"The government used to build parks, and dams and at least try to beautify your communities, but now they just annoy you. There’s always a bureaucrat saying, ‘no, you can’t do that’."
— Jeffrey Tucker, ranting about the degeneration of government intentions (via thecheekylibertarian)
Also now all the taxpayers are saying ‘why is someone using my tax dollars to build a park for those other people?’
"There are post-election lessons to be learned from how movement conservatism has long housed weirder claims than run-of-the-mill climate-change denialism. Perlstein cites examples such as claiming naps cure cancer better than chemo or that grandmothers can trust their dollars are going to Bibles in Africa, when they’re simply being pocketed by fundraisers. Stanley Kubrick mocked this tendency in Dr. Strangelove, when a character repeats a popular ’60s-era right-wing urban legend about fluoridated water being communist mind control. (This fear still haunts the right, as demonstrated by Georgia state senators convening a meeting last month to discuss Obama’s supposed communist mind-control plot.) The lesson in all this for the rest of us: Right-wingers don’t really have the same relationship to the truth that we do. They aren’t just creating their own truth for comfort but also to mark themselves as members of the tribe."
Putting Faith in the Conservative Creed - As conservatives lose battle after battle, believing in untruths is becoming an essential part of their identity.
in the end, pretty fucking sad
So as people analyze the Democratic wins (and Republican losses) in the 2012 elections, one theme is emerging as a common point of agreement: the changing demographic characteristics of the United States have hurt the too-white, too-male constituency of the current Republican Party.
Many thanks to Liba for giving me this opportunity. My blog focuses on informing the electorate. I’ll focus on this during the week, with some new articles, a few shameless self-reblogs, and a few pieces from the very awesome people I follow. I’ll keep it interesting, and I’m pretty sure you all…
Presidential debates are an integral part of a healthy democracy. Unfortunately, tonight’s debate will be moderated and controlled by a private company which is stifling it. Since 1988, the Commission on Presidential Debates, created by the Republican and Democratic parties and funded by the largest corporations , has “exercised a monopoly over the presidential debates”, including topics of debate and which candidates are included.
This year, the secret contract negotiated between the Romney and Obama campaigns and approved by the CPD has angered media watchdogs even more, after the CPD announced the unprecedented decision to share the topics of the debate with the candidates ahead of time.
18 pro-democracy groups have demanded the CPD begin a major overhaul and 2 corporate sponsors have pulled support for excluding third party candidates. Longtime watchdog George Farah, founder of Open Debates, explains:
“The Commission on Presidential Debates undermines our democracy. Because of the Commission’s subservience to the Republican and Democratic campaigns, the presidential debates are structured to accommodate the wishes of risk-averse candidates, not voters.”
Watch George Farah’s interview on Democracy Now and learn how the debates have become ‘a fraud perpetrated on the American people”, as described by the League of Women Voters which moderated the three televised presidential debates prior to 1988.
"Even when venturing into the field, most reporters stay inside the bubble. They follow the candidates, speak with their handlers, interview consultants, quote think-tank analysts, pore over polling data. Looking over a recent week of coverage in the Times, for instance, I found plenty of stories on PACs, campaign strategy, political operatives, Romney’s tax returns, and the polling data in Ohio and other battleground states. Only one featured extensive interviews with ordinary Americans."
— Michael Massing, What Do Swing-State Voters Think? Why We Don’t Know
"I don’t see how anyone who confronts Obama’s record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. … How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you’re a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes. … Keen on Obama’s civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama."
i definitely view him as being the lesser of two evils, but more so a President with potential. still, can anyone argue that Mitt Romney is better? i mean, with a straight face and without reference fictions propagated by Fox News or Rush Limbaugh? in the end though, it’s Congress that’s the problem. why won’t anyone acknowledge or push this? Congress is where most of the blame lies, and i don’t mean obstructionist Republicans. i mean the failure of the premiere lawmaking body of the American government unable to do its job, overwhelmed, either willingly or reluctantly, with pressure from outside sources, lobbyists, special interests, staking their futures on monies from these people and then returning the favor. where are the interests of the American people in this Congressional mix? they are by the side of the road way back there in the 70s, it seems.
"Every time I hear a political speech or I read those of our leaders, I am horrified at having, for years, heard nothing which sounded human. It is always the same words telling the same lies. And the fact that men accept this, that the people’s anger has not destroyed these hollow clowns, strikes me as proof that men attribute no importance to the way they are governed; that they gamble – yes, gamble – with a whole part of their life and their so called ‘vital interests."
