The Big Three

The Red Ranger: So which of these three recent issues could be the most damaging to Obama:

1) Benghazi cover-up
2) IRS scrutiny on conservative organizations
3) AP search

Looks like these three issues are flaring up against Obama’s administration.  My thoughts on them.

1) Benghazi – Once again it seems like this is one of those instances where the coverup is worse than the crime.  Given the timing of this event right before the election I can see how the administration would want to avoid the dirty details of what happened in Benghazi.  If they would have admitted up from that it was a terroist attack that we were unprepared for I think people would have been disappointed in that this happened but would probably have understood that you cannot prevent these attacks from happening everywhere all the time.  Denying the facts is indefensible.

2) IRS scrutiny on conservative organizations.  If true, and it appears to be, this is just plain wrong.  Everyone hates the IRS and this is just another reason to hate them.  The administration should not be using the IRS to thwart their oppostion.  That being said if these groups were purely political then they should not be tax-exempt.  The IRS needs to remain neutral as to all applications for tax-exempt status.  Everyone should go through the same process regardless of what their name is.

I also read that one of Obama’s sleazy half-brothers got expedited approval for his tax-exempt Barack H. Obama Foundation.  If none of the other things that the IRS is being accused of had happened then I would be willing to let this expedited approval slide as there should be some benefits to being president.

3) DOJ search of AP records.  I really don’t know all of the details behind this but it seems like this should concern all citizens as it is in directly violation of our first ammendment rights and leads us down a slippery slope.

Given the number of scandals it is fun to watch Jay Carney squirm.  I don’t know how these people can do these jobs when they clearly lie pretty much on a daily basis.  It also seems that the MSM is covering these stories at least a little bit.  Where there is smoke there is fire.

Nattering Naybob: I will try to shed some light first on the third topic regarding the AP. Like you I do not know all the details but basically the Obama administration is claiming that a reporter from the AP leaked some sensitive information that was supposed to be off the record, and this leak had national security implications. So now they are reviewing the call records of the entire AP organization to see who may have leaked the information. The supposed danger of this is that they have access to other phone log data for the AP reporters who were not involved in the leak or were privvy to the sensitive information.

That the Obama administration is doing this– and has pushed the envelope on similar issues in the name of National Security– again underlines the foolishness of any Presidential candidate vowing “not to violate the civil rights or privacy of anyone in the name of a criminal or terrorism investigation”. Once you become President, the safety of the nation is in your hands. You have a lot more responsibility once you become President than when you are a candidate (or a member of Congress). Also, a President has access to top-secret information that very few other people have, and if that President knew the same information he or she knew while a candidate, they may not have been so fast to make that promise to protect civil liberties at all costs. I thjink this whole matter is more a question for the Courts rather than a full-blown scandal.

As for the other two issues:
1. The uproar over Benghazi is mainly a product of politics, pure and simple. There is no doubt that things went wrong during the attack, and it suggests the need for a change in security protocols among other things. Whether or not there was a cover-up still remains to be seen, so I do not think this can be classified as a scandal either.

2. The IRS was wrong to do what they did, period, end of story. Everyone knows that. There has been no evidence whatsoever that Obama or anyone in his administration ordered that this be done. However, as titular head of the government, Obama does bear overall responsibility for this, and I am sure he will fulfill that responsibility by firing whoever was involved. Again, no scandal there.

So there you have it, I have de-bunked all three issues and have provided ample proof that none of them can be categorized as a scandal. I have done my good deed for the day from an Obama supporter perspective.

The Red Ranger: The IRS scandals deepens if this story turns out to be true.

Just having the head of the IRS resign, something which he was going to do anyway, is not enough.  Saying that Obama did not know about this is insufficient.  Every time something happens he has no knowledge of it.  What is he doing as President if he never has any knowledge about what is going on.  I thought he was so brilliant that he knew how to do everyone’s job he appointed better than they did.  Now he appears to know nothing.

Nattering Naybob: I do not recall seeing any article or speech in which President Obama claimed he could do a better job at anything than the people he appointed to that job. That is a typical Red Rangerian interpretation.

The problem now is that every time a group that is in opposition to the incumbent Presidential party, has their tax-exempt application denied, or is audited, then everyone is going to say that it is a political hatchet job. The fact is that I agree that the IRS needs a thorough and fundamental overhaul, along with the tax code itself. Maybe this will be the impetus. Maybe as the new head of the IRS, Obama can score some political points and appoint John Boehner’s new son-in-law.

