I Hate What You Just Said

From Fox News late-night host Greg Gutfeld:

Back in 2002, [John] Podesta formed a group called the Coalition for Freedom of Information, which demanded access to secret government records on UFOs.

So right after 9/11, the worst attack on American soil ever, thank God there was someone in D.C. who had their priorities in order. I mean, maybe Martians did bomb the World Trade Center.

Look, I don’t dispute that aliens exist, but there are more urgent matters to deal with, other than wrinkly creatures with a knack for anal probing.

But enough about Barney Frank.

From JimLarkinsGhost (quoting the APA):

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: ‘The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.’

Just sayin’.

Wow, these were the good old days.

Thanks to my good friend Larry Tate for tipping us off to another SJOYA contender.

It appears that Representative Paul Broun (R - GA) is caught up in the excitement of Barack Obama’s election victory. However, his particular type of excitement manifests itself in the form of fear-mongering paranoid right-wing fantasy.  According to Broun, Obama will govern like Stalin.  Or Hitler.  Or something.  Whatever - he just knows it’s going to be really bad!

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

…

The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun’s remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.

Well, I agree with you on one point, Congressman - you do sound “crazy and off-base.” And you are now our third nominee for the Shameful Jackass of the Year Award. Good luck, and keep an eye out for the Obama storm troopers! You Jackass.

As president-elect Obama prepares to meet with the sitting president in the White House tomorrow, it is time for us all to remember the duo’s first encounter.

Who could forget this memorable moment:

Four years ago, Obama and other newly elected members of the Senate were invited to the White House for a breakfast meeting with Bush, who pulled the young Chicagoan aside.

“Obama!” Bush exclaimed, according to Obama’s account of the meeting in his second memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.” “Come here and meet Laura. Laura, you remember Obama. We saw him on TV during election night. Beautiful family. And that wife of yours — that’s one impressive lady.”

The two men shook hands and then, according to Obama, Bush turned to an aide, “who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president’s hand.”

Bush then offered some to Obama, who recalled: “Not wanting to seem unhygienic, I took a squirt.”

Any Republicans out there care to defend this?

Why I’m a Republican

I read in today’s paper what a woman wrote explaining why she’s a Democrat. Let me tell you why I’m not. I’m a Republican because:

I believe in a sovereign God who sometimes gives us what we deserve.

I believe Muslims are our enemies.

I believe in life. A baby is not just a fetus, but a living being no matter where it resides.

I believe there is a good reason for the death penalty.

I believe in fiscal responsibility, for the government and for us.

I believe the government is way too big and rife with greed and corruption.

I believe in the truth. People believe lies because it’s much easier than finding the truth.

I believe in personal responsibility. That includes spanking your children.

I believe American women should raise their own children and American men should be men enough to pay for children they’ve produced.

I believe a man and woman make marriage. Period.

I believe in America first and foremost and we ought to take care of our own people, our own land, and illegal aliens should go home.

I believe in guns and knowing how to use them properly.

I believe war is a fact of life and we should always win.

I believe in lower taxes. I know how to spend money better than Congress any day

I believe in voter ID.

I believe there is a moderate and a socialist in this election. I agree with a two-party system, but Obama isn’t a messiah or a democrat.

He’s a Muslim socialist.

Marcia Stirman, Alamogordo
Alamogordo Daily News

Good luck.

A concerned citizen sent us a link to an article published over at Bloomberg by a Kevin Hassett. The article is entitled “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis.” We are intrigued.

The title tells you all you need to know. To the manichean brain produced by 8 years of pavlovian response to the Bush administration’s clanging bells of terror and doom, the world is neatly divisible into two categories: good and evil. There is no nuance, no gray area, nothing to doubt — not a moment’s hesitation, unclarity or unease. When something goes wrong, don’t think — just point your finger at the appropriate evildoer, be he terrorist or Democrat (or both).

Hassett’s article has several points: 1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the cause of the subprime meltdown and our current economic crisis. 2) John McCain — a man who claims to know nothing about the economy or even how to use a computer — somehow figured out in 2005 that this economic shitstorm was coming and crafted a bill specifically designed to prevent it. 3) However, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their lobbyists gave tons of money to Democrats in Congress which prompted key Democratic senators to vote down McCain’s bill. Therefore: John McCain = Good; Democrats = Bad.

