As we were saying…

 

Nattering Naybob: Hello Red Ranger and Happy New Year! I hope you and your wonderful family had a great Holiday season.

I guess it’s fair to say that it’s been a while since our last exchange of ideas. A lot has happened between then and now. I stipulate right here and now that the interruption in our little blog has been all my fault…. mostly. Let me explain. Since our start in July 2012, we were guilty of foisting, by my count, 79 separate blogs on our small but loyal (and re-forming) followers. Due to all the horrible, false, and scurrilous negative propaganda that The Red Ranger had spewed forth during this time, in this space, upon our dear and resolute soon-to-be departed President, I found it necessary to retire for eighteen months to a silent retreat at a monastery in a remote section of Kenya (none of the many elders I spoke to can remember anyone named Barack Obama being born there). Only after an intensive program of self-reflection, meditation, and study, was I able to clear my mind and overcome the deleterious effects of your often well-intentioned but wholly misguided analysis of our society and our body politic. So let’s hit the re-set button and light this candle again! There’s a lot to catch up on and there will be even more to talk about during the year(s) ahead. At the risk of getting sued for trademark infringement by ring announcer Michael Buffer…let’s get ready to RUMMM-BULLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!

The Red Ranger: Great day to start up Second Grade Minds again.  The President is clearly over stepping his bounds and acting as a dictator in his efforts to restrict gun purchases.  Much like when Hillary says Trump is the best recruiter for ISIS (or ISIL, if you are Obama), Obama is the best gun salesman.  His efforts will probably spur gun sales tenfold from what they would have been if no action had been taken.  Even my wife is seriously considering joining a gun club and perhaps purchasing a piece of her own.  Hopefully, it is not to take me out.  You do not realize what you have until it is taken away or is threatened to be taken away.

The biggest issue I have with Obama’s actions are the inability to come to some sort of compromise with Congress rather than taking Executive Action (EA).  His MO seems to be to refuse to compromise in any way and then take EA.  I know you are going to say it is the Republicans who will not compromise but he had a Democratic congress for his first four years.

That being said, I believe some of the changes (I do not know all of the aspects of the bill yet) are reasonable.  If you are on Social Security and unable to manage your own finances then you probably shouldn’t own a gun nor should you be able to vote or drive a car. So if EA is taken on voting and driving also, then I think it makes sense.

Just so many things to discuss my mind is a jumbled mess right now but this is the topic of the day. Glad to have you back to pummel.

Nattering Naybob: I am not sure when we became a nation of scaredy-cats where everyone has to go out and buy a gun to protect themselves from “varmints” in response to a proposal to increase common-sense gun safety. Obama has been in office exactly 7 years minus 15 days. Please tell me when, during that time he has enacted or signed into law, ANY restrictions on the sale or ownership of guns. To my recollection there has not been a single such act (which incidentally is a black mark against him, from my perspective). But to hear the Lunatic Right (i.e., all Republicans who are not supporting John Kasich for President), Obama has “taken our guns away”. Boulder-dash, I say!!

If your wife (whose name I obviously know full well, yet am withholding due to privacy reasons– would she really want to be associated with these rantings of ours?) has any plans to brandish a gun in your direction to help keep you in line, that is a use of a firearm which I think is totally reasonable and has my complete support.

But I digress. I see nothing has changed, Red Ranger. You continue to cling to the fantasy of the Republican-led Congress being willing to work with this President. They are not, never have been, and never will be. Secondly, your criticism that Obama should have rammed thru this kind of legislation while Democrats were still in control of both houses of Congress during his first two years in office, is patently absurd. You know darn well that HAD he done that, you and the rest of your band of anarchic progress-blockers, would be assailing him for being a dictator. So put that metaphorical gunpowder in your metaphorical gun barrel and smoke it, The Red “LaPierre” Ranger.

The Red Ranger: I do not believe that we are a nation of scaredy-cats, I believe that we are a nation of rational individuals who see an uptick in crime due in part to weakened policing efforts and an influx of illegal aliens.  Therefore, they are doing what any rational person would do to try to protect themselves when the government seems to be failing in that regard.

