R.I.P. The Right Wing Blogger

It amuses me to no end when my oh so enlightened right wing friends refer to the Drudge Report as "simply a page of links to news stories."

Really?

This was the front page of the Drudge Report yesterday. As soon as Hitler comes up, that's when you know which side is losing.

And take a look at this recent poll from Rasmussen Polling (a right leaning poll). Just 8 percent say they are members of the Tea Party with 49 percent of voters saying they have an unfavorable view of the movement. I recall being assured as recent as last year that The Tea Party movement would always be around, eternally robust and ever a beacon of conservatism. It seems to me that the American people are plumb tired of the crazy and would rather listen to people that live in the real world.

Of course, this speaks to a much larger issue. Right around a decade ago, the blogsphere really began to burst to life. Political hacks from all ends of the spectrum started their own sites. The Right took particular advantage of this and, in the 2004 election, were part of the reason George W. Bush won reelection. After issuing imperial edicts that John Kerry was a French war criminal, the American people, still timid from 9-11, bought all their lies.

But the two years after that election were illustrative of what happens when you vote with emotion and belief as opposed to thought. And, in 2006, the Democrats took over both houses in Congress. In 2008, they saw more gains and America elected Barack Obama president. It appeared that the influence of the right wing blogger was a flash in the pan.

The 2010 election showed us that they did have a death rattle left in them. The House swept back to the GOP based on irrational fears over health care and over reaching government intrusion. Even in that election, though, the Right blew it, running very conservative candidates in the Senate and reaching too far. By all rights, they should have taken back the Senate as well because if you take a look at the House victories from that year, not all were hard core Tea Partiers. Some were merely moderates elected by a center right public who thought the president had gone too far. These same voters certainly did not want the far right either and so, the GOP didn't take the Senate. Since the Right's main conviction is their vanity, they saw 2010 as a great victory and continued to push more and more crazy ideas in the 2012 election, pulling political philosophies from far right web sites and incorporating them into their main platform.

It didn't work. The president easily won reelection, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, adding more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and the House saw a net of seven seats for the party of the donkey. Add in the recent astronomical polling numbers for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the message the American people are sending is clear: moderate or else. 

All of this leads us to the conclusion that the right wing blogger, and any influence they may have had over public policy, is essentially dead. Sure, they'll still have their followers similar to the old short wave radio days and they'll be trotted out on talk shows here and there but, for the most part, the days of them having any sort of substantial effect on policy are over. We're going to see this with the debates on guns, the budget, immigration and climate change over the next few months. Either they can moderate or be left out of the conversation. If the trends in the last few elections are any indication, it may even be worse for the Right in general. I suppose they didn't have much of a choice after 2008 to hitch their wagon to the star located in the Moonbat Quadrant. Now, they are paying the consequences.

I wonder just how many times Hitler and Stalin are going to come up in the next month...

Have You Ever Had...An Electric Night?

The Supreme Court Takes Another Shot at Privacy

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a case where a cop forced a suspected drunk driver to have blood drawn. The case was thrown out by the judge because the cop didn't get a warrant. There was no accident or assault, the driver was simply speeding: 56 in 45 mph zone.

Now, getting that warrant had never been a problem before. A judge is on call at all times and warrants were previously obtained within half an hour. The state highway patrolman involved, Mark Winder, had read an opinion from the state prosecutor that a warrant was unnecessary, an opinion that was in direct contradiction to an opinion from the county attorney and the state police legal advisory. In any case the blood test was unnecessary, as the suspect's refusal of the breathalyzer test could be used as evidence of guilt at trial.

This case should have ended there: the patrolman acted against the advice of his employer, the state police. He should have been reprimanded, but instead the case has been appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Incredibly, the Obama administration is siding with Missouri on this. Their argument, that time is of the essence because the alcohol will dissipate over time, is simply not credible. It's just like arguing that warrants shouldn't be required for searching a drug-dealer's house because he might sell the drugs before the warrant is issued. If time is so critical, it is incumbent upon the state to do its job quickly, not to force the suspect to abandon his rights because the state can't get its act together. With modern technology a warrant can be requested and issued within minutes.

This isn't just an overreaching cop invading a man's privacy, like searching a car and finding marijuana. Drawing blood is a medical procedure that is not without risk: you can suffer collapsed veins, blood clots and staph infections. It's unlikely you'll suffer injury or death, but it's not impossible.
 We shouldn't trash the idea of presumed innocence and risk people's health because cops and prosecutors are too lazy to do their jobs.

Actually Having Ideas

I can almost here the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks after this little ditty.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

Of course, that's not even the best part.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)

What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.

But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.

I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...

