Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Nothing In

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Leftists have always attempted to paint conservatives of any stripe as mentally deficient. Over the past two weeks, though, they've been positively orgasmic over two studies that "prove" their positions correct.

Orgasmic?  LOL Similar studies have been around for ages and they simply keep confirming what is already blatantly obvious.

The first is a study by WorldPublicOpinion.org that shows (according to them) Fox News viewers are the most misinformed about matters ranging from the state of the economy to who supported TARP. Since its appearance in the media, I, among many, have taken the time to review the study. To put it mildly, the study's conclusions make global warming look like the settled science Al Gore claims it to be. Without going into too much technical detail, the study's major flaw attempted to create a correlation between actual knowledge and whether that actual knowledge agreed with experts those conducting the study deemed to be credible. (Never mind the fact the "experts" chosen may not have been credible on the subject matter themselves, but that's speculation since the researchers never bothered to ask that question.)

When you try to create a link between something concrete and something that is subject to opinion, the argument in favor of the link had better be solid. In this case, it wasn't, judging from the reseachers' own report where they attempt to define what misinformation is. If they were so confident in their conclusions, they wouldn't have needed the disclaimer they added.

Did you even read the study?  The study was not asking people if they thought global warming was real.  They were asking people if they thought scientists agreed on whether it was real.

And vast overwhelming majority of scientists do agree that climate change is real.  There is a consensus.  There is no squabbling among them about it.

But Fox News viewers, being tards, think there isn't a consensus among scientists.  That is absolutely not true.  That is a fact even if you don't believe manmade climate change is real.  That clearly shows that Fox News viewers are misinformed.  Considering Fox News ordered their staff to cast doubt, that's no shock, is it?

The second study was reported in the Telegraph, and it reflects conservatives (at least in England) have a larger portion of the brain that controls fear than liberals do. After a small bit of research, I found a fatal flaw in the study: the sample size was too small. When a study is done, the sample size must be statistically valid, meaning it's large enough to weed out any anomalies that would presumably occur. The sample size for this particular study: 93 people. Out of a country as big as England (and a city as large as London, for that matter), fewer than 100 people were used to support the conclusions in the study.

So, in addition to being a global warming expert, and a crowd estimator expert, you're now a brain research expert?

There's an underlying question that should be asked at this point: Why now? The Left have claimed science as their exclusive intellectual stronghold for decades and they've tried to use it in the past to establish themselves as intelligent. To have two studies come out in two weeks that affirm what Leftists already believe is no mere coincidence, in my opinion. I feel it's a reaction to the recent midterm elections where Republicans made great strides to advance a more conservative vision for the country. Had Democrats won, I doubt either one of these studies would have seen the light of day, save for Leftist blogs. Given the current situation, however, the studies in question are being touted as hard fact.

The problem is when you push flawed science as hard fact, it's only a matter of time before someone finds the flaws and exposes them. Take, for example, the Climategate emails. Even though the Left had the better part of two decades of nodding agreement because of the scientific community, this past year has shown the depths to which the Left will sink to support and maintain their politically-driven "science."

Still waiting for Lindaman to show what exactly the emails showed that proves some vast cover-up. 

I guess Lindaman didn't get the memo: All the inquiries cleared them, and showed they did not tamper with data or exaggerate the threat of global warming.  There was no "Climategate", just as I was saying all along. 

But Lindaman is hoping people won't know or remember that.

Kind of like Fox News.  Not that other media outlets aren't also guilty of spreading right-wing ignorance.

But you're still among the most uninformed.

There's an old computer programming idea that comes to mind here: GIGO. For the uninitiated, it means "Garbage In, Garbage Out." With both of these laughable studies, GIGO appears to be playing out nicely.

With right-wingers and Fox News, it's just "Garbage Out".  You won't even allow information in your clouded noggins.  Your whole philosophy is based on ignorance.

Monday, December 27, 2010

It's Allliiiive!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Back in the heady days of CommonConservative.com, we would run annual awards celebrating the highlights and lowlights of the year.
CommonConservative.com had "heady days"?

Since CommonConservative.com is no more,

You're the anti-Midas!
Just kidding.  You're a guy who slices into liberal illogic with your "quick wit and logical mind".  At least that's what your blurb always said on CommonConservative.com, a blurb totally not written by Lindaman himself.  After all, it's perfectly logical to ignore facts, and parroting other pundits while tacking ":-)" at the end is the ultimate in rapier-like wit.

I wanted to continue the tradition, mainly because it's so much fun to put them together.

As always, you are welcome to comment or add awards of your own. If they're good enough, they may become part of next year's annual awards. So without further ado...

Democrat to Watch: Harry Reid. After retaining his Senate seat and his party retaining control of the Senate, Reid is in a unique position: the only name-brand Democrat with any kind of political clout. President Obama hasn’t used the bully pulpit to bully anyone stronger than BP, and Nancy Pelosi has been relegated to a leadership position with the minority party in the House. It may not help him overcome gridlock, but watching Reid come away from the 2010 elections in the position he’s in now will be great fun indeed.

Democrat to Forget: Nancy Pelosi. From the first woman to be Speaker of the House to being the first woman to be Speaker of the House who oversaw the wholesale crushing of her party in a midterm election. Nancy, here’s a clue for you. Maybe the reason you’ll no longer be Speaker of the House come January is because you suck as a leader.
"Crushing"?  Really?  The Democrats kept control of the Senate!  Bush, Clinton, and Reagan couldn't do that. 

Oh, noes!  We lost Blue Dogs that shouldn't have been elected in their Conservative areas to begin with!  The Blue Dogs as a caucus have been largely worthless.  Take the health care bill. Polls show that a majority of the public doesn't like the health care reform bill. However, when you decouple the actual parts of the bill from the bill itself, an overwhelming majority supports those parts. Clearly, the public has internalized the GOP line about socialism and government-run health care. The obvious strategy is a coordinated effort to advertise the parts of the bill that the public likes and then leverage that into support for the bill. Instead, we had idiot Ben Nelson running around talking about death panels and terrified Democrats clutching their mikes at town hall meetings while some slavering moron screams at them to keep the government out of our medicare!

We saw the same thing with financial reform, student loan reform, climate change legislation, etc. If it was just one issue, it wouldn't be a big deal. But literally every major policy initiative has run afoul of the Blue Dogs. It's almost instinctive that if the President supports something, some Blue Dog is going to pop up and oppose it.

Now, on Pelosi: Pelosi has been the most successful speaker since the 1960s. She's able to accomplish the impossible and consistently whip the votes to pass legislation.

So what gives?  I am genuinely curious to hear a conservative (a smart, reasonable one, not one of you poop-flingers) explain specifically why they hate Pelosi. I mean, it's entirely possible that I missed something and I'd like to know what it is about her that draws so much ire aside from being effective and for the most part liberal. Of course, people despised Ted Kennedy for precisely these reasons - he was a liberal who generally managed to get shit done.

Conservatives hate her because she's a strong, intelligent liberal woman who makes things happen.  Similar to why they hate Obama because he makes them look stupid.

I suppose that Conservatives would prefer to have Dem opposition that is little more than a sock puppet with whom to trade barbs at a podium, and not someone who actually moves and shakes things.

Republican to Watch: Sarah Palin. Last year I picked her as the Republican to Forget, but this past year has made me think she has something else on her plate that would make a 2012 run the last thing on her mind. In the 2010 elections, she had a pretty good track record in picking the winners (around 70-75% if memory serves), and she was instrumental in helping several candidates win. And there are rumors (not circulated by her, by the way) she’s running for President in 2012. Keep an eye on Palin over this upcoming year.
One better keep an eye on Palin, that's for sure. 

Republican to Forget: Christine O’Donnell. Seriously, hang it up. You may not be a witch, but you sure as heck aren’t a serious candidate for public office.
Palin's no better, so why favor her over O'Donnell?

Independents to Watch: The TEA Party movement. After a year where they were mocked, maligned, and slandered by the Left, the TEA Party movement got the last laugh by fielding winning candidates for public office. Now, comes the hard part: governing by the TEA Party standards. If the TEA Party has any legs at all, this upcoming year will prove it.
Anyone who thinks that a "movement" that has network support is still "grassroots" needs to have their damn head examined. Which pretty much explains a great deal of the folks who joined this Astroturf. Seriously. You cannot call yourself "grassroots" when you have a network shilling for you. You cannot call yourself "grassroots" when you have AEI Fellows shilling for you--or rather, your leaders disguise their own shilling for the AEI as their own positions.