How can you honestly say that the Republican Congress is unwilling to work with the President?  Wasn’t it just a few short weeks ago that they approved the Omnibus bill to keep the government functioning.  Didn’t this bill include funding for that aborted baby part selling organization, Planned Parenthood one of Obama favorites.  As I say before I think it is the exact opposite that Obama is unwilling to compromise on anything and when he doesn’t get his way just takes Executive Action.

I see that during the absence of Second Grade Minds you have failed to broaden your horizons and continue to get your talking points from MSNBC (which I am surprised is still on the air).

Nattering Naybob: I think it may be useful to narrow down the reason why you think it is rational for a person to go out and buy a gun. Is it because President Obama shows indications of “taking away people’s guns” or is it because of your anecdotal claims that there is an uptick in crime due to “weakened policing and an influx of illegal aliens”? Or maybe a combination of all these reasons that you deploy strategically to fit the needs of whatever situation you are focusing on at the time? Do your Republican friends share any blame from you for sponsoring the bill you referenced below that you find so odious? Or is it all Obama’s fault as per usual?

 

 

 

Syria

The Red Ranger: So we have a country that has used chemical weapons on its citizens and the world fails to take quick and decisive action.  I would have thought that a Nobel peace prize winner like Obama would have been able to quickly pull together a bilateral coalition to extract some payback on Assad.  I guess that he does not really have the confidence of the world leaders like everyone thought he would get when he was elected.

In fact, Obama seems to be totally fumbling US foreign relations.  Other than getting Bin Laden which if you believe some accounts Obama wasn’t too interested in following what has he done.  Our relations with Russia are probably at their lowest level since the pre-Reagan years, the Benghazi attackers have gotten away unscathed and even Britian, our former strongest ally, will not fall in line with us.  Let’s not forget his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the coup that ousted Mubarak in Egypt.  How many Christians have the Brotherhood murdered or how many churches have they destroyed since their ouster in Egypt.

Looking back the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to Obama when they did makes the committee look pretty foolish.  The award shouldn’t have been given based upon hope but on actual results.

 

Nattering Naybob: First, am I to believe that you are still adhering to that Sean Hannity nonsense that Obama “didn’t really want to get Osama bin Laden”? You’re joking, right? From Day 1 in office, Obama informed his National Security team that catching bin Laden would be a priority. Unlike George W. Bush, who replied in a press conference on Marsh 13th, 2012, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS, and I quote: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”.

Every President has foreign policy mis-fires, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Stop reading columns by John Bolton.

The Red Ranger: I did not mean to imply that Obama did not want to get Bin Laden, I was just referencing the fact that there were reports that he wasn’t too interested in watching the actually taking down of Bin Laden.

I would classify a mis-fire as something that happens on a rare occasion.  It seems like other than Bin Laden all of Obama’s foreign policy moves have been mis-fires.

Nattering Naybob: Oh. You are only saying that there are “rumors” (source: unknown) that he did not want to actually watch the video of bin Laden being taken down. Frankly, I don’ think it’s important whether he did or not. All I know is that he was there, watching intently. Or, you may have been seeing those internet reports from the usual Right-Wing nuts, that claim Obama’s image was somehow CGI’d or Photoshopped into the official photographs of the “war room” during the raid.

I find it truly, profoundly, pathetic that so many people waste so much time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of this President’s life. Over two years after we successfully captured and killed the perpetrator of the worst carnage ever inflicted on this country’s soil from outside forces, Republicans are still scraping, scratching, clawing, biting, and in some cases, chewing, to find any possible way to criticize Obama’s role in it. Sad.

And still, The Red Ranger always wonders: “What is happening to our country?”

The Red Ranger: Did you find it as profoundly, pathetic that so many people wasted time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of Bush’s life?  Or were you just part of the mindless Democratic horde partaking in this sport?