The Red Ranger: I know that you are getting older and that your memory ain’t what it used to be but there were numerous articles written in 2008 and 2009 that fawned over Obama’s supposed brilliance and how he could do any one of the jobs of his appointees better than they could.  I will try to find some.

Do you think Boehner’s daughter is marrying him to spite her father? Hey, if it is OK for the President to smoke pot or use other illegal drugs why not everyone else.

Nattering Naybob: Even if you find those articles, I don’t think Obama can be blamed for other people saying he is intelligent. I carry that burden with me every day of my life, so I know how tough that is.

I don’t think she is spiting Boehner. I actually think he is a decent guy and would accept him into the family without reservations about whether he has smoked pot or wears funny hats, but he would probably also kid around about with the guys at the club (Republicans always belong to some kind of “club”, have you noticed).

 

Study on long-term unemployment proves Republicans wrong yet again

Nattering Naybob: I came across an interesting study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco that debunked the notion that long-term unemployment benfefits of up to 99 weeks, discourages recipients from seeking new jobs. This myth has been put forth by Republicans as established fact for years now. The study proves this theory has no basis in fact. Yet another Republican charge that has been proven false and utterly without basis.

The study, co-authored by Princeton Professor of Economics Henry Farber and Robert Valletta of the San Francisco federal reserve says that, accordng to an article on CNBC.com

….the extended benefits given from 2009 to 2012 to the unemployed increased the overall employment rate by only 0.04 percentage points, which the report says is minimal compared to the peak recession unemployment rate of 10 percent.

“There was some criticism that people on long-term unemployment benefits would not want to go back to work,” said Henry Farber, a professor of economics at Princeton University and co-author of the report. “But that’s not true. We could find no real effect of the benefits from keeping people wanting to work,” Farber said. “People are not staying on unemployment to avoid taking jobs.”

Farber said his report looked at previous downturns in the economy when extended unemployment benefits were shorter—up to 79 weeks in early 2001-2002—than came out of the recession of 2007-2009. The findings for both periods were similar, he said.

“There was never much serious work done to look at this issue of extended benefits and the effect on the jobless rate,” Farber said. “That’s why we did this. We wanted to find out if there was a correlation and we didn’t find one.”

I love that last part about “never much serious work done to look at this issue”… that’s the core tactic used by Republicans over the years to popularize their ridiculous theories and dogma. Once their claims are studied and analyzed, they are mostly debunked. I expect a response from The Red Ranger something along the lines of “Princeton is a liberal university”, “or the Federal Reserve is in Obama’s pocket, or “the fact that it is based in San Francisco means that it is a left-wing institution”, yadda yadda. Your thoughts.

The Red Ranger: Are you sure Nancy “Unemployment is Good for the Economy”  Pelosi didn’t write this.  If this is true then why limit unemployment at all.  They should just pay unemployment until the person either finds a new job or reaches retirement age.

Also, why did you just cherry pick a couple of lines out of the 43 page report.

I usually like reading these types of analysis but I had a hard time following this one.  I am sure that the numbers are right using the samples that they did but I would imagine that someone else using a different sample or different assumptions would come up with a different answer. I believe Farber is just trying to pound his chest and champion his work while discrediting anything done in the past.

Nattering Naybob: Well congratulations, Red Ranger, you have preserved your perfect record of never believing in the validity of a report whose findings you do not agree with or whose overall premise is in opposition to accepted Republican dogma (did you realize that “Republican dogma” is only two letters away from “Republican dogmeat”?) All the study is saying is that there is no evidence suggests that people are any less like to look for a job because they receive extended unemployment benefits during a basically jobless recovery, thanks to the corporations who are making record profits but are not hiring, instead working their existing employees to a bloody and demoralized pulp (the part about the corporations was not in the report, full disclosure).

And by the way, unemployment is actually good for the economy because desperate people who do not have a job, but get unemployment (no matter how meager) tend to pump more money back into the economy by purchasing discretionary trifles like food and medicine.

Kermit Gosnell

The Red Ranger: I am glad to see that Kermit Gosnell was convicted of his atrocious crimes.  As you know I am in general against abortion, however, I am accepting of abortion in certain situations.  I do not see how anyone could possibly defend his actions.  I can’t wait to see someone who does.  I guess I will have to watch Rachel Maddow’s show tonight.  Oh wait, they probably won’t even cover this story because it doesn’t fit with the progressive, left-wing narrative and talking points.