Or, in Kevin’s own words:

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Yes, pretty clear to the manichean brain.

I. Step One: Consider the Source.

Who is the author? Who does he work for? Who are his associates? What are his interests? Is he biased?

Hassett is a research fellow for AEI, a conservative think tank that, among other things, accepts donations from Exxon and tries to deny the validity of global warming science. Other notable fellows from this distinguished operation include Alan Keyes, Michael Ledeen, and Fred Thompson (ahem).

My other suspicions were confirmed when I discovered that Hassett has written a variety of other opinion pieces at Bloomberg. This one, for example, argues that the US should immediately engage in offshore drilling to lower our gas prices — an idea universally panned by economists. Hassett also wrote a book in 1999 entitled Dow 36,000 which predicted absurd increases in the stock market. Since the Dow is opening today at 10,839, I think we can safely assume that anyone who trusted Hassett in 1999 has virtually nothing in their IRA.

Does this make him biased? Perhaps not. But considering his membership in an organization whose explicit purpose is to create conservative policy for Washington, we have to now have our guard up — perhaps he’s too ideological to make an honest inquiry into the root causes of this economic meltdown. And in addition, he’s been catastrophically wrong in his previous writings.

I also discovered that Hassett was the chief economic advisor to John McCain during the 2000 primaries and is currently a senior economic advisor to the McCain presidential campaign. Is he an honest broker or a political operative? Is he trying to help us understand issues or is he trying to help get his candidate elected?

Is it at all significant that Hassett works on the McCain campaign with people like Aquiles Suarez, who was a director, and later, a lobbyist for Fannie Mae? Or Charlie Black, a top McCain aide, who was a lobbyist for Freddy Mac between 1999 and 2004? Or what about McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, a “former” Freddie Mac lobbyist who was yesterday revealed to still be on the payroll for Freddie Mac to the tune of $15,000 a month? In all, there are 19 people who are former lobbyists for Fannie or Freddie now working for the McCain campaign.

Isn’t this a damning revelation? Why didn’t Hassett disclose this information? His article explicitly blames Freddie and Fannie and their influence-peddling dollars as the reason behind the economic meltdown. And yet, he continues to work intimately on the campaign with the very lobbyists who delivered the checks to Congress! Either he’s a scruple-free mercenary or he’s trying to manipulate us. Or maybe both.

I’m not saying that these individuals are ultimately to blame or that it’s somehow all McCain’s fault. Corporations hire lobbyists, they seek influence, they make donations. This is, regrettably, how our government currently works. But the specific point to be acknowledged here is that this particular source of information, Hassett, is deeply compromised and his argument should be viewed with skepticism. From where I sit, this “article” is nothing more than a piece of political casuistry designed to help McCain look good during this troubling economic time. Considering how toxic this economic news could be for a campaign that has such deep ties to Fannie and Freddie, I imagine that it is considered important strategy to try and distance McCain from it by blaming the opposition.

II. Step Two: Examine the Evidence.

Is it persuasive? Is it misused? Is it mischaracterized? Does it come from an authoritative source?

Let’s look at an aspect of the argument at closer range:

“But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.”

These are the core claims of Hassett’s argument. He clearly intends to argue that these donations bought influence or were rewards for favorable votes in the Congress. But where did Hassett get his figures from? There is a fantastic resource online that does nothing but track all of the donations that go from corporations or private donors into the coffers of politicians. The website is OpenSecrets.org. There I found the data table that Hassett used for his argument. And, as you might guess, Hassett does not seem to be a fair dealer.

If you’ll notice from the data table below, OpenSecrets divides political donations into two categories: PACs and Individuals. A PAC, or Political Action Committee, is a group specifically organized by a corporation or private group to aid in the election of public officials. The Individual category denotes political donations made by private individuals who just happen to have jobs. In this specific case, they are the employees of Fannie and Freddie.