Dissatisfaction in the ranks as folks realize that they've been hoodwinked? Yeah, that's going to be ugly if the hicks realize how badly you rooked them. Which is sort of the point. The Teabaggers is the only way for Neocons to preserve anything like control or power. By harnessing dissatisfaction with the very policies that they advocated, they ride the tiger and point it anywhere that isn't on themselves. Supporting rebranded Neocon ideas and policies ISN'T grassroots. And the record for failure on those policies doesn't make them any more appealing, save if you wrap them up a bit in flag and Jesus, but no matter how you rebrand them, they remain the same policies that have failed.

Neoconservatism can try to hide its agenda within these folks, but it remains the radicalized idiocy that is steeped in ideology over reason. It remains the same policies that have led us to this recession and two wars, while coupling with another radicalized agenda with the Religious Right. It doesn't add up to rationale debate or reasonable policy that is far reaching and forward looking. Rebranding radical ideas as "Conservatism" may work for a while, but it when the risks that you've taken with the economy and domestic policy keep coming home from such a radical position, then you have to examine if these policies have any real basis.

And we keep seeing these radical policies unraveling. Because they are NOT prudent, thoughtful, or particularly Conservative positions. The one thing that these radicals have done is successfully repackaged what are terribly radical ideas that despise our government and Constitution, and painted it as both Conservative and patriotic. And they are truly neither, and I welcome the day when folks realize this and return to reasonable Conservative positions, based on fact, based on the Constitution, and based on long term planning.

“Independents” to Forget: The “No Labels” movement. The great irony of the “No Labels” rally recently was they lamented partisanship…while being partisan attack dogs. You guys are about as independent as Michael Moore, but at least you’re as full of crap as he is.
Notice how Lindaman can't specify how Moore is full of crap, BTW.  What's the matter, can't link up to some bullshit freeper anti-MM website?

As far as the "No Labels" movement: It's only non-partisan when promoted by Fox news, right?

But, unlike the "non-partisan" Tea Party, this at least has opposition members in it.

Reality tends to have a liberal bias. The nature of conservatism makes it irrational, and as such it is inherently opposed to reality.

This isn't a surprise; any party that wants to focus on inclusion is naturally going to appear liberal when compared to the party of "Screw everyone else, I want mine."

Thanks to the radical goalpost-shifting of modern conservatism, "non-partisan" and "Democratic" are essentially equivalent. Bernie Sanders is the most left-wing politician in Congress but by objective standards he's a center-left technocrat.

There is no left-wing in the US and we're in worse shape because of it.
Why am I not surprised that the people who feel most threatened by a group that pushes for non-partisan solutions are... the Republicans? lol

Underreported Story: the Obama Administration’s bungling of the Gulf Coast oil spill. It’s no secret (except to those who still worship Obama) the President lacks certain leadership skills, not the least of which being knowing when to lead. The Gulf Coast oil spill was a ready-made issue he could have used to showcase his leadership, but instead he let others take care of it for him, and they blew it. Sending lawyers and Homeland Security personnel to the Gulf Coast before sending down the EPA? Monumentally dumb.
It's not the EPA's job, dingaling. 

Blaming BP? Dumber still.
BP is to blame because it's THEIR fucking responsibility.

The photo ops in lieu of actual policy? Even dumber.
First you blame Obama for not being vocal enough, then when he is, you say it's a "photo-op" just as I predicted you would.  Idiot.

Pushing for a moratorium of offshore oil drilling? The mother of all stupidity.
That's capitalism, bub.  If you show you can't drive, you can't have the keys.  Sorry!

For you Leftists who think Michael Brown was a disaster for the Bush Administration, he was competent compared to the multiple missteps by the Obama Administration to address the Gulf Coast oil spill.

They were on the scene as soon as the accident occurred and immediately started saving workers, and trying to contain the spill once they learned that it was leaking as much as it was. The Coast Guard rescued scores from that doomed platform before it sank.  That's with no notice at all.  Brown had two weeks.
And Obama got a shitload of money for the victims.  Which I'm sure pisses you right-wingers off to no end, since in your eyes, the victims are BP.  You know, the ones that killed eleven workers.
They handled things just fine.

Overreported Story: Wikileaks. With the release of secret and embarrassing information, Wikileaks became a major story overnight, and it seems as though every day there’s some new scandal arising from Wikileaks (“Lindsey Lohan Consulted on China Policy”). Given the amount of attention paid to this matter, Julian Assage couldn’t have asked for better advertising, but I think we could have done with a bit more actual reporting instead of the multitude of half-stories regarding Wikileaks.

That's what's great about getting news from the internet, you can filter the junk.

Unreported Story: the overuse of the race card. The Left has never been scared to play the race card whenever it was useful to their agenda. This year, anything became an excuse to use the race card. Obama getting criticized? It’s because of racism.

But Beck's the one that wondered if Obama hates white people and white culture.  Remember?

People opposing the Ground Zero mosque? It’s because of racism.
No, bigotry.  Two different things.

The TEA Party movement gaining favor with the American people? It’s because of racism.
And stupidity and ignorance, don't forget that.

And the more they use it, the less effective it became.
1. Right-wingers take video of Al Sharpton talking about equality, and state it's about black people wanting free stuff.
2. Right-wingers fall over themselves to keep an AZ law that has racial profiling.
3. Black male John Lewis states he was called the n-word and was spat upon. Right-wingers fall over themselves and say he's lying by default.
4. Right-wingers post old National Geographic footage of a New Black Panther party member being a dick, and say that's somehow connected to the NAACP.
5. Right-winger Breitbart posts video deliberately cut down to falsely imply a black member of the NAACP is racist. Right-wingers add on and falsely say the NAACP is cheering and applauding her racist comments.
6. Right-wing Fox News's website and right-wing Fox Nation immediately run with the right-wing Breitbart story. After the video is proven deceptive, Right-wingers pretend this didn't happen.
7. Right-wingers want to stop a community center that's two city blocks away from Ground Zero, because it's Islamist and has a prayer room.
8. Dr. Laura spews the n-word, and right-wingers defend her.
And that was just within about a month.

Man of the Year: George W. Bush. When the Left isn’t attacking him for every bad thing that has ever happened from the economy to them not getting a bike for Christmas when they were 7, Bush is starting to carve a place in history by being right. One of the funnier aspects of the Wikileaks scandal that isn’t getting covered by the media is how Wikileaks actually produced proof there were WMDs in Iraq.
Nope.  It was nothing that wasn't already known.  And regarding that, here's a brief primer for the tards.

Combine that with the fact President Obama publicly joined the pro-tax cut bandwagon by pushing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts, it’s clear Bush has earned the Man of the Year Award for being a better and more influential President than his critics want to admit. Miss him yet?
You mean the tax cuts that cost more than the stimulus?

Again, the GOP is willing to let everyone's taxes go up rather than give up tax cuts for the highest income bracket. They will blame Obama for this bullshit because they are lying, disingenuous assholes.

You are aware that the Republicans now control the House, aren't you? That means the Republicans can simply present Obama with a choice: either veto any extensions to the cuts, or accept extensions to all the cuts. Raising taxes during an economic downturn is hardly orthodox left-wing economics. The Democrats have long wanted an extension of the "middle class" tax cuts--they only opposed extending the tax cuts on the top brackets. Obama, indeed, promised not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 during the election. So to present this as a simple black and white, good and evil choice for Obama is fatuous. He can either raise taxes on everyone, which certainly has some good effects from the p.o.v of the deficit, but which also risks putting the brakes on the economic recovery at a dangerous time, and definitely hurts the middle class that Obama had promised to try to help. Or he can extend the tax cuts for everyone, which is probably better from the p.o.v of the economic recovery, but which makes the deficit problem worse.

This is a tricky political and economic calculation, and it has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not Obama is "willing to play hardball" or "is being wimp" or any of the other no-brain children's playground analyses you are so wedded to.

So how much of a surrender was Obama's deal with Republicans? 48% of the compromise was stuff Obama wanted, 13% was stuff Republicans wanted, and 39% was stuff both parties wanted going in.

It had to be done.  Franken explained this best.

R. I. P.: global warming as a scientific certainty. For decades, the Left has been riding its high horse on global warming by citing scientist after scientist stating global warming was real and manmade. Three little words changed that forever: “hide the decline.” With the Climategate scandal where climate scientists out of England were caught fudging results and weren’t able to produce their evidence (a big no-no in the scientific community, by the way), the Left’s high horse has become a Shetland Pony. Ginning up results to promote a position that cannot be justified isn’t good science.
Yet when I asked Lindaman what "hide the decline" meant, and what was wrong with it, he didn't answer.  Why?  Because he didn't know.  Right-wingers just repeat soundbites like "hide the decline" and hope nobody else knows what it means, either. 
Here's what it meant:  The "decline" was the decline of reliability of tree ring data compared to instrumental temperature data after 1960 (the data becomes more and more divergent). So they didn't use that unreliable data, in order to maintain accuracy. Again I ask: what's wrong with that? If they didn't hide the decline, the output would've been inaccurate. Heck, they're not even hiding the unreliable data, because you can get it elsewhere. They're just not using the unreliable data. Would you prefer they used the decline? That would make things inaccurate! So again I ask: what's wrong with hiding the decline?