The flip side of this story is that he may be up for the death penalty.  So is it right for those who clamored for him to be convicted of killing these babies to then be clamoring for his execution.  Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Nattering Naybob: I too am happy  that he was convicted. I would think that anyone who wants to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare, would also be glad. For the benefit of any of our readers who may not be completely familiar with this case, Kermit Gosnell was (ostensibly at least) a “doctor” from Philadelphia who performed late-term abortions. The crimes with which he was specifically convicted involve literally murdering three babies that were newly delivered, by killing them with scissors in too grisly a fashion to describe further. According to FOX News (yes, I am taking an excerpt from a FOX News story)…  

“Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling ‘house of horrors’ with bags of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.”

Many commentators have asserted that this case demonstrates that Roe v. Wade should be struck down, and all abortion made illegal on a Federal level. However, the Pro-Choice advocate response is that the Gosnell case should be a cautionary tale of what many women would be forced to do if abortion really did become illegal, i.e. patronize an underground, unauthorized “clinic” whose safety and hygienic standards might not be much better than Gosnell’s. Count me as someone who agrees with that rationale.

You mentioned hypocrisy– while I appreciate the nuanced example you gave, my take is a little different, I think the more virulent hypocrisy is anyone who decries abortion, in all cases, and then opposes a law that would require Federal background checks on people who want to buy a gun that might be used to mow down innocent people who have already been born and are contributing members of society. And as I’ve mentioned before, it seems that many politicians and commentators who decry health care reform and want to eliminate the so-called social safety net, care more about a person while they are in the womb, then when they are born.

Regarding Rachel Maddow, I honestly have not seen her reaction to the ongoing story and trial but I seriously doubt that she or any other Pro-Choice people would literally defend Gosnell’s actions because there were the very definition of indefensible.

The Red Ranger: Well, I just heard that Gosnell is not going to get the death penalty so there goes that argument.  So now we will have to pay for him to sit in a jail cell for some number of years.

I don’t really see how it is hypocritical to be in favor of supporting constitutional rights.   After all just because you are against background checks doesn’t mean you support using your gun to go out and kill someone.
I agree that this example should not be used in an effort to outlaw abortion.  Gosnell was clearly outside the lines of acceptable abortion behavior.  The pro-choice advocates clearly want abortion to be something that people view as a simple, tidy little procedure that ends a life in the sterile conditions of a compliant abortion clinic without anyone ever having to see the little dead fetuses.

Nattering Naybob: Sarcasm is not very becoming on you, Red Ranger

More Yankee talk: The good old bad old days

Nattering Naybob: Well it looks like the bloom is off the Red Sox rose. Now that the shock of the immediate aftermath of the horrible Boston Marathon bombings have started to subside, I feel it is no longer in poor taste to start bashing the Red Sox again.

 
As you know, The Red Ranger, I have a what some might call a morbid fascination with the profoundly mediocre Yankee teams of the mid to late-sixties, and early seventies. So imagine my joy when I discovered a YouTube video recently that contains a snippet of an actual broadcast (sadly, from the Boston station) of a beanball war that broke out in a Yankees – Red Sox night game in 1967 at the old Yankee Stadium, resulting in a fairly interesting fight instigated primarily by Joe Pepitone. I like how some of New York City’s finest (policeman), actually jogged out on the field as if it were a garden-variety rumble in the South Bronx and they had to separate the “purpa-tratuhhhs”. You would never see that in a baseball fight today. The two Yankee pitchers referenced in the clip were the immortal Thad Tillotsen and Bill Monboquette. Mickey Mantle played first base and you will see him make a nice across-the diamond throw to third base to nab an over-eager Red Sox baserunner.Notice my man Carl Yastrzemski making a nifty back-handed catch near the left field foul line and getting an RBI single (as noted in a previous SGM post, even though he was on the Red Sox, Yaz was my favorite player growing up). At 3:26 of the video you catch a glimpse of a Yankee third baseman wearing number 6, that is none other than Charley Smith, who the Yankees received from the St. Louis Cardinals in exchange for Roger Maris the previous December. And the clip ends with Yankee manager Ralph Houk getting thrown out arguing a close play at first base.According to baseballreference.com (a truly miraculous website), this game took place on Wednesday June 21st 1967, before 13,061 fans and the Yankees lost 8-1. Not seen in the clip were such notable events as future Yankee coach and manager Dick Howser making a pinch-hitting appearance (he got hit by a pitch too) and Dooley Womack, one of the great mid-sixties Yankee icons, doing mop-up work on the mound. Notice also that batting helmets were not mandatory back in 1967; Reggie Smith bats wearing his regular “fielding” cap. After seeing the beanballs fly in this game, maybe Mr. Smith (Reggie, not Charley) re-considered his head gear choices. 