Name	Office	State	Party	Grand Total	Total from PACs	Total from Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J	S	CT	D	$165,400	$48,500	$116,900
Obama, Barack	S	IL	D	$126,349	$6,000	$120,349
Kerry, John	S	MA	D	$111,000	$2,000	$109,000
Bennett, Robert F	S	UT	R	$107,999	$71,499	$36,500
Bachus, Spencer	H	AL	R	$103,300	$70,500	$32,800
Blunt, Roy	H	MO	R	$96,950	$78,500	$18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E	H	PA	D	$96,000	$57,500	$38,500
Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’	S	MO	R	$95,400	$64,000	$31,400
Shelby, Richard C	S	AL	R	$80,000	$23,000	$57,000
Reed, Jack	S	RI	D	$78,250	$43,500	$34,750
Reid, Harry	S	NV	D	$77,000	$60,500	$16,500
Clinton, Hillary	S	NY	D	$76,050	$8,000	$68,050
Davis, Tom	H	VA	R	$75,499	$13,999	$61,500
Boehner, John	H	OH	R	$67,750	$60,500	$7,250
Conrad, Kent	S	ND	D	$64,491	$22,000	$42,491
Reynolds, Tom	H	NY	R	$62,200	$53,000	$9,200

Look at the donations from the PAC column. Hassett claims that

“Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from [Fannie and Freddy] over the years.”

Yet, if you study the numbers, the PAC only gave Obama $6,000, Clinton $8,000, and Dodd $48,500 over a nineteen year period spanning the years 1989-2008. Not very impressive figures. The numbers increase dramatically (though not “mind-bogglingly”) only when you include individual donors who just happen to work for Fannie and Freddie. Citizens who work for these companies gave money to their candidate of choice, be they Democrat or Republican. The PAC similarly gave to members of both parties. Nothing wrong or suspicious about that. (Incidentally, I can’t help but notice that the PAC gave money to Republican candidates at much higher values than the Democrats that Hassett singles out for blame). But just eyeballing the figures in the full table (at the site), I’d say that the money was pretty equally spread around to both parties. While Hassett doesn’t say anything that is an outright lie, he is dishonest and purposefully misleading here in his selective use of the data. If Fannie and Freddie “bought” influence, they were equal opportunity investors. And it seems simply wrong and misleading to associate the donations of average citizens with the lobbying efforts of their employer.

Hassett also claims that in 2005, John McCain co-sponsored a bill that may (or may not) have worked to prevent this crisis. He states that, “if that bill had become law, then the world today would be different.” In any case, he clearly intends us to understand that the political donations from Fannie and Freddie were used to influence these key Democrats to “kill the fix” (i.e. McCain’s bill).

This is wrong on several counts. First, the McCain-sponsored bill mentioned in the article didn’t make it out of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee. If you go to the Library of Congress and look up this bill you can see for yourself. According to the official record, the bill was introduced but never scheduled for debate or vote. Hassett’s claim about Democrats “killing” the bill by a vote is false. Second, Obama and Clinton aren’t even on that committee; they didn’t “kill” anything. Third, the claim that the Democrats are responsible for preventing the bill from becoming law is absurd: in 2005, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and literally did whatever they wanted within the committees. It wasn’t until 2007 that the Democrats took control of Congress again. Why didn’t the Republicans just force it through? They could have given this issue the Terry Schiavo treatment. If they realized there was a problem, a crisis, they had plenty of time to fix things, but they failed. Hassett’s basis for claiming that the Democrats are at fault because they blocked this bill is utterly false.

III. Step Three: Examine other Ideas.

If you’re really interested in understanding the root cause of this problem, I heartily recommend this article from the American Prospect. The depiction there is too complicated for the lizard-brained among us, but it seems convincing to me that the cause of this subprime meltdown that is cascading through the global economy was the repeal of key New Deal-era regulations of the financial markets, most notably the Glass-Steagall Act. Its explicit intent was to prevent a “repeat of the 1920’s era scams in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank.” Sound familiar?

And guess what law repealed that Glass-Steagall Act? It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Yes, that is the same Phil Gramm that said that we’ve become “a nation of whiners” ; the same Phil Gramm that is the head economic advisor to John McCain; the same Phil Gramm whose legislation led to the Enron scandal; the same Phil Gramm who is likely the new head of the Treasury if McCain is elected.