If they didn't "hide the decline", it would have made global warming look WORSE.  Are you getting it through your fat head yet?  You're criticizing them for not using unreliable data that would have made the case for manmade global warming even stronger!  You are criticizing them for not having a manmade global warming propaganda agenda, and being honest.
I also remember when Lindaman was cheering for Penn State's inquiry of Dr. Mann.  I said "Good!" because I also wanted an inquiry, as I knew he would be cleared (because I actually read the emails, ya see).  Sure enough, Mann was cleared.  Lindaman clammed up and said nothing.  Big shocker!  Of course, even if Lindaman had said anything, he would just say they were in on the Big But Simple Conspiracy.

Flash in the Pan: Obama’s global presence. Since his election, Obama has been touted as a departure from George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy,” which would (according to his followers) bring about America’s return to dignified status in the world community. Of course, that isn’t what happened. World leaders treat Obama as badly, if not worse, than they treated Bush. Even our allies have a hard time taking Obama seriously. A stark contrast to the fawning media coverage of Obama’s European trip when he was running for President, to be sure.
He backs this up with nothing.

The Real Deal: net neutrality. You may not have heard a lot about this subject this year, but it is a vital issue. Leftists are suggesting the government needs to step in to guarantee Internet service providers treat all data the same way instead of picking and choosing what data gets preferential treatment. On the surface, it’s a nice idea, but after a deeper review, it loses a lot of its appeal when you think about the implications of the federal government dictating to private industry how they are to provide a service. And just think, kids. There are some Leftists who think the “net neutrality” proposal already on the table isn’t strict enough.
The use of the term Net Neutrality is just wrong in 99% of its applications in the media when they refuse to differentiate between content filtering and bandwidth capping/throttling.

Since the barrier to entry in the ISP market is so high, it is likely necessary to have some regulation necessary to preserve the openness of the market and preserve the free-flow of information.

But yeah, get people worked up over this by being dishonest instead of getting them worked up over the absolutely PATHETIC state of broadband access in the United States. Great idea!

To recap: In 2010, Net Neutrality suddenly became a huge talking point with right-wing crazies. Right-wingers going on big rants about how this was apparently Obama taking control of the Internet. Apparently the week or so before Christmas the Rush Limbaugh show and several other right wing talk shows got marching orders from their friends at Comcast. There was no actual mention of net neutrality or what the FCC was trying to do, it was all a bunch of nonsense about how Obama was trying to single handed take control of the Internet, and how the FCC would start blocking access to websites of opponents.

Do you want your internet provider to be able to limit your access to certain websites unless you paid a higher amount every month?  No?  Then clam up. The government isn't 'regulating the internet'. The FCC is trying to make sure that various corporations don't fuck over consumers.

You see, right-wingers have an irrational fear of the "Government" and believe that the "free market" will save them, despite the fact that there's very little ISP competition in most areas. Nobody is asking for the FCC to take control of everything, but merely make a statement that no one shall discriminate among web traffic and that consumers are entitled to the bandwidth that they PAID FOR. You see, right-wingers?  This stance actually supports your position to have unfettered access to FreeRepublic and Glenn Beck's site.

For the last time, retards: It's regulation of the actions of ISPs to prevent them from manipulating the content of the internet. It's not regulation of the content of the internet.

Raw Deal: The TEA Party being responsible for the GOP not taking back the Senate. A common theme with the Left and some members of the Right is that the TEA Parties cost the GOP control of the Senate, thanks to the campaigns of TEA Party favorites Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. The problem with that line of thought is the TEA Party wouldn’t be necessary if the GOP (especially those who claim the TEA Party cost the GOP the Senate) hadn’t sold out to the Left. Some of the people the GOP establishment were pushing were nothing more than the same RINOs the party faithful have been complaining about for decades. And given how the GOP Establishment wasn’t too keen on helping Angle and O’Donnell on winning, maybe the TEA Party wasn’t the problem. Maybe, just maybe, it was the GOP Establishment.

Missed Opportunity: For the second year in a row, Republicans completely botched the TEA Party situation. Political operatives on the Right started acting and sounding like Leftists when it came to the TEA Party’s influence on the 2010 elections. Instead of taking their concerns seriously, Republicans treated them like lost children needing to be taken home (i.e. back to the GOP voting ranks). They just don’t get it. There wouldn’t be a need for the TEA Party if Republicans acted like, well, Republicans. Until Republicans get this concept, watch for more missed opportunities with the TEA Party.
Teabaggers: The Republicans are ignoring you:


Courting the Christian rubes and then ditching them when it's over is a Reagan invention. And they still support him, being the uneducated retards that they are.

And you can tell the Tea Party is being dumped. Palin is being dumped too. There's at least 21 months left until the next election and the Teabaggers will be called on when their Republican Masters tell them who to vote for. The Teabaggers never got that when you threaten not to vote or to vote for the other guy, sometimes you have to show an example of that power they speak of. That power, according to 2010, is that they can put their people into high places only when they do it on the sly or among other Republicans. If they threaten the Party Masters and then all vote for Obama in 2012, that might get them some juice to use for 2014. But as it stands, the Teabaggers are the base, like it or not. You don't have to cater to them at all. All you need to do is promise them the moon or offer them to vote for the Other that they hate. Not rocket science, and it works when your base is full of people who are deaf to any opposition, think that the Republican Party is 'their own' that they have to free, and are toothless because their threats simply don't matter.

The Teabaggers are the very emblems of the sad Republican base in this country: they have a lot of talk, but no action. They threaten violence, they threaten a lot, but in the end they're ineffectual fatasses without any teeth. They like to play revolutionary but they are the essential shiat of the American populace: useless, shiftless, projecting their own hatred onto others, but unable to do anything because they are simply too lazy. Even the Party Masters know this and use it to great effect. Now, when Palin's out of the way, they'll simply vote for whomever has the R in their name. Rinse and Repeat, it seems, is what the R really stands for.

I would laugh, but it's so sad. It'll be wiped from history in a few months anyway, right after they start the cheering chorus for their next Master to be pushed into the White House unsuccessfully.
You know... the rich people who need the Republican Party have got to be sick from all this Teabagger nonsense.

In order to garner enough votes to control anything, the rich folks have had to align themselves with all of the right-wing kooks -- the fundies, tea baggers, "Constitutional conservatives", etc...

When you boil it down, it all amounts to one thing: Money. The rich people don't want to pay taxes. They want to keep all of their money to themselves and live in comfort and opulent luxury. That's it. They don't care about "conservative issues" and they don't care about any of the other baloney hot-button topics. It's about not wanting to pay taxes. It's about making as much money as possible and piling up as much wealth as possible and not having to give/pay anything back to the country for it.

The problem they're having is, that as they consolidate true wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people, the Republican Party must come up with more creative ways of drawing in the numbers of voters they need to stay in control. This means that they've had to go after every right-wing nutjob they can find, using every trick they can come up with. They incur a tremendous amount of baggage having to associate themselves with these people, but they need the votes.

I wonder what all the kooks in the GOP would think if they knew how the true party leadership (the folks with the money) really feel about all of their petty causes.

It's all about the money. It's not about the Constitution... or abortion... or guns... or small government... or religion... or any of that stuff. It's about money.

Defining Moment: Glenn Beck’s 8/28 rally in Washington, DC. Although the TEA Party gatherings had an impact on this year, it was Beck’s 8/28 rally that opened a lot of people’s eyes to just how many people felt America needed to get back on a proper course. Hard attendance numbers vary from the laughable CBS-concocted number to the overly optimistic conservative numbers, but it’s safe to say Beck’s rally was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 people gathered together for a non-partisan purpose. That showed people on both sides of the political aisle there are people unhappy with the way the country’s being run, and they will be holding everyone accountable.
CBS didn't "concoct" the number, liar. 

CBS News was the only media outlet to hire a professional overhead photography company (AirPhotosLive) that specialized in estimating crowd size. Their consultant used well-established methods in making his estimate, which was double and triple checked. They also do documented time-lapsed aerial analysis of people entering/exiting. They have done similar crowd estimates for Homeland Security in the past. They're as close to unbiased as it comes.

The other crowd estimates for Beck's rally were completely anecdotal.

All of the neutral professional estimators put the Beck rally at under 100k. The three professionals hired to estimate the crowd averaged out at 76k. The “liberal” CBS went with the highest estimate of 87,000.

Here's the methodology by AirPhotosLive. Try to dispute it (he won't): http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html
And you lost the ability to call it "non-partisan" when you right-wingers marching in lock-step with the Republicans tried to half-assed compare the Beck rally with a little known liberal rally (while leaving out that the actual counter-rally had two and a half times more people than Beck's).