Nattering Naybob: No, I was not, if you want to know the truth. I thought George W. Bush  was an incompetent Chief Executive who listened too much to people who were giving him terrible advice (read: Dick Cheney). However I actually gave him credit for the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11. His “bullhorn moment” at the top of the debris pile at Ground Zero was a stroke of leadership genius, and one of the iconic moments in the history of the American Presidency. I thought he was unfairly criticized for continuing to listen for a few minutes to the reading of the students whose class he was visiting, before he started to take direct action on the news given to him on that morning.

I think Bush did a good job in imploring the nation to not take individual vengeance for 9/11 on Muslims in their neighborhood, or who they came across during their day. I think it was disgusting that someone threw shoes at him during a press conference in Iraq late in his Presidency because I think that could conceivably have been deemed an assassination attempt, and it was horrible that anyone would laugh at that and praise the show-thrower.

Bush was and is a devoted and faithful husband, father, and son, and I think his wife was an excellent and dignified First Lady. I think that any suggestion that he would have taken part in a “plot” to help facilitate 9/11 is outrageous and utterly contemptible because for all his management deficiencies, I think he is at heart a patriot and loves his country.

These are all positive comments that Republicans and the Right-Wing lunatic fringe, would never in a million years consider bestowing on Obama.

Ignorance. Again.

Nattering Naybob: Hello, The Red Ranger. A particular theme that I come back to time and time again, both in our little blog and in pre-Second Grade Minds emails that we have exchanged (on our companys’ time I might add), is ignorance of the general public and the decreasing level of intellectual curiosity among our populus. Oh, we generally know which are the hottest iPhone and Android apps, and we can decipher the complex mechanism of the latest smartphone we have purchased, and how to transfer pictures from said phone, via our TV, thru our MiFi device, and divide half of the gallery and send one half to our desktop computer in the attic and the other half of the gallery to our spouse’s smartphone (“You mean you don’t know how to do that? It’s simple….”), but when it comes to basic knowledge about civics, government, current affairs, or anything not related to amusement, electronic gadgets, or entertainment, most people don’t care anymore.

This article by CNBC’s Dan Mangan that appears NBCnews.com, shows how the general public’s ignorance of how the new features of Obamacare (the President himself calls it that), is costing us money and restricting us from taking advantage of some of the hard-earned victories of the Health Care battle.

Here is a key passage from the article

Making the job of selling the brand-new exchanges even more difficult is the public’s general ignorance about health insurance. A recent Journal of Health Economics study found that just 14 percent of people were able to correctly define all of four insurance terms that could affect plan-buying decisions: deductibles, copays, coinsurance and maximum out of pocket costs.

But the persistent ignorance about the Obamacare exchanges is striking given extensive news coverage of the health-reform law upheld by the Supreme Court last year as well as a presidential election, which was seen as a referendum on President Barack Obama’s championing of the legislation.

Now I know what you are going to say, Red Ranger: that the Health Care plan is too complicated and too confusing. That may have some credence, and I am sure that the President and his staff did not do the best job they could have in explaining its features. But still, is it not another example of how in this age of supposed unprecedented access to learning (especially via the internet), the general knowledge level, and maybe more importantly, the desire of citizens to learn about topics that affect them, is a sad commentary on the state of our society. Now wouldn’t you agree with that, The Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: I do agree with you that the general public does not take the time to educate themselves in regard to many of the issues that impact them the most.  How else could you explain an inexperienced, buffoon like Obama being elected President.

However, I too am not all that well informed about how the exchanges work.  One of the key reasons being that I have insurance thru my employer and I was ensured by Obama during the debate regarding Obamacare that I would be able to keep this insurance so there really is no reason for me to spend time learning about the exchanges at this point since I should not need to avail myself to their services.

For something as large as Obamacare the government should have undertaken a media information campaign similar to all the infomercials that are on TV.  They should have created short 30 minute max, informational videos and then bought time on the airwaves and posted on YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, Twitter and any other social media site that people are flocking to these days.  For an administration that is supposedly so media savvy they really haven’t done a good job here.

Nattering Naybob: With the exception of a couple of absurd sentences, I find some merit in your retort, especially the last paragraph. That is essentially the crux of my point, that all the social media and internet-based means of communication should be put to better use than simply showing videos of people walking out of restrooms with toilet paper stuck to their shoe. And you are right, some of the ingenuity and innovation that went into his two election victories, should have been employed in the public review portion of Project Obamacare.

