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.

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).

 

Wishing the Mayans were right

The Red Ranger: 12/21/12 has come and gone and we are all still here.  Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing considering the mess we are in.  As the fiscal cliff nears both sides seem adamant in their positions and there seems like there is little hope of a meaningful agreement before we go over the cliff.  This has to be the worst batch of  elected officials ever assembled.  Their inability to compromise is frustrating but not unexpected given that many of them come from the extremes of both parties.

I know how much you love Obama but it is time for him to step up and be the leader he needs to be.  He needs to lay a deal on the table that takes from both sides (tax increases for those making over $250k, Congress to maintain ability to control debt ceiling, meaningful spending cuts even to the military, etc.) .  By the way whatever happened to the great influx of funds we were promised with the ending of the Iraq war.  It seems like whatever we saved in the war was just spent somewhere else.  Obama needs to stop thinking that any resistance to his proposal is because of him.  This just goes to reinforce the inflated opinion he has of himself.  The resistance is due to the chasm between the philosophies at play.

I wonder when we reach the point of no return in all of these battles.  I have to think we are pretty close at this point given the growing debt, shrinking labor force, increased global temperature, etc.  There may be no turning back now.

It was great to see you and your wonderful wife again.  She is a saint for putting up with you.

Nattering Naybob: I too enjoyed meeting, along with my wife, you and your wonderful wife and two boys on Sunday for lunch in one of the many New Jersey diners that The Red Ranger no doubt misses after heartlessly leaving in the dark of the night for Massachusetts about 10 years ago, I think (correct me if I am wrong about the chronology). Your departure for Massachusetts reminded me of Robert Irsay’s notorious exodus from Baltimore to Indianapolis with a bunch of loaded moving vans at 2:00 in the morning.

I was honored to have bequeathed most of my remaining circa 1974 baseball card collection to your two sons, who I am sure will give them the proper respect that I did not, having squirreled them away in a dank storage unit all these years. And if you think my wife is a saint (she is), your bride must certainly be… well, I don’t know what the next level is after saint, but whatever it is, that’s her. To hear the lengths that she went to learn how to play golf while withstanding your withering attacks and ridicule, was an inspiration to me. As misguided as The Red Ranger is on most political issues of the day, you are to be congratulated on your excellent matrimonial choice and the expert way in which you (and your wife) are raising your two terrific sons.

The comparatively upbeat mood you seemed to be in on Sunday has soured considerably, perhaps due to the harsh reality of having to go back to work after the Christmas holiday (I don’t blame you, if that is the case). Your plaintive plea for the Mayan end-of-days prediction contains a lot to “unpack”, as they say these days, so let me try and respond and close the year as I spent the previous 360 days, helping you understand how wrong you are.

President Obama HAS been compromising. In case you did not hear about this, he increased the threshold at which the higher tax rates kick in from $250,000 to $400,000. And his budgetary proposals HAVE made significant cuts to defense spending. Did you not hear Mitt Romney (remember him?) whine about how Obama was endangering our security by his proposed cuts to defense? Romney, by the way, had pledged to RAISE defense spending to a level higher than even our current defense planners were asking for.

The Republicans have to accept the fact that Obama won the election, quite comfortably in fact, and as such is entitled to benefit from the time-honored maxim that “elections have consequences”. Mitt Romney ran on a platform of continuing to slash taxes for the rich and destroying the social safety net, and that platform was soundly rejected by the American people, DESPITE four years of non-stop personal attacks on Obama by most all Republican office-holders and commentators (those who did not choose to engage in this personal character assassination quickly became persona non grata in the GOP… see “Crist, Charlie”, “Huntsman, Jon”.)

Call me a cockeyed optimist but I still think there will be a last-minute Franco Harris / Tom Dempsey-like miracle finish and we will avert the fiscal cliff scenario. However I do also think it will be yet another stop-gap measure that will lead us into another year of non-stop debt ceiling debates that may impede Obama’s second-term agenda, which I imagine you view as a good thing.

The Red Ranger: I think that my wife was as excited about the baseball cards as the boys were.  One of the boys had inadvertently left a card out of the box after looking at them last night and she was quick to scold him that they need to be appropriately stored at all times.  I think I need to purchase some of those plastic card protectors to ensure the longevity of the cards.

