Can NASA also protect us from Republicans?

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I was heartened to read in the HuffingtonPost today that NASA is appointing someone they call a “Planetary Defense Officer” as part of an overall effort to defend our earth from asteroids, meteors, and other space-based projectiles that threaten the very existence of us Earthlings. I guess they are trying to do whatever they can to try and protect us from threats from space, while Republicans from the Fringe Lunatic Right (which are about 99.7% of Republicans, lately) do their best to destroy our Earth by rejecting all evidence of global warming (“I’m not a scientist, BUT….”) and scoffing at attempts to reduce carbon emissions, etc. Question for NASA: Can you also protect against Earth-bound threats such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, The Koch Brothers, and the NRA?

 

Artists rendering of us all getting killed
Artists rendering of us all getting killed

The Red Ranger: What a great idea, I suggest we round up some far left radicals and assign them to patrol the universe.  I say we send DiBlasio, Sanders, the Clintons (Bill and Hill) and the Obama’s into space on a never ending search for asteroids, meteors, etc.  The cost of providing them a one-way trip through the universe will surely be less than the cost they would inflict on humans should they remain on earth.

Speaking of costs, in the article it indicates that the cost of this effort is budgeted at $50 million in 2016 which is up from $4 million in 2010.  This is a 52% compound annual growth rate. That is outrageous even by Obama’s standards.  I am sure that if they identify an object on a collision course with the earth some bleeding heart liberal will argue against destroying it claiming we must not have borders and these alien objects have every right to enter the earth.

Nattering Naybob: You have proven yourself a true deficit hawk. You would rather save money than help save the world, literally. I’m surprised you aren’t supporting an idea that your Conservative icon and God, Ronald Reagan, first proposed. One of his few good ideas.

The Red Ranger: I am not a deficit hawk just one for sound fiscal policies.  I am not against spending just want to make sure money is spent wisely with the highest benefit return for all.

Nattering Naybob: One would think that saving the planet from getting hit by an asteroid that would potentially cause the mass extinction of most or all animals and human beings, would be something with a high benefit attached. But that’s just me…

 

 

 

Road to Nowhere

The Red Ranger: I was listening to an old Talking Heads CD this weekend and heard the song referenced in the title of this blog, and it reminded me of our current economic situation.  While we have bungee jumped off of the fiscal cliff we seem to be right back where we started looking at another down to the wire negotiation in the coming weeks over the raising of the debt ceiling.

Having to endure all of these stop-gap last minute negotiations is no way to run a country.  With each passing dramatic negotiation I am more and more tempted to just let things go over the cliff and start anew.  It can’t be any worse than what is happening.  I hope that the Republicans stand tall on raising the debt ceiling and exact some spending cuts to go along with the tax increases.  In addition, I hope they somehow figure out a way to force the Senate to pass an annual budget as they are legally required to do but have failed to do under Obama.  If it is a law but no one is going to jail for breaking the law, what good is the law.  I truly believe that not having a budget to guide the government is one of our main problems.  After all if you and I just kept spending more than we made and every six months went to the credit card company to raise our credit limit, I think we may be denied eventual

I hope you enjoy your reduced take home pay in your next paycheck due to the social security tax increase.  Actually, I am glad they put the tax rate back to where it was since all we were doing was making the Social Security fund get depleted even sooner than it will normally.

Nattering Naybob: First, I commend you on your choice of music. I cannot tell you how many times I relieve the stress of yet another harrowing day at work, by You-Tubing a video from probably the greatest concert movie of all time (other than “Woodstock”, of course), “Stop Making Sense”, particularly such tracks as “Burning Down the House”, “Found a Job”, and “Making Flippy Floppy”. Come to think of it, it is amazing how many of these titles could be considered analogous to the current batch of Republican House members, but I guess that is an issue for Chris Christie to ponder. I am glad that, as a Republican, you are listening to music other than Anita Bryant albums and oldies but goodies like Victor Lundberg’s Generation Gap spoken-word “Open Letter to my Teenage Son“.