Stuck on Stupid: Anthony Weiner (D-NY). With a virtual one man war against Glenn Beck and Goldline, Weiner has shown himself to be arrogant, dismissive of any opinion that doesn’t match his own, and completely in over his head against anyone with a lick of sense. In other words, Democrats have a new Alan Grayson to replace the original after he got booted in the midterm elections for…well, for acting like Weiner is now. At least in Anthony’s case, his last name is pretty accurate for the kind of man he is.
Ooooo that's original!
You hate Weiner for the same reason you hate every Dem that doesn't roll over for Republican retards: Because he calls you shitkickers out.  Funny how you don't dispute anything Weiner or Grayson said.
Now sit down.

The Bottom Line Award: Chris Christie. The New Jersey Governor has raised a lot of eyebrows since taking control of the state, but he has maintained his brutal honesty and lack of concern over the opinion of those predisposed to condemn him for his political ideology.
Of course, if he was a Democrat, you would say he was "arrogant, dismissive of any opinion that doesn’t match his own, and completely in over his head against anyone with a lick of sense."

He’s shown integrity in government, honor in defending women against Leftist boors, and generally shown the traits that make up the Bottom Line Award.
Yeah, like going to Disneyworld while Jersey freezes to death.  "HURR HURR, SO MUCH FOR ALL HANDS ON DECK!"

The Anna Nicole Smith Lifetime Achievement Award: Christine O’Donnell. From cute-as-a-button spoiler in Delaware to cute-as-a-button buffoon, all in the span of a few months. In retrospect, it seems she never quite understood the media environment that came after her and continues to make Joe Biden-sized gaffes at the most inopportune times. And with rumors surrounding her lack of financial acumen (read: potential misappropriation of funds), O’Donnell has certainly set back women in politics significantly.
Meh, the stuff coming out of her mouth wasn't much different from what we normally hear from right-wingers.

The Dan Rather Award for “Excellence” in Media: Rick Sanchez. The former CNN anchor made quite an impact this year, mainly because of his ham-fisted buffoonery. He lost his job at CNN because he said Jews run the media, as evidenced by Jon Stewart. Of course, Stewart caused a stir by pointing out just how vapid Sanchez was and then laughing about it on “The Daily Show.” Here’s a clue for you, Rick. Maybe the reason you were mocked for being such a moron…is because you’re a moron. And now, you’re an unemployed moron because you let your ego get in the way of doing your job. Congratulations, Rick. You’ve earned this award.
Rick Sanchez is just a poor man's Steve Doocy anyway. At least Doocy is dumber than a box of old dentures AND unintentionally funny.

The DEE DEE DEE Award: Alan Grayson. Take a smug Congressman, add a Leftist mean streak to beat the band, and throw in a tone-deaf approach to the electorate…and you’d have a pale imitation of Alan Grayson. He may have been the darling of Leftist radio and TV shows, but he forgot to consider what the electorate wanted him to do and it cost him his job. At least he’ll have a future on MSNBC.
The only reason Grayson got elected in such a Conservative area, was because the incumbent he beat was a crook.  Republicans hate Grayson because he does the same things they do, only better.

The “It Looked Better on Paper” Award: Obamacare. Any time the government gets involved in health care, the results usually don’t turn out that well (case in point: Medicare). Now, thanks to Obamacare, we’ll all get the same attention to swift, quality customer service in health care that we get at the DMV. And when you get to the bottom of it, Obamacare really doesn’t do anything to address the problems in the health care arena, but does a lot to enrich the very people Obama and his Democrat allies were demonizing throughout the debate over Obamacare.
"Doesn't do anything"?  Here's five things that have already kicked in:

1. Insurance companies can't deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Children can remain covered under parents' policies until 26.
3. Insurers can't terminate coverage.
4. Insurers can't cap lifetime benefits.
5. Insurers can't charge for preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies.
That's five more things than you guys would ever bring to the table.  You're too busy desperately trying (and failing) to defend BP's murdering of workers.

The Padded Resume Award: Barack Obama. The more we see him try to be Presidential, the more we see how little actual experience he brings to the table. From “Hope” and “Change” to “Hope we can change Presidents soon.”
Backed up by nothing.

The 14:59 Award: Andy Warhol once said everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, but some personalities are quickly running out of their allotted time. This award celebrates one such personality. This year’s award goes to the “Octomom,” Nadya Suleman. Her claim to fame is dubious at best, and it seems she’s on the verge of eviction from her home in Southern California. Wow. Who would have guessed a media-created “celebrity” could be so bad with money?

One word: Idiocracy.  That's why I know the Republicans will have another president someday.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Chickity China The Chinese Chicken

Thomas Lindaman writes:

I've often said Leftists aren't good with an economy because they don't understand the basics of economics.

TARP has been an overwhelming success. The same goes for the Stimulus, which has apparently saved somewhere around 3 million jobs. The car bailout turns out to have been a good thing too. The bailouts kept us from going off the cliff. The lack of bailouts in Europe still have them toeing the edge. History will show who was right.  Healthcare reform will also ultimately save this country a good deal of money, if you self-absorbed corporate anarchist bastards don't manage to kill it in the House.

Essentially the Republican plan is to keep things just the way they are now--no better, no worse--until they can get into office in 2012 and take credit for fixing the economy. If the American people have to suffer, so be it. After all, we had the gall to elect a Democrat in 2008, we deserve whatever befalls us.

Republicans are the party of people who don't know how to manage their (inherited) wealth, and rapists. The rapists thing really surprised me, but they are what they vote.

Republicans understand the basics of economics? Are you going to fix it the way you fixed it last time?

Almost Zero Job Creation Under Bush

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost _ decade_f.html


Stock Market Was The Worst Ever Under Bush


Bush Produced The Worst Economy In Decades


IMF Declared America To Be In A Depression 2 Weeks After Bush Left Office


But tell us more about "the basics of economics", you REPUBLICANS you.

This was made abundantly clear recently with a quiet little event that caught very little attention.

The EU's economy is tanking as badly as ours is. To help matters, America is sending money to some of the EU's banks as a means to help them along. Of course, the first big question is where we are going to get the money since we're still recovering from our own economic downturn. The short answer is...we don't know.

There's another question that should concern us all. As we've seen, the dollar has been losing its value in recent years. While the Left said it was bad under George W. Bush, the Left has said it's great under Barack Obama because a weak dollar stimulates trade by making our products cheaper. However, no one will be forced to buy our products, even if they are cheaper because it's a free market. People have a vested interest in buying products at a lower price, but they're not bound to it.

Now, for the question. What impact will a weak dollar have on the money we're sending to the EU? The answer lies with the Chinese. Right now, China owns a lot of our debt, due to the political and economic bungling of both President Bushs, Bill Clinton, and now Obama. By granting Most Favored Nation status to China, we've given them access to our economy.

And here's the punchline, kids. China will use that against us.

At any time, China can call in our debt, meaning we either need to pay them in full or they essentially own us. And they have told us to watch our spending in recent months. Extending a monetary helping hand to the EU isn't exactly being miserly, especially considering how poorly the dollar has fared against the Euro.

Now for the question. What would happen if China decided to call in our debt after floating a loan to the EU?

The short answer: nothing good.

The longer answer: it would ruin two major global economies, leaving China as a sole economic superpower. America would be unable to pay its debt to China and unable to pay its loan to the EU. The latter, in turn, would cause the EU's economy to continue its death spiral until it either pulled itself together and pulled out of it or crashed and burned. The instability of the EU right now makes the latter the more likely outcome. China will have beaten us and the EU without even firing a shot.

So, does anyone else want to rethink our generosity to the EU?

Well, the United States could do the same thing and "demand payment" of all our debts. 

It won't happen.  Not by us or by China.  Because we both know that doing so would destroy the worldwide economy.

How could China remain an economic superpower, if the economy of the world has collapsed?  It would ruin their own economy, as well.  Fortunately China understands economics better than right-wingers.

As far as the EU: Allies help each other out, that's what allies do.  Helping to stave a worldwide economic collapse not only helps them, it also helps us.

And one last thing: It's a loan.  We're not just "sending money."

I say let's finally start calling out the Chinese for the problems their currency manipulation has caused for industrialized economies all over the world. America could use a good scapegoat these days anyway, and the Chinese are infinitely more deserving than the (very ugly) anti-Islam sentiment going around lately.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Hang It Up, Charlie

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Today's House Ethics Committee hearing about the alleged crimes of Rep. Charles Rangel took an interesting turn as Rangel walked out of the hearing, citing a desire for legal representation and objecting to the Committee denying it to him. At first, I had the reaction a lot of people did: shock and amusement.