The Republicans won their elections to the house so that has consequences also.  Obama needs to grow a set of them and stop acting like every time someone disagrees with his policies it is a personal attack on him.  Look at all the withering attacks Bush had to put up with for eight years.  Did he constantly complain?  No, he went out and did his job.  How well is up for debate but at least he tried.

Yes, I do view control over the indiscriminate raising of the debt ceiling as a good thing.  When is the raising of the debt ceiling (which Obama called unpatriotic when he was in the Senate) going to stop.

What are these people thinking?

Nattering Naybob: A recent national poll by Public Policy Polling has revealed the frightening level of ignorance demonstrated by many voters who control who is our next President. The question was “Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?” The results showed that 62 percent of Republicans in Ohio, and 71 percent of Republicans in North Carolina, believe that Romney deserved more credit, or that they were not sure who deserved more credit between Obama and Romney. 

Please note that the other choice than Obama, was not George W. Bush, but Romney. Although I would not agree with the theory that George Bush deserved more credit (especially since he famously once said in a press briefing, “I don’t really worry that much any more about Osama bin Laden”), there at least is a rudimentary rationale for choosing “Bush” over “Obama”, perhaps by virtue of the perceived planning or groundwork supposedly previously laid by the Bush administration. But Mitt Romney had absolutely no connection whatever to any arm of Government, the CIA, or the Defense Department during the time that the raid on bin Laden’s compound was being planned. 

Red Ranger, I know you are a stickler for documentation, so below are the exact results of how Republicans answered:
 
Ohio
Obama: 38%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 47%
 
North Carolina
Obama: 29%
Romney: 15%
Not sure: 56%

I submit that if a Republican President had taken the same action, and under that President”s overall command, the Navy SEALs had achieved the same success, that Republicans in Congress and on Fox News would be clamoring for an additional head to be carved onto Mount Rushmore. Check out this article from the New York Times  that discusses these poll results

I cannot help but be reminded of the classic segment that Rachel Maddow did during the 2010 Senatorial race between Lisa Murkowksi and Joe Miller (remember him?) when she asked some Miller supporters why they were supporting Miller. The two people she spoke to were absolutely convinced that Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama were out to get their guns, except for one small detail: They could not explain what evidence they based this on. This exchange typifies the brand of mis-information that continues to be propogated by Americans who hate Obama. Your reaction.

The Red Ranger: The level of ignorance is equal on the Democratic side.  Please view this video and go to the last couple of minutes to see where these people get their information from. [Note: Some of the user comments contain adult language, as they, regrettably, frequently do on YouTube]

It is truly unfortunate that the vast majority of voters in this country do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues at hand. It is amazing how little people know about basic facts of this country and how it operates.

Nattering Naybob: Nice try, these “Obama voters” were all obviously actors recruited by Andrew Breitbart before his death, and paid for by Karl Rove’s SuperPAC.

“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.

“The name is an anagram”

Nattering Naybob: The recent anointing of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate, reminded me of one of my favorite movies, “Rosemary’s Baby”. Let me explain.

“Rosemary’s Baby” tells the story of Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow), who, unknowingly, is carrying a baby that was spawned by the Devil himself. This unhappy situation was facilitated by Rosemary’s own husband (John Cassavetes) and next-door neighbors (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon). In a pivotal scene in the film, one of Rosemary’s friends (“Hutch”, played by Maurice Evans), thinks he knows what’s going on and wants to meet Rosemary for lunch to give her a book about Upper West Side witches, which he believes implicates her neighbor, Roman Castevet. But Hutch “conveniently” falls into a coma and dies. Hutch’s housekeeper hands the book to Rosemary at the funeral, telling her only that Hutch had said “the name is an anagram” just prior to slipping into his coma. At first Rosemary thinks she means the name of the book, “All of Them Witches”. She goes home and uses some Scrabble cubes to try and piece together the anagram referenced by Hutch. At first, she is unsuccessful.

Then she notices by chance a reference in the book to a teenager, “Steven Marcato” who is the son of one of the suspected “witches” living in turn-of-the century New York. She then re-arranges the Scrabble pieces again, this time converting “Steven Marcato” into “Roman Castevet”. When she realizes the connection, she is convinced that something is seriously wrong (I always get goose bumps when I see this scene.)