Reflections on the Boston Marathon bombings

A note to our readers: The below is an amalgam of several emails that The Red Ranger and Nattering Naybob exchanged starting on the day that the two Boston Marathon terrorists were killed and captured, Friday April 19^th. The Red Ranger is employed in Boston and after Nattering Naybob confirmed that no harm had come to him or his family, they resumed their usual bickering about the aftermath of the attack. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who lost their lives and our wishes for a continuing recovery to those many who were seriously injured.

The Red Ranger: Wow, what a night and day here in Boston.  I just happened to wake up about 12:30 last night and turned on the news and saw all the craziness going on.  I am actually in my office today.  Now I think I am on lockdown in the office.  Who knows when I will get home. I was off work the day that the explosions were a couple of blocks from my office.  I walk by those locations often on my lunch hour in my search for sustenance.  The explosions were near where the boys and I watched the marathon last year.

Nattering Naybob: Friday was one of the most bizarre news days I have ever seen. You have to give credit to the FBI, police, etc. It was amazing how they were able to connect all the dots so soon. Althought these two brothers were not exactly criminal masterminds.

The Red Ranger: I agree they did a good job after the fact but it looks like there may have been some shoddy work before the fact as the US was told by Russia that Tamerlan had turned radical but let him slip through the cracks.  While I understand that there is a fine line of how much can be done to monitor someone, he was not a US citizen and could have been deported quite easily I believe.  However, as usual it seems like we failed to take the hard line approach and you can see what the results are.

Separately, the day after the attack I was in a conference room that overlooked Boylston Street and the finish line of the marathon.  There were three other people in the room looking out and one woman nonchalantly blurts out that it must be some right-wing radical who did this.  As you can guess my blood pressure immediately shot up and it took a lot of self-control on my part not to get into a heated discussion with her about her viewpoints.  Obviously, she was a devotee of MSNBC where as soon as something like this bombing happens they try to link it to some right-wing group as has been the case with the Gabby Giffords shooting, the Aurora shooting and the recent murder of the Texas DA.

Being in Boston with its long history of liberalism I would have thought that the bombing may have been the work of some OWS or Bill Ayers type.  I do not believe Boston has many right-wing extremists running around.

Nattering Naybob: Leave it to the Red Ranger to use a terrorist atack on US soil to dredge up tired Republican talking points like Bill Ayres and MSNBC. I know that you are fond of implying that the less well-off and minority segment of our population are the biggest offenders when it comes to handouts, wanting free things, etc. so I was interested whether you saw this video of a swarm of obviously well-off white people helping themselves to an abandoned supply of Boston Marathon running wear and souveniers, in the immediate aftermath of the bombings. To use the vernacular of your home region, “that’s WICKED bad!”

The Red Ranger: I am not sure how you could discern from this video that these people were well-off.  I guess you were just stereotyping and racial profiling and assuming that because these people were white they were well-off.  Funny how you libs are allowed to do this but not conservatives.

I do not condone this behavior in any way and all of the people in this video should be prosecuted as there was no reason for this behavior.  They are no different than those who loot during a blackout or any other event.

Did you attend any May Day rallies yesterday?  Notice how some of them turned violent with arrests.  Funny how that happens with all these so called peace loving liberals but never at the war-mongering, gun-toting Tea Party events.

By the way next time I see you and Elizabeth I have a couple of Boston marathon jackets for you.

Nattering Naybob: I could tell that they were affluent because I have an instinct for that kind of thing. I was born with it. Trust me, they were all high-level business executives, probably all Republican, who thought they were justified in taking the jackets because they pay too high of a tax rate and a free jacket is the least they can pilfer to level the playing field.

I would not attend a May Day protest even if I knew that Salma Hayek would also be attending while wearing a bikini. I think the people who attend those protests and engage in violence are a sad echo of the 1960s radicals who gave true Liberalism a bad name. And have you ever noticed how a lot of the most violent protests of these kind, usually take place in old sleepy, laid-back Pacific Northwest?

We will be looking forward to our Boston Marathon jackets, I hope they still had our correct size.