How can this be happening?

The Red Ranger: Just another sign that the Obama economy is a disaster.

How can household income be going down since the recession was over?  Shouldn’t income go up in a recovery?  If not what is the definition of a recovery?

I do not solely blame Obama for this but he is a big contributing factor.  Look what Obamacare is doing to jobs in this country.  75% of new jobs are part-time.  Companies are cutting back people’s hours so that they do not fall under Obamacare.  Now companies are starting to cut out spousal medical benefits if they can get them elsewhere.  I honestly believe that the vast upheaval in the medical insurance arena is exactly what Obama and the Dems want.  They want it all to fall apart so badly that a government run and controlled healthcare system looks better and better to the masses.

We are on the long inexorable match toward a fully socialist society.

Nattering Naybob: There are many factors at play here, and I am gratified that you are not blaming Obama solely. One factor that you fail to mention is income inequality. Corporate profits and the salaries and pay packages for corporate CEOs are at an all-time high. And this article from the New York Times (a little lengthy but well worth the time investment) lays out a frightening situation of how poorly these United States stacks up in a host of human metrics. And I do not think any one person as President can make a difference until we find a way to bridge the partisan divide. I think that is the single key issue in all of this that has to be overcome.

Regarding your claim that “Obama and the Dems” want the medical insurance industry to fall apart… I think that is not an accurate characterization. Conversely I believe that a Socialist form of healthcare for people whose circumstances prevent them from otherwise getting access–without disrupting the extant health care coverage and apparatus for people with them means to purchase more comprehensive coverage–is not a bad thing. I think Obama’s biggest mistake in the run-up to his healthcare legislation was not including a simple “Medicare for all” provision, which some have referred to as the “public option”. But Obama thought that excluding this option would signal a willingness to compromise with the Republicans, which would then reap benefits later. But Obama failed to realize that Republicans in Congress now, are generally not sane people.

The Red Ranger: I believe that this income inequality has accelerated under Obama and he has done nothing to reverse the trend.  While CEO’s are an easy target given their sometimes outlandish pay packages I do not think that this is really the root cause of the issue just due to the mere fact that there are so few of them.

In regard to healthcare, I too believe that there should be a fallback for those who cannot help themselves.  But again, like in so many other discussions I have a hard time when those you won’t help themselves or make bad decisions piggyback with those who cannot help themselves.

Natterng Naybob: Unfortunately I think that it has to be considered “the cost of doing business” if any type of assistance or relief program, counts among its rolls those who are truly undeserving whether it be the result of fraud or recklessness. I am all for the vigilant weeding out of these miscreants. But I am opposed to punishing those who are truly needy and have had some honest misfortune in their lives from getting help, because of the (what I regard to be) statistically low instances of the fraud or undeservedness of others.

Chris Lane

The Red Ranger: Recognize the name?. Probably not given your allegiance to the MSM and radical, left-wing news sites.

Chris Lane is an Australian baseball player who was gunned down by three teenagers in Oklahoma while he was jogging.  One other item of note in this case is that he was white and his killers are black.  One of the assailants has postings on his Twitter account about how he hates whites.  I wonder if the Department of Justice  is going to be looking into this as a hate crime and whether Chris’ civil rights were violated.  My guess is that they will not, given how the prevalent thinking there is that minorities cannot be racist and it is only evil white folks who can be racist.

When will Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson comment on this case?  Will Barack Obama get in front of the nation and say it could have been him?

My challenge to you, Nattering Naybob, is to find this story on one of your favorite websites where they indicate the racial context of the shooting or that one of the assailants has a history of online racial rants.

Nattering Naybob: Here we go again.

Let me start off by saying that I have always been uncomfortable with assigning any violent act an extra layer of a “hate crime”. I am a  little more sympathetic to a crime being labeled a “civil rights violation”, but even that term is poorly-defined. I don’t know what the point is of saying that a particular murder is a “hate crime” and another isn’t. I feel that any pre-meditated or depraved act of murder, is inherently hateful by definition.