Yet, if you really think about it, Rangel's actions today were part of a brilliant political move designed to minimize the damage to himself and the Democratic Party. At this point, I honestly do not believe Rangel ever intended to testify before the House Ethics Committee because to do so would have meant he would be under oath. Lying to Congress could be grounds for a contempt of Congress charge, which would have made things a lot tougher on Rangel. What he needed was a way for his side of the story to get an airing, but not subject himself to the possibility of lying under oath to Congress.

That's where Rangel had an ace up his sleeve, or to be more precise, two. The chair of the House Ethics Committee is Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). Until Republicans fill that position in January, Lofgren is still the Chair, which means she controls how things will go. That gives Rangel at least one sympathetic ear. The other ace is Blake Chisam, the staff director and chief counsel of the House Ethics Committee. He has direct ties to...you guessed it, Zoe Lofgren. And as Rangel's primary defender before the Committee, he was the voice Rangel needed. That made Rangel bulletproof, politically speaking. He had nobody at home who would take him to task (he won reelection handily in his home District), and the likelihood of the House Ethics Committee punishing him beyond a slap on the wrist during a lame duck session of Congress was high. He really didn't need to be there, so he made a scene and walked out.

This was the best defense he could have concocted, and he played it brilliantly. It also takes a lot of heat off the Democrats because it would have been harder and harder for them to defend him if the hearing went on beyond a day or two. As it stands, the Ethics Committee should be ruling on the matter by the end of the week, thus putting the issue behind the Democrats once and for all.

He may be a dishonest scumbag, but I have to give Charles Rangel credit for such a brilliant political move.

You're probably right that Rangel never intended to testify.

As far as I am concerned if the voters of a district want to send anyone at all, they have the right; if he is bent, then it is up to them to vote him out.

In the spirit of that, the Supreme Court should be able to send a rep back to his district to stand in a special reelection. That should be the ultimate sanction, but if he wins reelection then that is that.

The only time someone should be forbidden from taking up a Congress post is if they are actually currently incarcerated. In that circumstance they should be forbidden from attending Congress till their release, but on release should be back in their seat. Of course being incarcerated should trigger a special election.

The reason ethics violations don't get you banned from Congress is that it is up to the voters of a district to decide who to send to Congress, not up to Congress to decide who it wants. If mere ethics violations (as opposed to breaking the law) were punished by expulsion every time it would have the effect of the majority (who can decide ethics rules) having too much control over membership, which in turn partially disenfranchises the voters by allowing their congressman to be done in by his political opponents rather than them.

It would devolve to the point where the majority party would bring ethics charges against any Congressman where they thought they could change the dynamics of that district enough to win the seat.

Charlie, you're 80 years old. You've been serving in the House for almost 40 years. Go home.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010


Lindaman writes:

In the aftermath of last Tuesday's midterm elections, a new narrative has come from the Obama camp: the election results were due to bad communication from the White House to the American people. The idea is if they had communicated their successes more effectively, voters wouldn't have voted for Republicans overwhelmingly.

On the one hand, they have a point. The Obama Administration has a communication problem, one they have suffered with since Obama took the Oath of Office. On the campaign trail, the Obama team was effective in packaging a message and getting it out to the people. We may not have agreed with the message, but it cannot be denied that Obama's campaign communication team was a well-oiled machine.

Once in office, however, Obama has suffered with communication missteps, many of which can be left at the feet of former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. While the communication during the campaign was accessible to everyone, the post-campaign communication has become smug, snarky, and condescending towards anyone who holds a contrary view. Look at the Obama Administration's treatment of Fox News, for example. Whether it was the occasional off-handed remark about whether Fox News is a legitimate news network or the more ham-fisted attempts to treat Fox News as illegitimate, the Obama Administration spent a lot more time attacking a cable news network than they did in articulating a message related to their efforts. That shows a poor communication strategy designed not to trumpet their successes, but bleat out a poor tuba solo and blame it on others.

While I admit the Obama Administration's communication hasn't been as effective as it should have been, I can't completely chalk up the midterm election results to it. A huge part of any communication strategy is determining the message to send to the intended audience, while containing as well as possible any unintended messages. In the absence of the former, the latter becomes the message by default. We can argue about what the Obama Administration has done, but it means little if the source of those accomplishments isn't talking. That cedes the ground to third parties on both sides of the aisle, which can lead to a distortion of the intended message.

In this case, the message that was conveyed to the public was a disjointed mess of Leftist arrogance, partisan fear-mongering, and rampant hypocrisy. Combined with the TEA Party's rhetoric energizing people to get involved and the way the political winds tend to shift in midterm elections, it was assumed the Democrats would suffer losses. The question was how many.

Chalking up the political drubbing Obama's party received last Tuesday on a failure to communicate is appropriate, but only to an extent. If Obama wants to avoid another setback for his party (and possibly himself) in 2012, he'll need to address the communication issues within his own circle of power soon.

As expected, Republicans gained seats.  The Democrats got Health Care and Financial Reform passed by spending their 'Political Capital' on that (heck of a lot better than pointless wars). Of course there was a backlash to that in addition to the usual anti-incumbency due to Americans wanting instant gratification.
But there IS good news here.  The Democrats kept control of the Senate.  This was something Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were unable to do, which is a good reflection that people still aren't crazy about the Republicans taking total control. And Pelosi, Frank, Reid, and Boxer made it.  Wasn't the bloodbath some folks were predicting.
This will also secure Obama's second term.  Whew!
Come 2012, he'll have something to point at while the Republicans won't have much at all to point at except obstructionism and birth certificates.

And finally:

Percent of Dem member losses: Progressives 5%, Blue Dogs 45%.
Percent of Dem members returning: Progressives 95%, Blue Dogs 46%

To that, I say HOORAY!  The plurality of opinion regarding health care reform, wall street reform, and economic stimulus has not been that Democrats and the Obama administration went too far, it is that they did not go far enough. Losing House control was worth it even to get that message out.  Dems also criticize our own elected officials, instead of just blaming everything on the other guy.

It must really suck to be a Democratic Party politician. None of the fawning ignorance, blind support, and your voters/donors won't support you if you don't vote the way they want.

Obama gave people tax cuts. Obama reduced the deficit. In 2008, we on average lost 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. But people don't know this, no matter how many times they're told. 

The reason Democrats have a "communication" problem, is because the majority of people are simply stupid and/or ignorant.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Seen Juan, Seen ‘Em All

Lindaman writes:

As I'm sure you've heard, National Pubic Radio has fired commentator Juan Williams for comments he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that they felt were "inconsistent with its editorial standards and practices." What did Williams say that was so beyond the pale for NPR?


Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Later in that same segment, Williams also took O'Reilly to task for his statement on "The View" where he painted Muslims as terrorists, saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Timothy McVeigh.

First off, I'm not a fan of Mr. Williams' politics by any stretch of the imagination. But I will stand behind him on his firing because, in truth, his "offense" was taken out of context. When combined with his statement about Christians not being responsible for McVeigh (an odd comparison to make, but that's a blog post for another time), Williams doesn't come off as bigoted as NPR seems to think he is.

It's not unlike the Shirley Sherrod situation where her comments were taken out of context

By a right-wing website.

and used as justification for her to lose her job with the Department of Agriculture.

“Used as justification”? What are you implying here?

Personally, I think Sherrod should have lost her job for reasons other than the comments she made at a meeting of the NAACP, but that's neither here nor there. The Juan Williams situation bears an eerie resemblance to the Shirley Sherrod situation in one important way.

Shirley Sherrod tells a story about how she had a change of heart and abandoned her justified racism and is fired hastily based on an edited tape and for that, she is racist. Juan Williams on the other hand says a personal, bigoted statement with the credentials of a corporation (NPR) in a public forum in full context and is fired by his company, but he’s not a bigot? Must have been because the former was about white people while the latter about Muslims, who we all know are not people, right? Funny, i didn't hear clapping (like that dipshit Breitbart said repeatedly) in that edited video.

The Agriculture Department fired Sherrod before they had the full story. Sherrod's comments were made at an obscure event, and the full video didn't emerge before Sherrod was asked to resign. Thus, they made their decision based solely on the out of context clip posted on the right-wing Breitbart's site (and Fox News.com). By contrast, Williams made his statement on a national cable broadcast -- NPR had access to as much context as they wanted.

It was white Leftists doing the firing in both cases.

Seems our lily white friends on the Left have no problem dumping a person of color when they become "radioactive," even when the comments in question are taken out of context and whipped up into a frothy glass of self-righteous indignation. But Leftists never take someone's words out of context and creates straw man arguments out of them, right? I mean, aside from Media Matters...and the Huffington Post...and DailyKos...and DemocraticUnderground...and MoveOn.org...okay, you get the picture.