Red Ranger, as you know, the author Ayn Rand (“The Fountainhead”, “Atlas Shrugged”) is the Modern Republicans’ writer of choice. Paul Ryan claims her as his intellectual inspiration (despite Rand’s outspoken support for a woman’s right to choose, and her distrust of religion). So imagine my own fascination when I realized that the words “and Ryan”– as in “Romney and Ryan“– is an anagram of (drumroll)….. Ayn Rand.

To take this to its next logical level, is it not safe to assume that the American people, once they learn more about Paul Ryan’s extremist, anarchist, right-wing agenda, will recoil in the same kind of horror that Rosemary herself showed during the film’s climactic scene, when she saw her offspring’s demon-like appearance for the first time. I recall her chilling, tearful question to the coven of witches responsible for the demonic conception: “What have you done to its eyes !?”

To quote your current Commander-in-Chief, “Let me be clear”: I am not implying that Paul Ryan, or Mitt Romney, should be compared to the Devil, or to the little demon spawn that Rosemary laid eyes on in the cradle. If fact, Romney reminds me more of Roman Castevet, the officious neighbor who helped betray Rosemary.

But I’m just sayin’. “Ayn Rand”…. “and Ryan”…. if you don’t believe me, pull out your Scrabble set and try it yourself, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: Very interesting concept on your part. I pulled out my Scrabble game but just kept getting Q’s, X’s and Z’s.

It is interesting how you insinuate that Ryan shouldn’t have Ayn Rand as his inspiration since she supported women’s rights and was not religious. I feel the same way when I see supposed Catholics supporting the Democratic party. How can someone of the Catholic faith support any Democratic candidate when the party is so staunchly pro-abortion and gay rights. Right or wrong the Catholic church is clearly anti-abortion and gay rights. If you are Catholic (which I am not) are you allowed to only follow the beliefs of the church that happen to fit in with your own.

As far as Ryan goes it is interesting to see his budget attacked while the Dems in Washington have brazenly broken the laws of the land by not passing a budget since Obama has been in office. How this is allowed to happen is mind boggling to me. While everyone doesn’t need to agree with what Ryan’s budget proposal is at least he has one. If you have not created one of your own you shouldn’t be criticizing his. One of the highlights of Obama’s first and only term has to be seeing his budget proposal voted down by something like 450-0. The only positive coming out of that was that it was the first time that Congress agreed on something in a long time.

Nattering Naybob: You speak of the Constitution. Fine. Have you ever been to the Jefferson Memorial? I visited it this past May with my lovely wife. We had a very nice couple of days walking around DC. It was the Friday prior to Memorial Day and the place was already hopping in anticipation of the Holiday festivities.

The inside walls of the Jefferson Memorial are inscribed with quotes from Jefferson., one of which regards the Constitution and reads to wit: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made , new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance and also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat that fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”. In other words, Jefferson is admitting that the Constitution is a living document. If he and the other Founding Fathers ever saw the modern Congress in action, they would probably exempt any modern President from complying with any Constitutional law that depended on Congressional approval of any kind.

The Red Ranger: Glad you enjoyed your trip to DC. I am sure that you didn’t run into Obama since it was a long holiday weekend he probably left town to play golf on Thursday. Michelle and the girls were probably off on a shopping trip somewhere.

I know that you would like to excuse Obama from following any rules since you like the rest of the extreme, radical, socialist, left-wingers are brain washed into thinking that anything he wants to do is acceptable. All I can say is that we have these rules in place so we can stop people like him from ruining the country entirely.

Nattering Naybob: You sometimes give me a headache, Red Ranger.

Aurora, Part 3: Wash, Rinse, and Repeat

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, back in July we exchanged some thoughts about the Aurora shootings. In the intervening period we have seen yet another mass shooting in Ohio upon a Sikh Temple; the intended victims were chosen (apparently) because of the headwear worn by this peaceful sect. As a nation, indeed virtually as a society, we have become numb to these events to the point where their aftermath(s) have evolved into a well-rehearsed ritual, complete with the same tired rhetoric, talking points, and imagery.