I did a Google search a few minutes ago and I found several links to mainstream media outlets like CBS News, NBC News, Huffington Post, and others, whose first sentence mentioned the fact that one of his killers publicly voiced his hatred for white people. Expecting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to comment on this case in the same manner as they did the Trayvon Martin case, is a waste of time because their main objective, as African-American activists, is to identify and comment on examples of the African-American community being treated unfairly. That is what they do. I find nothing wrong with admitting this very openly and honestly.

This reminds me of the argument I hear from white people who find fault with such institutions as “Black Miss America”, or any number of any other African-American based contests, ceremonies etc. The familiar dry is, “Oh, is they ever had a White Miss America contest, can you imagine the uproar?” Well, new flash for you: Most all public institutions, competitions, etc. throughout our history have been, by default, nearly 100% white, all along.

The Red Ranger: I tend to agree with you on hate crime.  I am honestly confused by the term civil rights violation.  What does that mean?  Aren’t all murders civil rights violations merely by the fact that they took away the persons civil rights.

Here is another story which is actually even sadder than the Australian baseball player given this guy’s record.

Yes, I believe that the MSM picked up the Chris Lane story as it gathered some notoriety.

Just because in the past, black women were thought by some to not be deserving to compete in beauty pageants with whites, doesn’t make it OK that they have pageants that exclude whites by their very nature.

The Downward Spiral

The Red Ranger: I am not referring to the masterful album from Nine Inch Nails with the title of our latest post, but to the current direction of the US.

Two of today’s top items on the news wires relate to the continued degradation of life within the United States.  Our esteemed Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced today that he is changing the sentencing requirements for low-level, non-violent drug offenders.  So it seems that drug dealers will no longer face mandatory minimum sentences.  I guess the administration is trying to lower the barriers to entry for drug dealers.  Is this part of Obama’s new job initiative to have more drug dealers on the street?  The only problem with this is that drug dealers do not usually file income tax returns reporting their drug profits so the government does not make any additional tax revenue.

Second, it seems that a lot of immigrants are flooding the border near San Diego claiming political asylum.  I guess there are certain rules that ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) follows when people are claiming this at the border that allow them to get into the country and then slip away.  There have been so many claimants recently that ICE has had to pay to put these people up in hotels.  What a great country when we treat non-citizens better than legal citizens.

So combined we are paving the way for illegal immigrants to enter the country to become drug dealers.  What a place we are becoming.

Nattering Naybob: I am somewhat in agreement with you on the first part of your screed, Red Ranger. I am a little queasy about letting drug dealers, no matter how small-time, off the hook. They should at least be subjected to some kind of rigorous, verifiable, accountable form of community service. I have to learn more about exactly what the plan is, although I am generally supportive of any effort to overhaul the prison system. From the sound of it, it seems like nothing is carved in stone yet. I know that Eric Holder falls into the same category for Republicans that President Obama does, that is, anything he does will be precipitating the fall of all Mankind, no matter what it is. Republicans also have, and have had, the same feeling toward Van Jones, Susan Rice, and Michelle Obama. Do I notice a trend on the part of my Republican “friends”?

Regarding the immigration issue, you are already assuming that illegal immigrants all become drug dealers when you have absolutely no basis to back that up and so have no right to make such an insulting, incendiary claim. The vast majority of immigrants, whether legal or illegal, work very hard at occupations that most “real” Americans would think beneath them, such as busboy or day laborer. If you want to talk about drug dealing and abuse, there is already plenty of that committed by All-American white teenagers and young adults in the suburbs. And just in case you are (again) implying that Obama is soft on illegal immigration, that too is a falsehood because Obama has a more stringent record of deportations than his Republican predecessor in office.

The Red Ranger: Yes, you have identified the trend, your Republican friends do not like those who are trying to avoid the laws and constitution of this great land.  I hope you are not relying on that old liberal trick of calling anyone who disagrees with them either a racist or a bigot.