That being said, if I read between the lines I get the impression that even though the deal was late in coming and you would rather have taken the trip over the fiscal cliff and damn the consequences, that you are actually not too unhappy with the results. Obama has acknowledged that given the sad state of compromise in our national politics that any major progress in terms of reducing our debt and getting our financial house back in order will have to incremental. And this is a good start. Although I also have to admit that it is pretty much what I said it would be, i.e. a dramatic last-minute victory thanks to Joe Biden (more on him later) and, yes…. (as I hold my nose)… Mitch McConnell. I think I may change my blog identity from Nattering Naybob to “Pragmatic Prognosticator Preternaturally Predisposed to Pretty Prescient and Prizewinning Predictions”. What do you think?

The Red Ranger: I think with a name like that you will diminish our faithful following even further.

“Convention”-al wisdom (or not)

Nattering Naybob: Some (overdue) reflections on the recently-concluded Republican and Democatic National Conventions…

Admittedly, I saw more of the Democratic Convention as compared to the Republican’s. I did watch some of the Republicans’ shindig, but I quickly tired of their game plan, which consisted basically of four elements: 1) saying that President Obama apologizes for America 2) continuing the ridiculous, out of context “We Built It” attack (accompanied by a nauseating song performed by a prototypical, cowboy-hatted, no doubt pickup-truck-drivin’, country singer right out of Central Casting), 3) legislators and governors (most notably serial bully Chris Christie) who talked more about themselves and their alleged accomplishments, than about the Romney / Ryan plan, 4) an empty chair (to go along with, I assume, the Republicans’ empty rhetoric).

By most accounts, the Democrat’s Convention was much more effective and memorable. I know that this is not the most authoritative indicator of electoral success, but it did my Progressive / Liberal heart good to finally see an unequivocal defense of Obama’s record, and the beginnings of a long-overdue response to the distortions, exaggerations, and “mis-rememberments” (I am trying to be polite, Red Ranger) that have been coming from the Republicans. Just about the only misstep of the entire three days was, in my view, not including the moving address given by John Lewis, the Georgia congressmen who is one of the true heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, in prime-time.

Otherwise, below are some of my favorite lines delivered by Democatic speakers, acknowledging that some were designed as “red meat” for the Democrats in the arena…still, they were funny:
 
John Kerry: “Ask Osama bin Laden whether he is better off than he was four years ago.”
 
Fomer Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm: “[Romney] loves cars so much, they even have their own elevator…[but] in Romney’s world, the cars get the elevator, and the workers get the shaft!”
 
John Kerry, again (why couldn’t he be this funny in 2004?): “It isn’t fair to say Mitt Romney doesn’t have a position on Afghanistan. He has every position. He was against setting a date for withdrawal — then he said it was right — and then he left the impression that maybe it was wrong to leave this soon. He said it was ”tragic” to leave Iraq, and then he said it was fine. … Talk about being for it before you were against it! Mr. Romney — here’s a little advice: Before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you better finish the debate with yourself!”

President Obama (on the Romney /Ryan plan): “…All they have to offer is the same prescription [that Republicans] have had for the last thirty years: ‘Have a surplus? Try a tax cut. Deficit too high? Try another. Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning.’ ”
 
Ted Strickland (former Ohio governor): If Mitt was Santa Claus, he’d fire the reindeer and outsource the elves.”
 
But by far the most memorable moment, for me, had nothing to do with partisanship or electoral politics. It was when Gabrielle Giffords, a year-and-a-half removed from a bullet to the head delivered by yet another mentally unstable, socially mal-adjusted person with too-easy access to a gun, recited the Pledge of Allegiance (assisted by DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz). Democrat, Republican, or Independent, I defy anyone to have watched that and not gotten a lump in his or her throat.

The Red Ranger: I did not watch much of the conventions so I do not have much to say about them, however, I will make a few comments:

It is great that Giffords is recovering from her gunshot wounds.  One thing that bothers me is that the Dems seem to be using this little known (at least before she was shot) representative who barely got re-elected in 2010 and portraying her as the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Her shooting was certainly tragic but let’s not make her out to be more than she actually was.  I wonder if the Dems keep trotting her out trying to keep their ill -informed masses thinking that this is what the Tea Party caused since the first reports about the shooter were trying to link him to the Tea Party.  We all know that radical left-wingers have a short attention span and are allergic to the facts so the only thing they remember about the incident is the first thing they heard about it.  I actually think Giffords called herself a closet Republican or something like that one time.