While sensitive to the “healing” qualities that these rituals represent, these symbols have supplanted the search for solutions. I wonder if it is time to move past these symbolic gestures and try to somehow come up with ways to prevent these events from taking place. Below are some of the most prevalent symbols and dialogue that we now see by default in the aftermath of these mass shootings:

1. “Police are still trying to determine a motive for the shootings” Is there ever a cogent motive in these killings other than someone who had some type of serious mental or social problem, wanting to mow down innocent people as twisted retribution for some perceived slight imposed upon them by society?

2. “Now is not the time to talk about gun control; now is the time to mourn the victims and allow the community to heal” This has grown into a convenient way to defer this difficult but necessary conversation, by implying people who want to raise the issue of how these gunmen acquire mass quantities of weaponry and ammunition–whether legally or not–are being insensitive to the victims. Then once the “recovery / healing” periods passes, the initial outrage over guns has passed, and people move on to something else. I maintain that this gambit is employed mostly–but not solely–by Republicans, and I (begrudgingly) admit it makes perfect “tactical” sense for them to do so.

3. “The media should not be giving publicity to the gunman, instead they should be celebrating the lives of the victims.” Wrong. It is not the media’s role to shine a light on how much the victims loved to take long walks on the beach, what they planned to study when they went to college next year, whether they emigrated to the United States twelve years ago and just finished their first tour of duty in Afghanistan. The focus should be on the crime itself, and the perpetrator of that crime. Again, the aftermath of the shootings has itself become the story, rather than the crime itself, and what led up to it. If the media has any desire to provide a public service as part of their coverage–and I’m not sure they should–they should be shining on a light on the background and habits of the shooter, as well as publicizing which members of Congress accept contributions from the gun lobby, and the amounts of these contributiions.

4. (Typically said by liberal Democrats who are anxious to display their “seeing both sides of the issue” chops): “Hey, I’m a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, I own a gun, and there’s nothing better I like than going deer hunting or bird hunting whenever I return to my home district. In fact, I’m teaching my grandson to shoot squirrel next weekend”. This kind of statement is so irrelevant and offensive that no further comment of mine can serve any purpose.

5. Imagery of people attending candlelight vigils for the victims (Wash, rinse, and repeat.)

6. Imagery of people embracing and hugging (Wash, rinse, and repeat.)

7. Somber, tinkling, piano music accompanying the soft-fade in and soft-fade out to and from the two above sets of imagery, during commercial breaks by news networks (Wash, rinse, and repeat)

Red Ranger, I know I am being cynical here, hopefully not to the point of insensitivity, but in response to these all-too-frequent shootings, we need to find new solutions, not rely on old (and tired) rituals. Your thoughts.

The Red Ranger: While we started this blog to have some back and forth banter about interesting topics (including the “occasional” opposing viewpoints), on this one I have to say I pretty much agree with you.

1. The motive behind these shootings is pretty much irrelevant since as you say they boil down to simply someone wanting to extract revenge on those who they perceive to have slighted them.

2. What better time to talk about gun control than right after one of these events.  Have the discussions while everyone is still riled and wanting to act.  It is always easier to do nothing than to actually take some action.

3. Not to sound callous about the victims but they are all always portrayed as almost God-like.  Only the good people seem to be killed in these shootings.  That is why I am not worried about ever being a victim of one of these shootings since I am an evil, vile Republican and no one will ever say anything good about me.  And why do people only seem to get shot the day before their birthday or the week before they are getting married.

4. Candlelight vigils have lost their meaning and impact at this point.  There is one for every event (not just mass shootings).

5. Like you I do not want to sound insensitive but let’s take some action to minimize the chances of these events happening again rather than honing slick productions of what transpired during and after the events.

Nattering Naybob: I guess we are at heart just a couple of cynical old coots, each channeling our inner H.L. Mencken. In conclusion (to quote Bill Clinton at the 1988 Democratic Convention), I also never understand the disproportianate amount of attention that gets paid to shootings involving multiple people, as opposed to the garden-variety senseless shootings of individual, equally innocent victims throughout the country, that take place every single day.