My last comment was meant to be more tongue in cheek drawing the two issues together.  I realize that most illegal immigrants will not become drug dealers as that is a job that any “real” American would want.

Nattering Naybob: Oh I get it, The Red Ranger, you are using subtlety and irony on me with the illegal immigrant / drug dealer comment. Those sophistications are way over my head today apparently. I am going away for a much-needed mini-vacation to recharge my batteries.

What could a Muslim religious scholar, possibly know about Jesus?

Nattering Naybob: Greetings, The Red Ranger. I assume you saw or heard of the so-called “interview” conducted by Lauren Green of FOX News, where she spent nearly ten minutes repeatedly questioning author Reza Aslan on why a Muslim was qualified to write a book about Jesus (“Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”) or if he or she were qualified, why would they then write that book at all. The fact that Ms. Green holds the title of “Religion Correspondent” for FOX News makes her “questions” even more absurd.

Red Ranger, I know that every single media source or website that I link to or quote from, you think is biased or not valid, so this time I am going to annotate the story by linking to an article from the American Conservative.com, that refers to the “cringe-worthy” interview featuring a “misguided line of questioning”. As our President is fond of saying, “Now…let me be clear”, because this bears repeating: This article is from the American Conservative. Good for them for calling out FOX News’s totally transparent agenda of fear-mongering. The article links to the entire video of the “interview”, which lasts almost ten minutes but is worth watching if for no other reason than Mr. Aslan’s cool, calm, collected, yet firm, reaction to the whole fiasco.

The Red Ranger: OK, so I was wondering why would the Nattering Naybob get so worked up about this relatively innocuous, pedestrian interview, Then through a little detective work I realized that the radical left was all abuzz over this interview and commentary about it had popped up all over the liberal blogsosphere.  As is usually the case the left never fails to crucify anyone who dares to defend Christianity.  Here is a link to something found on FOX News.

So I will agree that maybe the interview did not live up to the exceptionally high standards that the FoxNews network has become expected to deliver it is still better than anything put out by the schlock, faux journalistic MSM.  I guess when you are the best, people are ready to jump on even the slightest misstep.

Nattering Naybob: As a tribe, you Republicans are nothing if not lock-step. As you all invariably do, you defend the actions of someone on the Right, or who espouses Right-leaning dogma in an offensive and intolerant manner, by saying that it is an “attack” or an attempt to “crucify” that person’s advocacy for that issue. For example, if someone on the Right makes a speech or posts a blog saying that there should be absolute unfettered access for all Americans to assault weapons, and a Liberal replies by saying that might not be a good idea, the Right-winger will say that the Liberal hates the Constitution, or that they are are soft on criminality, or that they are unfairly savaging the Right-leaning blogger in a partisan fashion.

So it is with this issue, Red Ranger, when you claim that Ms. Green was “defending Christianity”. Only you are wrong on two accounts, achieving a kind of propagandistic daily double. First, Ms. Green’s question about “why a Muslim should be writing a book about Jesus” had nothing to do with defending Christianity per se’. Instead it was yet another attempt to demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim, which has been FOX News’s stock and trade since September 11, 2001.

Second, and perhaps most important, it is not the anchor’s job to “defend” Christianity in the first place, it is her job to bring out points and ideas from the author’s book that will enlighten or educate the viewers. Ms. Green did none of that, and when the author suggested that she did not even read his book, she did not disagree with or correct him. Instead of giving Ms. Green the title of “Religion Correspondent”, why doesn’t FOX News just call her “Christianity Correspondent– or sometimes Judaism Correspondent When President Obama Calls For a Two-State Solutions and So Hates Israel”?

The Red Ranger: As usual the liberal left’s paranoia and insecurity comes through.  Has there ever been any group that is so completely and utterly inept at defending there positions or supporting why they have those positions.

How does posing a simple question demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim.  I suppose that if I wrote a book on Islam and was questioned by an Islamic reporter about why I wrote it then they would be demonstrating a deep mistrust of all things Christian just because they asked the question.

I didn’t realize that you had written Ms. Green’s job responsibilities.  Does your emploiyer know that you are moonlighting at another network?