A Gift That Will Keep On Giving

I can't think of a better example of the gun lobby's position than Alex Jones. Heck, I can't think of a better example of some of my commenters and how they talk to me than Alex Jones. Man oh man, he hit all the points (verbatim!:)) that I hear all the time on here. It's almost as if they are reading from some sort of script...




It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?

Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?

Planet Earth

For all of my crabbing on here, the world is actually getting to be a much better place in which to live. There's a lot of good news out there and if are diligent, you can find it. The best place to start is The Christian Science Monitor as they are usually very unbiased and shy away from sensation. The last issue, for example, had a plethora of good news and I'm going to be highlighting some of their stories over the next week or so. This, by the way, keeps my promise to put up more world news content as well:)

The first one that caught my eye was this story on poverty. I had to read it twice before I believed that it was real. Extreme poverty in the world has been...cut by half?!?

In fact, the rate of decline in extreme poverty everywhere in the world has more than doubled in the past decade, Ravallion says. That's after adjusting for China, whose sheer size makes it an outlier.

Simply amazing.

Now, the article does go on to say that there is still a great deal of poverty in the world but we are heading in the right direction. With the changes seen in China (as noted in the article), the direction we are heading as a world is very, very positive. In fact, I think the prediction that Bono made a year or two ago is going to come true: within 50 years, there will be no more hunger on this planet. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be no going back to "Live Aid" days. (Note: this includes climate change, incidentally, which is actually quite "foreseen" and will be eventually dealt with in an appropriate fashion).

So, why has this happened? Well, mainly, it's because of us. Our country has spread prosperity around the world in the form of liberal economic theory. Communism is gone and capitalism and free markets are spreading everywhere. If countries don't want to be a part of this (and there aren't many left out there), they will find themselves on the outside. Our new world certainly is not perfect and we have had some growing pains but the increased prosperity has no other explanation. Everyone on the planet wants an iPhone.

And, as the countries of the world begin to need less aid, we are going to see greater wealth in the Global North countries. In fact, my children will likely live in a time where there will be no delineation between the Global North and the Global South.

It's simply going to be Planet Earth.

Uh, that would be a no...no, they didn't. It's not _______ when we do it!!!

Another Greek Lesson

Conservatives like to point to Greece as an example of what will happen to us unless we follow their strong medicine and drastically reduce spending. But so far their predictions have failed. We haven't slashed, and our economy is doing better than countries that have.

Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.

But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.

A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.

Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.

I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.

Uh Oh

Looks like the rats are leaving the sinking ship. I guess they got tired of all the wrong information put out there on a daily basis.

What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.

Sour, sour grapes...

Dedicated, with love and affection, to Kevin and his merry band of commenters who can't seem to shake their obsession with yours truly!!

Why, Again?

Suppose you are in a darkened room with 20 armed people and you. You are the only one not armed.

Who gets shot first?
Who survives?

Think about it for a minute.

Have it yet?

The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.

Why?

The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.

But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.

In short, your goal is to survive.

They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.

And you aren't armed.

So, how does arming everyone make people safer?

Business As Usual?

Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?

Yeah, not gonna happen this time....

Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.

Further...

Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.

Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.

A Collection of Voices In My Head

I've heard so many "voices in my head" of late. What are they saying these days?

“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth.

Cue the boiling pit of sewage!

Obama you stupid sand nigger get off my tv. Your just making the families hurt and miss their kids more and I want to watch football 

The above is one tweet of many. Make sure you read all of the comments from the non-Republican, non-racists.

And what happens when you hug the president and you are a registered Republican?

But the attention wasn't all positive. Van Duzer, a registered Republican, had voted for Obama in the last election and said he did again in November. That brought out the worst in anti-Obama zealots, who called in bomb threats, sent him hate mail with death threats, and brought out a level of vitriol Van Duzer said he had never witnessed. Some tried to organize a boycott of his restaurant and bombarded Yelp!, the restaurant review website, with thousands of one-star reviews from first-time visitors to the site.

It must be the left wing media's fault! Where's Katie Couric?!??

Low Capacity

A few weeks back, I had a very long discussion with the folks over at TSM about the Sandy Hook tragedy and what is likely going to be a sea change in the way guns are viewed in this country. Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying was this comment.

I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?

It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.

Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).

There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.

The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).

The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.

Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.

Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?

Since Ike

President Barack Obama is the first president since Dwight David Eisenhower to win 51 percent of the popular vote...twice!

Final tally?

65.9 million votes -51.1% of the vote for the president
60.9 million votes-47.2% of the vote for Mitt Romney

The response from the Right?

He bribed them with gifts!
He stole votes!
The polls were skewed!
He's a socialist!
He's a gun grabber!
He wasn't born here!
He was trained in a madrassa!

(all of which really worked out well for them didn't it?)