately and if this is his idea of getting a boost I'm not sure its going to help. In most polls Obama is up by 7%. We'll just have to see.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Romneys' are people my friend.

All right, now this should be a fun post. Mitt Romney, presumptive nominee and candidate will not be releasing his desperately coveted tax returns. Why? Because according to an interview in Bloomberg Business week Romney stated that he will not release more than two years because "I am not a business." Wow, really? I know that sometimes Romney blurs the line between actual humans and corporations in his own view but I never actually thought he considered the public dumb enough to confuse the two. Then again anyone stupid enough to agree that corporations are people too need this type of clarification, and perhaps a helmet, and not for the eventual "trickle-down." It troubles me that Mitt will not even continue the proud tradition of transparency started by his own father during his run. So this really begs the question of why, what is he hiding? Amnesty? A super low tax rate? The only one who knows is probably right now chuckling uncomfortably somewhere on a campaign bus.
Now our friends on the right are actually asking for college records, what do college records have to do with anything? Wanting to see tax records on the other hand actually makes sense because taxes are a civic duty. College not so much. Not only are taxes important because they are required but because of the rates, if Romney paid lower rates than people making $30-60,000 a year it's going to piss off a lot of people who may otherwise vote for him. Even worse if he got amnesty for hiding his money, that just looks bad, greedy, and tasteless. Something the billionaires bankrolling him can identify with but not regular people, even the Fox washing machine can't spin cycle this one in to his favor.
Speaking of failing to spin something, there was a Romney spokeswoman who may have just screwed his campaign until the media forgets about it in two days. Nonetheless it's an awesome screw up, because this spokeswoman named Andrea Saul, actually told the truth about Romneycare. Oh the humanity! This was in response to an Obama ad that followed the story of a former GST steel worker who lost his wife to cancer after they lost their job and healthcare due to a Bain capital buyout. Saul had said during an interview, “To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health-care plan, they would have had health care.” Yes, the same healthcare Obama is putting into place. This made conservative heads explode. Like Obi-Wan feeling the voices of millions of people cry out in "OMG she didn't just tout Romneycare." agony. It was a magic moment. We'll see how much damage the Obama team can do with this one, Romney is the gift that keeps on giving, from dancing horses, to corporations are people my friend, to not knowing what a doughnut is, Mitt is like a one man show. Who knows if he loses he can have his own reality show, couldn't be worse than the Kardashians.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Rafalca Rides on!

So the title is a little deceptive, this post will not actually be about Rafalca, Romney's $77,000 Olympic dressage horse, I just liked the title. No, today will be about one of my favorite topics. Money in politics.

But first, I just wanted to touch on a story I found on Twitter. Thinkprogress posted a story today about a Louisiana school that can force female students to take a pregnancy test if they have reason to believe that the student might be pregnant. If the test is positive or the student refuses they are immediately thrown out of school. This makes absolutely no sense.
First Louisiana has one of the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the United States. That little factoid is probably due to the insistence of abstinence only sex education in schools, such as this one. The argument I want to make here is about not throwing these soon to be mothers out. As we all know education is one of the biggest factors that determines income, standard of living and overall success, by denying this right to education, conservatives are guaranteeing that one bad mistake as a teen will effectively destroy their lives and ironically either force the teen into an abortion or onto welfare and food stamps, WIC and other government "entitlement" programs that conservatives hate!
Then there is the awful double standard here. While the girls get punished by expulsion the guys who stuck it in are literally getting off scot free. It takes two to make a baby unlike what many evangelicals believe virgin births do not happen. So I tell you what, if this school can force pregnancy tests, they should also be forced to do paternity tests, and if the father also attends that school, he should be expelled, and forced into military school. That will straighten his ass up, give him the discipline and the responsibility to take care of the baby he helped create.
I suppose though the best course of action here is to stop the problem at the root. And that involves education, real sex education, or hell, just force all the kids to watch Teen Mom.

If you want to read the article about this just follow the link to

On to money in politics. We all keep hearing about how Romney continues to out raise Obama, it's not really all that surprising seeing how much money a few individual eccentric billionaires are pumping into this race. It's only August, we still have quite a ways to go until November and already the money that has spent could've helped create so many jobs, or fixed roads and bridges. Instead we get deluged in attacks ads that only serve to confuse the uninformed voter. I suppose that is the point.
So with so few billionaires spending so much money (most of them happen to be backing Mitt Romney) that pretty much says that this election could go very badly for President Obama. 94% of the time the candidate with the most money wins the election. Now the President has a couple advantages, first he's an incumbent, and usually the incumbent wins. Second Mitt Romney is a terrible campaigner, you know "corporations are people my friends" that didn't exactly sit well with the voters. Not to mention the stupid laugh when he's nervous, or the fact that he will not release his tax returns. Sure, Romney does have the anyone but Obama crowd, which is considerable, and Romney has the Fox news backing, as well as the money. It's gonna be close. The money is the biggest factor here, without the media powerhouse that is Fox news Romneys' talking points would not be drummed into peoples heads. Also the anti-Obama hatred, yes hatred, would not be so prevalent. There is so much money that is spent to call the President things like socialist, communist, nazi, dictator etc. Now these are of course not true, but if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it, and many have, and those with the most money can buy the most airtime to spread those lies. It's going to be an interesting fall.