Breaking news: Black kid killed, white killer goes free. Again.

Nattering Naybob: Excuse my rather blunt post title, Red Ranger but I think it justified, given the verdict that was handed down on Saturday night. If I were African-American, I would be pretty pissed off right now. What do you suppose would have happened if a black security guard (or whatever Zimmerman’s title was), targeted a white kid who had no apparent intention of committing any criminal activity, and, ignoring his supervisor’s orders to stand down, caused an unnecessary confrontation that resulted in the black security guard’s shooting of the white kid. I’m sure FOX News and all its adherents would be just as anxious to give the security guard “his day in court”. I doubt it.

I do not watch FOX News. I would rather be tasked to find a lost dime from the muddy ground inside a nest of hungry Komodo Dragons. So since I know you do watch FOX News, maybe you can answer this: Did you ever see anyone on that station, between the time of the initial killing of Martin, up to the present moment, ever express the slightest remorse or condolence for the death of an innocent teenager? Rather than their exclusive focus on Trayvon Martin’s Facebook page or the fact that he was caught smoking marijuana?

The Red Ranger:  I am starting to think that you are just writing these blurbs in an effort to keep our blog vibrant.  You cannot honestly believe what you are writing here.

The only thing that I agree with here is that if I were an African-American I would be pretty pissed off right now.  That anger would be directed at my fellow African-Americans who only seemed to get riled up when a fellow African-American is killed by a white, Hispanic or even a white-Hispanic.  The dozens of black on black murders committed daily do not seem to cause any amount of angst in the black community.  They are just accepted and people move on.  Perhaps a little more concern within their own community could lead to a reduced level of crime and violence.  Instead, of worrying about the rare instance where an armed white-Hispanic is viciously beaten by a drug addled black man and then defends himself they should turn their attention inward and focus on their own community but as is the case within the liberal Democratic world it is always someone else’s fault and no one needs to take responsibility.

I am sure there are numerous instances where a black person shoots an innocent white person every day but this does not make the headlines in the MSM since it does not fit their narrative.  I would love to see a statistical breakout of every solved murder to see how many of the killers were white/black vs. whether the victims were white/black.   I am fairly certain that the numbers would show a larger proportion of black on white murders than white on black.

I know that you have fallen prey to the MSM’s portrayals in this case but let’s face the facts.  A jury found Zimmerman innocent so via the transitive property Martin must have been guilty of attacking him to allow him to defend himself with immunity.  Therefore, you cannot call Martin an innocent victim.  Perhaps if Martin were not high on drugs he could have handled the situation in a more mature manner.  Instead of violently attacking Zimmerman he could have just as easily introduced himself, thanked Zimmerman for trying to protect his neighborhood and maybe shared some Skittles with him.

In regard, to FOX News they certainly have had commentators come on who have said that this was a tragedy for all involved and  have expressed remorse over the situation.

If the DOJ seeks civil rights charges against Zimmerman the people of this country will need to take a long hard look at where this country is heading.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you cite cases of same-race murder or murders of whites by blacks, so can I cite many many instances of black suspects being railroaded over the years for victimizing whites. Last time I checked my history (a topic ignored by most Republicans except in the rare cases it suits their needs), very few whites were lynched over the past hundred or so years and if there were, I doubt that any all-black jurors failed to convict the black lyncher(s) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I might also add as a point of fact that the vast majority of lynchings of blacks in the 20th century took place in the Deep South, which is also a Republican stronghold. I’m just sayin’.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman has a history of targeting African-Americans, he was told by his supervisor to stand down and not pursue Martin, and he ignored that direct order, and it was his gun, shot by his hand, that killed an unarmed teenager. And he walked away totally free on Saturday night, probably into a waiting job at FOX News as a criminality or security analyst.

The Red Ranger: Like any good Democrat you try to paint southern Republicans as the root of all things racist.  Weren’t some of the most racist figures in southern history democrats (George Wallace for example).   By the way did you see the instance on either CNN or MSNBC where when showing a clip of George Wallace they labeled him a Republican.  Of course, I am sure that any card-carrying liberal believed that since there this is no way a democrat could ever be a racist.  I think that this shows either the complete incompetence in the staff of these networks or indicates the total lack of ethics they have as they try to distort history to a gullible American public.