“The Thrilla in Wasilla”: Cheney vs. Palin

Nattering Naybob: What do you think of the tiff between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin? In case you missed it, Red Ranger  (I know you spend most of your free time in a monogrammed silk bathrobe and matching ascot, reading the stock ticker), Dick Cheney was interviewed the other day and he stated quite unequivocally that he thought John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, was a “mistake”. Cheney then agreed with the interviewer’s suggestion that Palin was “not ready” for the role. Choosing whose side I am on in this face-off reminds me of when I used to watch “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein” on Channel 11 on Sunday mornings, 11:30 thru 1:00 (with a little luck, there could be a Yankee doubleheader on immediately afterwards… this in the day that MLB actually scheduled single-admission doubleheaders). Anyway, I always thought to myself, who should I root for near the end of the movie, when there was basically an intra-monster battle among the Wolfman, Frankenstein, and Dracula, when they pushed the gurney back and forth that had the strapped-down Costello? I never could decide, but it was a fun intellectual exercise.

My choice between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin, however, while featuring one less monster, is almost as difficult. But after serious soul-searching, I am coming down, with nose firmly pinched shut, on the side of Dick Cheney. My reasoning is simple. Cheney, for all his latter-day evils, has at least had a productive, fairly distinguished career (prior to his shape-shifting into a reincarnation of Mr. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life”), highlighted chiefly by his tenure as Chief of Staff to President Ford, and then most notably, Secretary of Defense during the First Gulf War… the war against Saddam Hussein that was actually warranted (I am not including his 8 years as Vice-President as among his “distinguishments”, because I am trying to make believe it never happened). Sarah Palin, on the other hand, could not even hack fulfilling a complete term as Governor. I could go on about her numerous other shortcomings, but there will be many, many other Second Grade Minds posts down the road to fill this important need. Thoughts on the Cheney-Palin conflict, Red Ranger?

The Red Ranger: Your and the Left’s pre-occupation with Sarah Palin is mind-boggling. She currently does not hold an elected position nor is she running for one, but she is constantly brought up in discussions by the Left. She must really strike fear into them; how else can you possibly explain this fixation with her?

I do not know that calling it a “mistake” is the right term. It was more of a calculated risk taken by McCain. He needed to do something to energize the Republican party since the Dems were all awestruck by the “Messiah”, while McCain himself was not the most exciting campaigner. Palin did what was expected of her by bringing some life and excitement back into the Republican campaign.

However, what McCain and his team underestimated (and how they did so is baffling) was the degree to which the MSM would go to portray Palin as a bumbling, backwoods bumpkin who knew nothing other than how to catch salmon. If they would have brought this same vigor into vetting Obama we probably wouldn’t be stuck in this death spiral we are in now.

I do not know how you can say she couldn’t hack a full term as Governor. She left the job out of respect for the people of Alaska realizing that being governor and running for Vice-President were mutually exclusive. Continuing to draw the Governor’s salary from the taxpayers of Alaska was not fair. Palin realized this and did the honorable thing. Unlike Obama, who basically abandoned his job as senator to become a full-time campaigner, all the time showing no remorse about drawing a salary from the US taxpayer. I know that you will bring up that McCain did the same thing but at least he started campaigning later than Obama and served in the Congress much longer than Obama.

Was Obama ready to be President? If you think yes, based upon what criteria, being able to read a TelePrompter?

Nattering Naybob: Ah, Red Ranger. To quote the title of one of my earlier SGM topics, “Where do I begin”?

First, Palin did not resign while she was running for Vice-President. She resigned well after the 2008 Election. She claimed she could no longer withstand the scrutiny that came with being Governor of Alaska, the least populous state in the Union. Whereas just a few months earlier she had been campaigning for a position that was, to use a cliché’ “one heartbeat away” from being leader of the Free World, and the total isolation and anonymity that comes with it.

Second, stop blaming the “Lame-Stream Media” (one of Palin’s many Tiger Beat-level verbal stylings) for her utter lack of knowledge and intellectual curiosity. Your implying that Sarah Palin was intellectually equipped to actually be President of the United States, demonstrates once again that Modern Republicans place blind, partisan ideology above all else. I wish I had a dollar for all the Republican voters I saw interviewed during the 2008 campaign, who said “Oh, I want Sarah Palin to be President one day, because she’s just like I am!” Really?! Ignorant, uninformed voters supporting an ignorant, uninformed candidate for the second-highest office in the land. Perfect symmetry.