And the vote? With one exception, it went straight down party lines: all Republicans voting “yea” and all Democrats voting “nay.”

But hey, I’m not pointing fingers.

From over at Ezra Klein’s place:

This took some figuring out

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”

Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers — a quintessential American story.

If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track — you’re a maverick.

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

Attend five different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.

If you spend three years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law professor, spend eight years as a state senator representing a district with more than 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, four years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising two beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.

If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you’re very responsible.

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner-city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.

If your husband is nicknamed “First Dude,” with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

So when you’re on the ropes and its time to come out fighting, the political handbook states: “attack a nonexistent constituency that you can tie to your opponent.”  On the McCain report, Michael Goldfarb writes that McCain didn’t lift any lines from Solzhenitsyn as he simultaneously waxed Georgian and prisoner-of-war, what are you talking about?  The real issue is this:

It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman’s memory of war from the comfort of mom’s basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others.

The McCain Report

Wargaming nerds in black, tight fitting t-shirts take that!   Don’t hate Obama because his Charisma score makes him a more powerful orc slayer than you.  You can forget my vote in November Mr. McCain.  Oh, and mom, can you bring down some more lemonade–make that hateorade– for me and the boys?

One Texas school district is seeking greater realism in their Alamo pedagogy:

The tiny Harrold, Texas, school district will allow teachers and staff members to carry concealed firearms when they return to class this month.

The superintendent said they’re a 30-minute drive from the Wilbarger County Sheriff’s Office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started.“

No word yet on whether the post hoc ergo prompter hoc after school program will be eliminated from the school budget.

“Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”

– Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey

Today, we bring you a yummy little tasting flight of stupidity.

We’ll start with Representative Michele Bachman, Republican of Minnesota:

“[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s just trying to save the planet,” Bachmann told the right-wing news site OneNewsNow. “We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

Whew! What a relief. Glad to know that’s sorted out. Because I was starting to get a little worried about that whole global warming thing. (Also - “they?” Is Jesus plural now?) Hey - do you think “they” could do anything about my gout?

Next, a little video. Stuart Shepard of Focus on the Family asks “would it be so wrong if we asked people to pray for rain” during Obama’s convention acceptance speech?

Best line: “If God decides - and it’s always up to God to decide…” That’s good stuff, no? In the event that he exists, God must be thinking, “thanks, Stu.”

I know this guy was trying to be funny, sort of, but Stuart Shepard and his ilk make me embarrassed to be a mammal.

And finally, Jabberin’ Joe Lieberman implicitly questions Barack Obama’s patriotism:

“In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear: between one candidate, John McCain, who’s had experience, been tested in war and tried in peace, another candidate who has not,’’ Mr. Lieberman said. “Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not. Between one candidate who’s a talker, and the other candidate who’s the leader America needs as our next president.” [Italics added]

You stay classy, Joe. You old jackass.

We live in an age of information, we are told.

Indeed.

I just looked at CNN.com. As I am writing this post, under “Latest News,” the site lists twenty news stories. Some of them are rather important. However, among the twenty stories that CNN considers important enough to label “Latest News,” one also finds the following eight headlines (my comments in italics):

“Singer Winehouse admitted to hospital” (Wouldn’t it be easier to report when something bad doesn’t happen to Amy?)

“Space-tourism mothership unveiled” (O…K…)

“Man deposits millions, one tattered bill at a time” (WTF?)

“Moustache pulls batter out of slump” (Giambi’s porn ’stache is hideous. Is it news?)

“Huge shark caught with bait, hoisted” (Let me see if I understand this - someone went fishing, used some bait, caught something, and hoisted it up? Holy sh*t!)

“Are you a millionaire in the making?” (Incidentally, no. But can anyone consider this “news?” Is CNN suddenly a sweepstakes? Is Ed McMahon lurking on the website somewhere?)

“Honey, I cheated with your checkbook” (Write your own joke here).

“Beer marathoners run, drink, vomit” (“CNN.com readers read, think, vomit”).

“Cop on desk duty after decking cyclist” (Dear cop: please visit editors of CNN.com and get busy).

There you have it. “Latest News.”