Southern democrats and southern Republican all voted against the civil rights act so it is not just a Republican thing.  A Republican wrote the voting rights act..  A Democrat put the Japanese in internment camps.  I could go on and on but history has time and again shown the Democrats to be the more racist party.  However, the MSM has taken it upon themselves to re-write history and portray the Democratic party as some long standing champion of minorities and immigrants when they were historically anything but that.

To me the bottom line is you have Trayvon Martin with a history of drug abuse and violent behavior viciously attacking someone who was just trying to make their neighborhood a safer place.  Martin misjudged his victim as I am sure he thought he could beat up some overweight white guy.  I am sure that if he Zimmerman was not legally carrying a weapon he would have become just another victim of black on white crime and Trayvon would have boasted on his Facebook page about how he beat up some “Cracker”.

Nattering Naybob: We have a fundamental disagreement on this one. Zimmerman and his family, especially his brother, have a history of racist attitudes that indicate a proclivity on George’s part to target out an African-American teenager. How in God’s name is it pertinent whether he had a “history of drug abuse”, meaning he was caught smoking pot. I guess that makes Zimmerman’s murder, justifiable homicide in your eyes. Yet Zimmerman was not even charged with that.  This article lays out a report released by the city of Sanford, which summarizes serial instances of Zimmerman acting recklessly and focusing much of his suspicions on African-Americans, some of whom may be he imagined. I find the whole thing disgusting.

Finally, your portrayal of Zimmerman as am “overweight white guy” is a little mis-leading. It is true that right now he probably could stand to ignore the recipes in the latest Paula Deen cookbook, but on the night he murdered Trayvon Martin he actually looked very fit.

The Red Ranger:  Martin not only had a history of drug abuse he had drugs in his system on the night of the incident.

What is your definition of fit?  He was described by someone during the trial as being a .5 and a scale of 1 to 10 in regard to fitness. I cannot comprehend how you reference everything in Zimmerman’s past but fail to recognize anything in Martin’s past as being integral to this case. Clearly, you are having a hard time accepting the fact that you are wrong in this instance since the jury found him not guilty. Why do you constantly fall victim to the MSM and liberal manipulation of the facts?

In the last paragraph Zimmerman did not call to report a black male.  He only identified Martin as potentially being a black male when asked by the dispatcher.  This is the exact misrepresentation of the facts that has gotten NBC, etc. into hot water.

The Nattering Naybob: I submit forthwith a before and after image of George Zimmerman. Compared to how he looks  now, I feel confident stating that he was “fit” immediately after the shooting. As an apologist for a de-facto law enforcement agent who deliberately disobeyed his supervisor’s orders, resulting in the murder of an unarmed teenager, I know that you will do anything to portray Zimmerman as being at a physical disadvantage on the night of the shooting. If he was in fact at a fitness level of “0.5” on a scale of 1 to 10, as you state, he should not have been on duty in the first place. I think we should give our small but loyal band of readers time to digest all our comments above, then we can continue with another posting during which I will respond to your latest “blame the victim” whining.

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.

Kentucky Senate race

The Red Ranger: I was disappointed to see that Ashley Judd is not going to be running for the Senate from Tennessee, sorry Kentucky.  I was looking forward to seeing her face on the news every night.  Sure beats seeing Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton.

As much as I disagree with her viewpoints on most issues she would have made the race interesting with her frequent controversial and illogical comments.

Nattering Naybob: Yes, it would have been an interesting contrast, on the one hand you would have had Ashley Judd and on the other, Mitch McConnell, who looks like those well-preserved Pharoah mummies that the Egyptian guy with the hat always uncovers on the Discovery Channel.

I think it’s safe to say that if Ashely Judd would have run, and somehow would have won, if she had at some point served under a Republican president, she would not have made her main legislative goal to be the defeat of that opposite-party president, as McConnell stated was his goal following Obama’s first election.