Third, is the Modern Republicans’ inexplicable obsession with TelePrompters. Every President since Lyndon Johnson has used a TelePrompter, but, of course, only Barack Obama is criticized for it. Why? Again, to borrow a rhetorical question you posed about Louis Farrakhan in an earlier blog, “is it because he’s black?” What difference does it make whether Obama reads his remarks from a sheaf of papers, from a TelePrompter, or off his own hand, as Dame Palin did a few years ago at some bogus Right-Wing confab. Or do you really believe that a President, or Presidential candidate, should be expected to deliver speeches (typically a half-hour or more in length) extemporaneously?

Just admit it. The Red Ranger has been check-mated by Cheney’s (correct) assertion that Palin’s Vice-Presidential candidacy, was a “mistake”. I suggest you cut your losses and move on to your next topic, perhaps an analysis that wistfully bemoans the fact that America never got a chance to see the real Herman Cain.

The Red Ranger: First, my apologies for the erroneous time line on Palin’s exit from being governor of Alaska (like your crack research team, mine had the day off). Prior to being chosen as McCain’s running mate her approval ratings as governor in Alaska ranged anywhere from a low of 80% to a high of 93%, and this was when all the people in Alaska had to judge her on was her performance. As a point of reference, her predecessor had an approval rating of 19%. However, once the MSM began their vicious assaults on her, her approval ratings declined up until the point that she resigned when she realized that the attacks would never stop and that the course of least damage to her state would be to resign. Funny thing is that her approvals ratings (despite the constant attacks by the MSM) were still better than Obama’s even though he has the MSM fawning all over him and never presenting him in a negative image to the public. Just imagine where Obama would be if he faced the same level of scrutiny that Palin faced. Palin faced this scrutiny while doing an outstanding job according to her constituents. Obama is facing no scrutiny while doing a poor job.

I will stop blaming the Lame-Stream Media when you stop believing them when they say how brilliant Obama is just because he went to an Ivy league school. One of my favorite YouTube videos is of Elizabeth Hasselbeck schooling Joy Behar. Behar makes a statement that Obama is very intelligent because he went to an Ivy league school and Hasselbeck shoots back, “Then Bush must be very intelligent also”. Behar was speechless. It was great to see another dumb liberal put in their place. At least Bush released his college records, I believe. Here is the link to the video just in case you would like to view it yourself and witness one of your ilk being thoroughly embarrassed.

I am assuming that you are joking when you talk about Republicans placing blind, partisan ideology above all else. That is the very definition of the Democratic party. Ignorant, uninformed voters supporting an ignorant, uninformed candidate for the highest office in the land is what got Obama elected. How else do you explain 99% of a race voting for a candidate? If 99% of white women voted for McCain because Palin was a woman like them imagine the uproar that would have created. My guess is that if you matched up SAT scores with voting districts you would find that the voting districts with the higher SAT scores tended toward voting Republican. Granted, high school seniors do not make up a large percentage of the voting population but their scores would represent the relative intelligence of their district as a whole.

I have no problem with him reading off a TelePrompter since as you note making a 30 minute speech without it is difficult. However, what is interesting is that whatever he doesn’t have the TelePrompter guiding him he always seems to go off message and make a gaffe which displays his true intentions.

I wish I had a dollar for all the Obama supporters I saw interviewed who had no idea what his policies were or when given a policy that was actually McCain’s pledged their whole-hearted support for it.

Ready for your typical weak rebuttal.

Nattering Naybob: When exactly does Obama “make gaffes”, either while reading off a TelePrompter or making spontaneous remarks? Any supporter of Mitt Romney should not be accusing President Obama of making gaffes. And the reason that most African-American voters chose Obama, and almost half of Caucasian voters also chose Obama, was Obama’s message of hope appealed more (and still does) to a wider swath of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, than the narrow, fear-mongering, John Birch-tinged message presented by Modern Republicans, who are well-known for their general disdain for minorities, and people they consider beneath the arc of the Bell Curve. Let’s see… what else. Do you really find that a lot of people proclaim their support of President Obama, based on his attendance at an Ivy League school? I rarely hear that. Where do you hear it? Oh yes, Fox News. I forgot.

I still think you would have been better off taking my earlier advice and bowing out of this posting, gracefully. You need to recall your research team back from their vacation at the Cape, and quickly.