— Albert Camus
Apparently, the GOP didn’t think that George W. Bush would fire up the delegates, drive television ratings, or inspire anyone to vote for another Republican presidential candidate.
Most interestingly, Bill Clinton has had more nice things to say about George W. Bush in the first ten minutes of his speech than anyone at last week’s the Republican convention.
And, of course, all of those mentions of cooperating with George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush speak to the broader point: Democrats cooperate and Republicans obstruct. If you want to get anything done in this country from this point forward, you vote for the Democrat.
Maybe it’s the Strauss taking hold, but I couldn’t help but feel grudging admiration for some of the speeches last night. There was a sense of responsibility that was starkly absent from last week’s convention — and it reflects a party that feels the pain of power.
It also demonstrates that there…
Let’s call this post “The Tyrannical Irony Of Great Expectations”
I don’t begrudge President Obama for the situation he inherited in January of 2009. When people throw out the “are you better than four years ago?” question, the answer (at least for most people) should undoubtedly be yes.
With that said, above is what voters have come to expect a “recovery” to look like (source: Nate Silver’s 538 Blog).
Below is what we’ve got. (source: Think Progress)
Reagan’s economic recovery created millions of jobs beyond what were originally lost, while Obama’s recovery has yet to break even, when accounting for new job seekers.
Perhaps that provides context for President Obama’s comment about the private sector “doing just fine.” In a touch of irony for reactionaries in the GOP, Obama, unlike Reagan, has overseen an era of government shedding public jobs. That may be for the long-term good, but in the short term, it amplifies the recession.
So the private sector may be doing “just fine,” but the recession kicked us so hard that “doing just fine” won’t really cut it these days.
indeed; everyone expected things to be just perfect in four years - big mistake, especially when certain persons are working overtime to prevent said recovery
what’s most important is that most people really don’t care. almost everyone is willing to accept the lies and half-truths that their candidates, and their respective supporting organizations, tell day-in and day-out if it wins them the election. the virtue, dare i say, of shame seems to no longer exist in this nation.
In a recent statement that was both factually inaccurate and horribly offensive, Republican Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said that victims of “legitimate rape” don’t get pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tried to distance themselves from the remark — but the fact is they’re in lockstep with Akin on the major women’s health issues of our time. Just this morning, the Republican Party voted to include the “Human Life Amendment” in their platform, calling for a constitutional ban on abortions nationwide, even for rape victims. Several Romney supporters and advisers stood silently by while this vote took place, and the Los Angeles Times reports that the platform “was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”
President Obama spoke out in response to Akin’s comments: “What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.”
This controversy is not an accident, or a mistake, or an isolated incident. It’s a reflection of a Republican Party whose policies are dangerous for women.
There is a clear choice for women in this election: Stand with President Obama.
I entered this national debate on women’s rights in February, when, as a Georgetown Law student, I testified before members of Congress on the issue of contraception.
Without knowing me or my story, Rush Limbaugh called me a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his radio show.
Many Americans stepped forward to tell me they agreed with me, and supported my right to speak out without being verbally attacked. President Obama stood with us.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand? He didn’t even condemn the remark, instead saying only: “It’s not the language I would have used.”
Since that moment, I’m even more resolved to continue the fight to make sure every single woman — and every man who cares about the women in his life — knows exactly what’s at stake in this election. The Republicans are frighteningly clear on these issues.
The party platform itself includes a “salute” to states that have pushed “informed consent” laws, such as those that force women seeking an abortion to first undergo an invasive and medically unnecessary ultrasound.
Just last year, Paul Ryan joined Todd Akin and more than 200 other Republicans in co-sponsoring legislation that would have narrowed the definition of rape, limiting which victims of rape were “legitimate” enough to receive financial assistance for access to abortion care.
Mitt Romney famously says he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood if he had the chance. And both Romney and Ryan pledge to go back to a system where insurance companies can discriminate against women and charge us more than men for the same health insurance.
Akin’s comments shouldn’t be surprising. But this isn’t about him — just like it was never about me.
President Obama has told us what he’s fighting for: “I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunities as your sons.”
Republicans, led by Romney and Ryan, have made it clear that they want to make our decisions for us.
President Obama trusts us to make our own.
It’s as simple as that."
pathetic; this totally disgraces the names of the SEALs i’ve known, especially the friend of mine who died in Panama and who’s had a ship named after him. 20 years in the Navy, and this is what i get for my service, this asshole? i hope at least he was an officer; i was a Chief.