This comment by Lindaman is pretty funny, considering when asked to prove Media Matters was dishonest, he had to use a proven Anti-Semite (Andy Martin) as a source… because Media Matters said he was, well, an Anti-Semite.

As of this posting, our good friends at the NAACP have yet to weigh in on the Williams firing, but I'm sure they're working on their statement as we speak. Unless, of course, they're too busy whipping up more racist lies about the TEA Parties. Then, their response might be delayed, but I'm sure it will be lightning fast when they do it.

“Racist lies?” Do tell!

- Virtually no demonstrated Teabagger anger at GW Bush
-The Mark Williams letter
-Teabagger Sarah Palin attacks the NAACP and makes no mention of Williams' letter
-Tea Party Gingrich/Beck embrace D'Souza’s racist article
-Paladrino racist emails
-Rand Paul’s anti Civil Rights position
-VA Beach Teabagger Republican racist black dog email
-Texas Tea Party voter intimidation against minorities
-POTUS attacked as "angel of Death” by Colorado TP group
-Dick Armey accuses Democratic Minority early voters of voter fraud
-Several racist Billboards against POTUS this year
-Viral attacks against NAACP for seeing racist elements in TP
-TP racism always denied by TP leaders( ex M. Williams)
-TP defends Breitbart and O'Keefe
-TP only sees racism in NAACP,POTUS,Holder,Sotomayor, Michelle Obama

While I'm sure Mr. Williams isn't holding his breath waiting for the NAACP's statement, plenty of people from both sides of the aisle are upset with NPR's rash action, as we should be. Williams was fired for nothing more than expressing an honest personal opinion within the context of a larger conversation, a conversation I might add that the Left doesn't want. NPR's actions reek of the same reflexive desperation that Shirley Sherrod faced from the Department of Agriculture, and I see the same result coming. The white Leftists will eventually cave and give Williams his job back in the hopes that everything will be forgiven and forgotten.

Let's hope Juan Williams forgives, but never forgets.

It's about time NPR fired Juan! Long overdue.

The 9/11 hijackers weren't dressed in "traditional Muslim garb" (whatever THAT is). They blended in. Too bad bigots like Juan don't understand that.

Juan's comments are the equivalent of "If I see a black man dressed in a way I don't like, I get nervous when I'm near him." I guarantee you if a white liberal candidate said that, Fox and right-wing bloggers would be all over him.

Fox is upset about this, of course. Fox is mad because Juan appeared on Fox frequently (being Bill O'Reilly's little bitch), thus Fox could claim they had a black "Democrat" on there. Liberals knew better, of course. Now Juan's credibility is gone, and Fox has lost even more credibility.

Williams was not a "commentator" like Glenn Beck, therefore he has to have journalistic integrity. Williams knew the rules at NPR on how to conduct himself. Williams had been previously warned about making statements which were in violation of NPR rules. Juan's recent comments destroyed any sense of impartiality he may have had, and his statements damage the integrity of NPR. They had every right to fire him.

And before right-wingers try to say it: No, NPR is not federally funded. It's public and privately funded. It's a non profit, private organization, not a government one. The ONLY government money they get adds up to less than 2% of their budget, and comes from federal grants, which they compete for, to support specific programs. Similar to what happens with faith-based initiatives. Even if NPR gets a small amount of public financing, much like a church that receives public money through faith based initiatives, it is not a government entity for purposes of the First Amendment. Getting fired by your employer for saying stupid, bigoted things is not a threat to free speech. That's why it's called the free market, you bootstrappers.

And now Juan is in bigot heaven: Fox News, where credibility and integrity do not matter.

Just like the Sherrod situation, right-wingers are red-faced and absolutely pissed because "leftists" aren't tolerating bigotry and are quick (in Sherrod's case, TOO quick) to dump their trash.

The "leftists" dump bigots, while the right-wingers put them on a pedestal and give them multi-million dollar contracts.

Naturally, right-wingers are going to say NPR is intolerant for being intolerant of intolerance.

Right-wingers sticking up for (and in this case, actually hiring) bigotry yet again. Gotta love it!

Rally… Really?

Lindaman weighs in on the One Nation Coming Together rally. First by making what he calls a “sign”, since he still hasn’t quite figured out how to make Demotivational Posters. Then in his next post, he posts this picture and proceeds with:

Remember when Leftist talk show host Ed Schultz claimed he could get 300,000 people at a rally in Washington, DC, with six months of promotion?

Well, back in June of this year, African-American leaders started talking about organizing a rally to counter Glenn Beck's 8/28 rally. Let's see...late June to early October is...right around 3 1/2 months.

You’re going by the first announcement? Glenn Beck first announced his August 28th, 2010 rally on November 21st, 2009!

Howzabout talking about when they actually publicized it? Ed Schultz first talked about the October 2nd, 2010 rally on MSNBC September 3rd, 2010!

One Nation themselves didn't announce it on their site until September 17th, 2010!

Even with unions and the NAACP busing people in for the rally,

Uh… so? Beck bused people, too. He even bragged about it on his Twitter:


There are free buses for practically every rally (some organized by the event planners, most not). Don't be so naive to think that each and every individual in every rally got there under their own power, at their own expense, from locations all across the US. Any planned event of sufficient size and funding has also taken care of a proportional amount of its attendees' transportation needs.

So why are right-wingers acting like the One Nation busing is so sinister? Just kidding, we get it… the NAACP is evil because they advance colored people, and unions are evil because they protect the working class.

Beck's “grassroots” rally wasn't funded by NewsCorp, MetLife, and the Koch brothers?

Leave it to right wingers to imply that Beck specifically forbade anyone from getting there any other way than walking on their hands.

estimates have the 10/2 rally at around 150,000 people.

What estimates? There were no professional crowd estimators. That number is probably too high.

Oh, I'm sure Ed will come out with an excuse that "we didn't have six months to promote it like Glenn Beck did,"

Six months? I thought you were starting the clock at the first announcement?

but the point is still that they had the time to promote it heavily, and they failed. Even with the "star power" of someone like Ed Schultz,

Ed Schultz has “star power”? *snicker*

they couldn't muster much more than half of what Beck's 8/28 rally garnered.

Are you saying Beck’s rally was 300,000? Beck said it was 500,000! Are you calling Glenn Beck a liar?? Why do you hate America??

(And, no, I don't believe the 87,000 number CBS put out because I've been to the Lincoln Memorial twice now. The length of the reflecting pool alone could accommodate that many people as densely populated as it was at the 8/28 rally.)

So in addition to being an expert on global warming, Lindaman is now a professional crowd estimator?

I do like how you just said “CBS put out”. Funny. “Remember Dan Rather? You can’t trust CBS!” Instead of stating there were actual neutral crowd estimators. We’ll get to that in a minute.

But, I guess it bears repeating. There are only two words that fit yesterday's rally in DC: epic fail.

Then Lindaman posts this picture. Hey, he finally did it! It looks like a Demotivational Poster! Oh, wait… that’s a stolen image, not his.

First, just as a joke, let’s pretend the numbers Lindaman states are correct. Let’s live in an alternate reality where Beck’s crowd attendance was 300,000 and One Nation’s rally was 150,000.

The first television announcements to Beck’s rally was at least six months prior, and had tons of media coverage (especially Fox News). The One Nation rally was first announced on MSNBC less than a month prior, and MSNBC is far less popular than Fox News. So with six times more time in publicizing, with far more televised media publicity, with both rallies having busing, with the One Nation rally being subordinate to the Stewart/Colbert rally, and Beck having media darling Sarah Palin as opposed to washed up singer Harry Bellafonte… Beck was only able to get 300,000 vs 150,000? What a failure!

Okay, enough silliness. Now to the actual reality.

Warning: Reality below. Reality has a liberal bias.

First, what about Schultz vs. Beck? The reality is that Ed Schultz is not nearly as popular as Glenn Beck. Nobody is disputing that. Ed Schultz is relatively unpopular, even among liberals. Most people don’t even know who he is. Idiot or not, Beck is popular. He's a household name, is spoofed in pop culture often, and his followers are so devoted that they leave their churches if their pastor disagrees with Glenn Beck. Why? Because Beck told them to. And they listen unquestioningly. He convinced them social justice is evil even though that's what MLK spent his life fighting for. So of course when he tells them he's "reclaiming the civil rights movement to change the world" they’ll follow. Seems like it’s only right-wing bloggers that are elevating Schultz. Are you going to deny that Beck is more popular than Schultz?

Second, what about media coverage leading up to the rallies? The reality is that Beck's rally had plenty of coverage, not just on Fox, but on all the networks. Not only that, the date alone gave it controversy, which gave it additional publicity. You couldn't go ten minutes without hearing about the Beck rally. The One Nation rally, very little coverage. Are you going to deny that?