So it seems your favorite lines were for the most part negative attacks on the Republicans.  It is interesting how there are few references to actual successes of the Obama administration.  I guess when you really don’t have any successes there is nothing you can say about them.

One speaker at the Democratic convention that I really have to question is Sandra Fluke.  Who is she and why does she get to speak at the Democratic convention?  Like typical Dems you really do not need any credentials or accomplishments to get air time with the party. Do the Dems really believe that someone promoting a promiscuous lifestyle supported by others is the face that they want to present to the country?  If you cannot afford to pay for your own contraceptives then do not have sex.  However, I guess she fits in perfectly with the mantra of the Dems of denying personal responsibility and requiring others to pay for the outcomes of your actions and/or bad decisions.

Nattering Naybob: Regarding Sandra Fluke’s credentials, there is something called “Wikipedia” on the internet that gives one basic information on just about any public figure. Below is a summary extracted directly from Wikipedia regarding Sandra Fluke’s credentials and past work in the area of women’s health. if you did not take your cues from the spiritual and intellectual leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, who famously called Fluke a “slut” on multiple occasions on his show, on multiple days, you might have realized on your own that Fluke stands for issues other than “promoting promiscuity”. If you sincerely believe that her credentials below did not justify her providing testimony before Congress on issues of women’s health issues and reproductive rights, and the representation of the traditionally under-served in our society, there is little I can do at this point in your life to convince you otherwise:

 
“Fluke is a native of Saxton, Pennsylvania, and graduated from Pennsylvania’s Tussey Mountain Junior/Senior High School in 1999. She graduated from Cornell University’s Program in Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. She was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence. She worked in New York City for Sanctuary for Families, which aids victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. She is the 2011 recipient of the Women Lawyers of Los Angeles’ Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant,which supported her production of a video on how to take out a restraining order.She also “represented numerous victims of domestic violence and human trafficking” and also worked to help “child victims of domestic human trafficking” in Kenya.Sandra Fluke graduated cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2012 and served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.While at Georgetown University Law Center, she worked on issues that involved domestic violence and human trafficking.”

 
(All these citations above were fully documented with footnotes, which I have deleted for the sake of clarity here, so please don’t try to claim that Wikipedia is mis-stating or exaggerating her activities or credentials, or is a tool of the main stream media as is your wont).

Had Republicans allowed Fluke’s testimony to be entered into the record as scheduled, instead of barring her from testifying, like the reliable Fascists that they have become, she probably would not have come into public prominence to the extent she has. It was chiefly the justifiable outrage at her being banned from speaking that put here in the spotlight.

With respect to Giffords, I think that all the Democrats were trying to do was to include a member of their own party who was senselessly gunned down while attending a community town hall meeting with her constituents. I do not believe that any Democrats, either individually or as a Party, has ever tried to politicize the issue in any way other than to bring attention to the need to examine the issues of easy it is to acquire guns, regardless of one’s mental capacity or emotional balance. If there was a erroneous report in the moments immediately afterwards, that Gifford was attacked by a Tea Party member, then shame on the reporter, but please don’t extrapolate that out to the entire Democratic party. Much of the Republican Party has been erroneously claiming for years now that the President of our country was not born in the United States, yet I do not see you expressing the same outrage. Finally, if your barometer for someone making a speech at a Convention is how pertinent they are to the overall National discourse, what business did Clint Eastwood have speaking before Romney’s acceptance speech, other than making a complete jackass of himself and detracting from Romney’s presentation?

The Red Ranger: While I know you libs consider Wikipedia akin to the Encyclopedia Britannica it is hard to fully accept something as fact when anyone can post there. 

So you are not disputing her basic premise that any woman should be able to have sex with any one at any time they want and if they cannot afford contraceptives then someone else needs to provide it to them.

You can’t actually be questioning the credentials of Clint Eastwood one of Hollywood’s legendary actors and directors. Perhaps if it was George Clooney speaking at the Democratic convention you could have gotten that tinkly feeling down your leg like you Dems are known to get.

Eat-Mor-Demorats

Red Ranger: So now our great elected officials, Menino (Boston) and Emmanuel (Chicago) have taken it upon themselves to deny the Chick-Fil-A franchise the right to open stores in their cities because of the president of Chick-Fil-A’s views on gay marriage which, by the way, were Obama’s view up until a few weeks ago.  The fact that these two buffoons are not being run out of town by their constituents is just another example of how the few have taken control over the many.  I believe that most studies have shown the gay population in the US to be about 9% max, however, they have developed an out-sized ability to control the national debate on topics with anyone who dares to disagree them being labeled a homophobe.  While I do not support gay marriage that does not automatically make me a homophobe.  In fact gay marriage has been defeated every time it has been put to a vote.

Menino’s statement about why he wanted to ban Chick-Fil-A was probably one of the most comical statements ever, and one that Yogi Berra would have been proud of.  In short, he basically said Boston is an inclusive city that is why we are excluding Chick-Fil-A from the city.  The sheer lunacy of his statement would probably have drawn more scrutiny if it had come from someone other than Menino who is well known for his public flubs.

Emmanuel on the other hand invites Louis Farrakhan and his band of thugs to help patrol the city to try to quell the rampant violence that is occurring in Chicago lately.  While I am sure that any help to stop the crime in Chicago is warranted does Emmanuel not realize that Farrakhan also believes that gay marriage is wrong.  Why is it OK for him not to be punished for his view while Chick-Fil-A is.  Is it because he is black?

In short Chick-Fil-A which as far as I know has not been convicted of any discrimination should be able to open stores where they deem appropriate and then it would be up to the citizens of that city to decided whether they want to patronize them.

 

Nattering Naybob: I do not patronize Chick-Fil-A since I am a vegetarian. Red Ranger, I know you know this because you always kindly provide vegetarian-friendly options for my wife and I when we are privileged to pay a visit to your home. Even when I did eat meat, I was not a fan of fried chicken. So maybe I should recuse myself from this debate and instead comment on two specific ideas referenced in your opening salvo.

First, I have no idea why Rahm Emanuel or anyone else would enlist Louis Farrakhan to help with anything they are trying to accomplish. Louis Farrakhan fashions himself as the latter-day Malcolm X, but Farrakhan is not entitled to shine Malcolm X’s shoes (pardon the unfortunate metaphor) either morally or intellectually.

Second, you mention that gay marriage has been defeated every time it has come to a vote. Since gay marriage is an issue of equal rights, it should not even be put to a vote. The public should not be deciding whether or not gay marriage is approved any more than voters of the 1950’s and 1960’s should have voted on whether African-Americans should be admitted to historically all-white schools, or whether they should be granted equal voting rights. If those two issues had been put on the ballot during that era, it is doubtful that more than a handful of states would have voted in the affirmative. People like Chris Christie cower behind the cover of “the people don’t want it” excuse whenever the subject of gay rights comes up, and it annoys me to no end

Red Ranger: I do not believe that marriage is a right.  Rather it is a vehicle established by the government hence the reason that you need to get a marriage license to get married.  Therefore, it seems fair to allow the public to vote on it.  Can you please expand upon what you feel the public should be allowed to vote on or are you just willing to let elected officials or appointed judges make your decisions for you.

Nattering Naybob: Your tortured logic confounds me, Red Ranger. I thought Republicans are against Government intruding on people’s personal lives. Why all of a sudden do you put any stock in what the Government wants people to do, or allows people to do?  You have just demonstrated one of the key dysfunctionalities of the Modern Republican Party: you rail against Government involvement in all things, except when you want Government involvement to prevent, or intervene in, something that you don’t like.

Red Ranger: I thought that allowing people to vote on issues is anti-government intervention as I had been espousing.

Nattering Naybob: Go lay down somewhere and rest. Next topic….