Third, what about the fact that the Colbert/Stewart “Restore Sanity” rally was being held the same month? Which rally do you think people were going to travel to see? There have been some pretty damn small Tea Party rallies before the big Beck rally, so it's a pretty unequal comparison to take a random liberal rally that most liberals didn't go to because they'd already made plans to go to a different one a few weeks later. The real competition for the One Nation rally is The Rally to Restore Sanity. One Nation only got the folks who are willing to do two rallies in a month. Are you going to deny that?

Okay, now let’s talk about the reality of the actual attendance of Beck’s rally. Beck claimed 500,000. Some bloggers claimed 1.5 million. Lindaman’s going with some of the news announcements of 300,000.

Right-wingers lying about attendance at their rallies is nothing new. Remember the 9/12 Teabagger march? Right-wingers claimed 2 million people showed up, when it was actually about 65,000. The right-wingers even showed wrong pictures on purpose:


Anyway, because the right-wingers knew the Colbert/Stewart rally was coming… the right-wing blogosphere got the word out to really chat up the lack of attendance at an event no one knew was happening.

"Well, the lieberal lamestream media sure gave it to us good when we fibbed about the 9/12 teabagger rally... so let's take this opportunity to remind everyone that no one showed up to an event that most didn't know about. But since it was left-leaning, clearly a trillion people should have been there because they have nothing better to do. If we're lucky, we can give this horse another whack in a month when the Comedy Central guys who are hosting an event clearly non-seriously on their day off while they happen to be in DC."

Glenn Beck’s rally was not 500,000. It wasn’t even 300,000.

Ed Schultz tried to be generous and thought it would be fair to split the difference between the professional estimation of 87,000 and some of the news announcements of 300,000, which would make the Beck rally approximately 193,500.

But sorry, Ed. The Beck rally wasn’t even 193,500.

300,000 was given by some news outlets because that’s what a “park service official” told them. But, the US Parks Dept. does not give crowd estimates and has not for the last 14 years (with the one exception for the Obama inauguration, since they could be reasonably sure the POTUS wouldn't sue them like Farrakhan did). Are you going to deny this? If a news service quoted a figure that they said was from the Parks Dept., they were wrong.

CBS News was the only media outlet to hire a professional overhead photography company that specialized in estimating crowd size. Their consultant used well-established methods in making his estimate, which was double and triple checked. They also do documented time-lapsed aerial analysis of people entering/exiting. They have done similar crowd estimates for Homeland Security in the past. They're as close to unbiased as it comes.

The other crowd estimates for Beck's rally were completely anecdotal.

All of the neutral professional estimators put the Beck rally at under 100k. The three professionals hired to estimate the crowd averaged out at 76k. The “liberal” CBS went with the highest estimate of 87,000.

Here's the methodology by AirPhotosLive. Try to dispute it: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015214-503544.html

Here’s a really cool crowd estimator photo of the Beck rally to work with:


The main problem is that most people have no idea of just how crowded 87,000 people are. They look at a lot of dots on a picture and say “Eleventy billion!”

So the Beck rally was between 70k and 90k. That’s a lot of people, no doubt. But no, that’s not good enough for right-wingers. They have to elevate it all the way up to 1.5 million. lol

There were anti-war protests during the Bush administration that were larger than anything Beck and the Tea Party have done. Some were covered by the media, but we certainly didn't see the level of coverage given to tea parties now.

Now, onto the One Nation rally numbers.

So, how many people attended the One Nation rally? Well, we don’t have an unbiased neutral professional estimator like AirPhotosLive at this rally. So any numbers being crunched would again be anecdotal. But it’s clear that Lindaman’s estimate of 150,000 at the One Nation rally is probably way too large.

But a few things can be said regarding comparing the Beck rally to the One Nation rally: Beck's rally didn't include the steps and areas immediately surrounding the Lincoln Memorial. The entire Lincoln Memorial was packed at One Nation and there were no Becksters in that area during his rally.

Now, what about the copy/paste photo of the two aerial photographs that right-wing bloggers like Lindaman are using?

The aerial photograph of the One Nation rally does not have a time stamp. So we don’t know when the photo was taken. The shadows are harsh, which indicates it was either very early or very late. Not at the rally’s peak time.

If we had a professional neutral crowd estimation service like AirPhotosLive at the One Nation rally, then we would have something to work with. But we don’t.

You want to talk about rally photos? Okay, but it won’t be in a way that you like.

Here’s a typical photo of the attendees at the Beck rally:

Here’s a typical photo of attendees at the One Nation rally:

Slightly more diversity there, wouldn’t you say? Get it, yet?

There’s another thing I want to bring up: You right-wing bloggers bitched endlessly that the Beck rally was “non-partisan” and was “not a Conservative rally.” So why are these same right-wing bloggers now going “Ha ha epic fail!” and comparing the Beck rally to a liberal rally?

It’s because the right-wing bloggers were lying. The right-wingers are now accidentally admitting the Beck rally was indeed, a Conservative event. Thanks for finally telling the truth, guys!

Beck probably had more people at his rally, for the simple fact that Sarah Palin was there and it had a lot more publicity. But 150,000 more? No way.

But hey, leave it to right-wingers to say this shitload of people at One Nation, with little publicity and with the Colbert/Stewart rally coming soon, is an “epic fail”:


So, Lindaman… if you consider that an epic fail, what would you say about a pundit that publicized himself for years and years… and absolutely nobody came? That would be a most epically epic fail of epic proportions, right? The biggest epic failure in the history of mankind, correct? Who could that biggest epic failure possibly be?

Now, let’s move on to the real rally that truly was the counter-rally of Beck’s: The Rally To Restore Sanity by Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

How many people attended The Rally To Restore Sanity?

Once again, we can’t go by anecdotes. We have to use neutral professional crowd estimators. And guess what? AirPhotosLive, which gave the 87,000 estimate of the Beck rally, also gave estimates of the Restore Sanity rally.

What was the professional estimate? 215,000!

That’s right, folks. The actual counter-rally had nearly two and a half times the number of people that were at Beck’s rally.

So just wait! The right-wingers will say that obviously AirPhotosLive, just like all those climatologists about manmade global warming, is liberally biased. Damn those liberals and their fully documented scientific analysis!

Beck's rally was big (70k-90k people ain't small), but it was smaller than one by liberal comedians. Presumably because more Americans believe in their message than his, right? lol

What was that about an epic fail?

The lesson to be learned here: Don’t try to dick wave, it’ll come back to haunt you.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

A Good Post (No Sarcasm)

Lindaman wrote an article regarding the bullying situations that have been in the news recently.

It’s a very good article. In fact, it’s one of his best. I say that with no sarcasm or snark. No rebuttal here, as I agree with it 100%. You can read Lindaman’s article here.

That being said, there are other issues regarding bullying gay teens that need to be dealt with. This is touched on in a different article here.

But still, I give credit where it's due. Well done.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Issues, Shmissues

Lindaman writes:

Michael Moore recently put out five keys to a Democrat victory in the midterm elections on his website. His winning keys ranged from "growing a backbone" to "supporting a moratorium on foreclosures."

And of course, Lindaman doesn’t link to the actual source.

Moore’s five suggestions were:

1. Deliver a blunt, nonstop reminder to the American people about exactly who it was that got us into the mess we're in.
2. Declare a moratorium on home foreclosures.
3. Prosecute the banks and Wall Street for the Crime of the Century. 4. Create a 21st century WPA (hire the unemployed to rebuild America).
5. Pledge that no Dem will take a dime from Wall Street in the next election cycle.

See why Lindaman didn’t link to the actual source?

In that spirit, I wanted to give Republicans five keys to victory.

Don’t forget, folks! Lindaman is an “Independent(tm)” and totally not a Republican.

Oh, and I thought writing rebuttal articles are a sign of unoriginality, remember? You keep saying that yourself!

And unlike Mike, mine actually might work.

Because it’s better to listen to a fat loser, than a fat winner.

1) Let the Democrats go negative, but respond with a positive. In judo, a student learns to use an opponent's force against himself/herself.

So in addition to being a global warming expert and a crowd estimator expert, he’s now a judo master!


This election season, the Democrats are facing an uphill battle, so their natural inclination (having exhausted the possibility that they might run on their records)

We’ll go to records in just a minute.

is to go negative. However, that doesn't mean the GOP needs to follow suit. Running a positive ad after a negative one from the Left will have a positive effect, in my opinion. Take Christine O'Donnell's ad responding to what Leftists like Bill Maher have said about her.

“Said about her?” He used her actual video!

It was simple, to the point, and barely referenced politics at all. Even an ad with a "soft negative" like Carly Fiorina's ad using footage of Barbara Boxer asking a soldier to call her "Senator" instead of "ma'am" would work.

Well, we saw how well Christine’s ad worked. Her numbers are lower than ever. But at least we got a good remix out of the ad.

2) Don't assume the TEA Party will vote Republican. A common theme with the Right these days is to call for "party unity" over voting for a TEA Party candidate we can support. That's what gave us McCain/Palin 08, another victory for Arlen Specter, and moderate Republicans getting control of the party. Yeah, how'd that work out for ya? The TEA Party may be made up of Republicans in great numbers, but that doesn't mean they'll vote Republican out of reflex. The GOP needs to take some stock in what the TEA Parties represent and work that back into the platform going forward. Saying you're a "compassionate conservative" that votes for continued funding of the Department of Education is nice, but making it so that parents have more say over curricula than some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, is nicer.

The Teabaggers won’t vote Republican? Right. That's why the tea party doesn't actively criticize Republicans. That’s why the people leading the tea party movement are all former Republicans. That’s why their head spokesperson was the Republican VP candidate not even two years ago.

3) Make the Left run on the issues. You know the Left is going to go personal this year, but that's because they're desperate to avoid talking issues. With an electorate looking for more than typical politics, give them issues to discuss. Make a Democrat Representative like Alan Grayson defend his stance on health care reform. Make Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explain the benefits of the stimulus package. And watch as they will do anything in their power to avoid giving a straight answer. They have no substance, folks. Time to step up and make the campaign about what the American people want.

You right-wingers are the last people on planet earth to make comments about going personal and “avoiding the issues.”

Fucking Swift Boaters.
Death Panels!
Willy Ayers!
Jeremiah Wright!
Entitlement Programs!
Government Takeover!
Birf Certificat!

4) Take command. Democrats love to say the Republicans are the "Party of No" because Republicans haven't done a good job at widespread articulation of their alternatives. It's almost like Republicans are ashamed to engage in the exchange of ideas, mainly because the Left has done such a masterful job at twisting the truth.

Let’s hear it!

In situations like that, you don't get frustrated and cede the battleground to the enemy. You charge ahead and you fight for the ground you're standing on. Democrats counted on Republicans to be lazy and still cowed by their connections to George W. Bush, but with an electorate that no longer cares what Bush did by and large and a Democrat Party

“Democrat Party”… Lindaman is totally not a Republican, folks!

For pete's sake, it took four years to undo the Reagan recession and nearly twenty years to recover from the Great Depression. What do you want in two years? Job growth? We have that. GDP growth? We have that. Financial reregulation? We have that. Health care reform? We have that. Manufacturing is growing, exports are growing (and I'll fully admit that so are imports), and we're ramping up our investment in green tech, which regardless of whether you believe in science or not is a growth industry.

The Democrats passed credit card, financial, health care, and fair pay reform all in two years. What did you guys do when you had all the control?

so eager to bring up Bush in lieu of talking about the current President, now is a golden opportunity to take back the intellectual and rhetorical high ground.

Take it back? Like you guys ever had it?

What’s the current list of conspiracies against the Republicans again?

All of cable except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
The Guardian
Black People
Human Rights Activists
Movie Industry
Television Industry
The United Nations
Labor Unions
National Endowment for the Arts
Museums (*except Creationism Museums)
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Karl Rove
Electronic Arts
Punk rockers

5) Fight for every last vote. Conventional thinking on the Right has it that certain groups won't vote Republican, so they're written off (case in point: blacks). Yet, even with overwhelming odds like that, there are people seriously rethinking their support for Obama and Democrats in general. That's a good sign for the GOP, especially going into 2012. Closer to home, as it were, you might be able to sway some votes from the Independent and conservative Democrat side by engaging them, giving them some kind of sign that you might actually care about this country and have ideas on how to fix it. Even if a voter is 99% sure he or she is going to vote Democrat in November, there's still 1% that can be used as a foothold.
It may be short notice for the GOP, but using these ideas in the home stretch could mean the difference between victory and defeat in several close races across this country.

Republicans only have three strategies on how to court black voters:

1) Show them pictures of black Republicans--no matter how dumb they are. Republicans think when black people see other black people, they will naturally want to connect with them in order to maintain the "hive mind." Kinda like how dogs are supposed to freak out when they see other dogs on TV.

2) Call them SLAVES... to the Democratic party. They think that since black people have a visceral reaction to the word "slave" and if they accuse the Democrats of holding them slaves, they will naturally flock to the Republicans. If they ask the Republicans for evidence or reasoning, just call them SLAVES to the Democratic party again. That should get the job done, right?

3) Claim that the Republican Party has always been the party of civil rights... and hope none of the black people have access to a history book.

They rotate these strategies over and over again. And when black voters tell them to fuck off year after year, they can just fall back on the same excuse: "THEY don't know what's good for them. There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with US. WE'RE doing everything right." Sweet, soothing denial.

If you look at the way blacks almost never vote Republican, it becomes obvious that they are the most politically intelligent group in the country. Meanwhile stupid white trash keep screwing themselves by voting Republican while claiming they're smarter than black people.

If the GOP really wanted to appeal to minorities, they'd be decrying the racism in their own party first, but they won't -- they know there are far more rednecks than blacks that will vote for them, and they're not about to alienate the racism vote right now when the target is the President.

Republicans trying to court black people remind me of this site:


Don’t believe me? Take a look at this billboard, hilarious stuff:


Now, about issues:

Imagine if the Republicans weren't actively working to bring those blue bars down. You know, imagine if the Republicans were actually working to make our country better regardless of who gets the credit.

In 2008, we on average lost 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. That's a difference of nearly five million jobs between President Bush's last year in office and President Obama's second year.

In fiscal year 2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budget, the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. In fiscal year 2010, the first budget of the Obama Administration, the budget deficit was $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion. President Obama has cut the deficit -- there's a long way to go, but we're in better shape now than we were under the GOP.

On Bush's final day in office, the numbers of the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 closed at 7,949, 1,440, and 805, respectively. On October 29th, 2010, they were at 11,108, 2,512, and 1,183. That means since President Obama took office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 have increased 40%, 74%, and 47%, respectively.

Below is the prediction of US deficit when Obama took office. Graph assumes that all policies voted in during GWB administration were kept constant and all economic indicators remained unchanged.

As you see, the deficit was supposed to rise in 2009 and 2010.

August 2009 (http://www.france24.com/en/20090820-lower-budget-deficit-usa-crisis-banking-finance-white-house) - it was around 262 billion dollars lower than forecast, thanks to fiscal responsibility.

April 2010 - the federal deficit was running significantly lower than it did one year previously, with the budget gap for the first half of fiscal 2010 down 8 percent over the same period in 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041204364.html).

September 2010 - the deficit narrows 13%, thanks to rising tax receipts (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-13-to-90-5-billion-on-rising-tax-receipts.html). Tax cuts don't cut the deficit, increasing revenue does.

So we were supposed to be around the $1.5 trillion mark. That was the forecasted deficit. Well, the gap for the fiscal year that started in October 2009 was $1.26 trillion (compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time).

As a percentage of GDP? 9.1 percent this year, down substantially from 2009's 9.9 percent last year.

Things are getting better. The private sector is adding jobs every month. The deficit is lower than the CBO predicted deficit. Congress has passed major pieces of legislation in the face of unprecedented obstructionism. And the Democrats shrank deficit spending.

Even if you guys got majority control of the House and the Senate, and even if you got a Republican president in the next major election… What are you guys going to say when abortion is not made illegal? And when Social Security is still not privatized? And when you still can’t put Creationism in school textbooks? And when the Republicans spend us into unprecedented debt on nothing that benefits the American people… again?

Democrats have created more jobs in the last two years than Bush did in eight, and the GOP made 2/3 of current deficits.

And even if none of this happened, there’s still a ton of reasons to never vote Republican:

- anti-gay rights
- draconian drug laws
- warmongering and lying to invade a country
- torture
- racism
- creationism
- religious intolerance
- Christian theocracy
- Biblical literalism
- evolution denialism
- anti-science
- anti-intellectualism
- anti-education
- a belief that all government is evil
- anti-socialized medicine (in spite of every other Westernized country having it and almost all of them being ahead of us in healthcare quality and life expectancy)
- censorship and anti-free speech
- overblown fear of terrorism, and the use of that fear to curb civil rights
- continued opposition to ANY gun regulation in a country where 10,000 people die every year in firearm-related homicides
- Sarah Palin

You right-wingers should be grateful, as most Americans are simply too ignorant to know that Obama gave people tax cuts. And they’re also too dumb to know he reduced the deficit. Blame the liberal media, I guess. Revenue rose and spending fell amid recovery from recession and Obama's Democratic administration’s emergency measures taken to restore growth. This is what you Teabaggers keep lying about wanting.

It doesn’t matter that white trash is going to vote some Republicans back in again, because it’s based on absolutely nothing. And Republicans will still have nothing. These are the issues. These are the facts. And they are undeniable. So you’ll just have to stick to the rhetoric.