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.

George Zimmerman Trial

The Red Ranger: With the George Zimmerman trial nearing completion and the evidence pointing to Trayvon Martin clearly being the aggressor I wonder how all of the MSM will handle the verdict.  However, seeing how juries work in Florida I would not be shocked if Zimmerman were found guilty.  If Casey Anthony could be found innocent then anything is possible.

The prosecution clearly had a very weak case given the string of laughable witnesses they paraded out.  The best of course was Rachel Jeantel who claimed she wrote a letter and then it was pointed out that she could not read cursive writing.  You would have thought the prosecution would have known this before putting her on the stand.  Also, Trayvon’s father had to hear the tape 20 tapes before he was able to realize it was Trayvon’s voice.  I guess someone told him he needed to change his story.

It is really too bad that this guy was treated the way he was by the media.  Just like there is a fund for victims of crimes there should be a fund for victims of the media.  All media companies should have to put 0.5% of their revenue into the fund and the funds should be distributed to those wrongfully portrayed in the media.  Any year that there is no one deserving of the payout the monies should go back to the media companies.  That will teach them to be more honest.

I just hope that if he is found innocent there is no rioting.  Who can forget the day we left work early because of the rumors of rioting in NYC after the Rodney King verdict.  I remember walking to the Port Authority with you anxiously approaching every corner ready to run for our lives.  Ultimately, the biggest headache was waiting for the buses since everyone got out of work early on the buses were not on there rush hour schedule.

Nattering Naybob: First of all I remember nothing about walking home with you towards the Port Authority Bus Terminal in the aftermath of the Rodney King trial. You seem to remember nothing of the malfeasance of the GW Bush administration which ended a little over four years ago yet you remember a single day some 22 years ago and where I was looking and how I looked, doing it. Assuming all this is true, the reason I may have been peeking around corners was simply to protect you (since you are about 5 months younger than me) from crossing the busy streets of New York in your usual rash and petulant manner. I have always had an instinct for keeping people from being struck by vehicles, as I also alluded to in our most recent blog when I prevented my elderly school crossing guard (and myself)from being run over a truck, when I was just in first grade.

Regarding the Zimmerman trial I have not studied the forensics reports or the trial transcripts so I cannot comment on the case, which is still pending.  Maybe we should contact Nate Silver and see if he has made any predictions about the pending verdict. The one item that I do agree with you wholeheartedly is the speciousness (let me know if you need a definition of that, The Red Ranger) of both sets of parents claiming that the screams heard during the scuffle, were from their respective son(s). I am not sure what that proved, if anything, except both protagonists had parents who would do anything to defend their son, or the memory of their son, in Trayvon’s case.

I don’t see why (or how) you want to take 0.5% of “the media”’s revenue and create a fund for suspects who you think are wrongfully victimized by the media. The media did not write up any police reports, the media did not collect any forensic evidence, and the media certainly did not pull the trigger of the gun that killed an unarmed teenager on his way home from getting Skittles and a can of iced tea. 

And regarding the letter that was supposedly written by someone who could not understand what she herself wrote, there is never any limit to the sheer stupidity of prosecuting attorneys. Just remember the OJ Simpson trial when Christopher Darden of the DA’s team prosecuting Simpson, insisted (against the wishes of Marcia Clark, the Prosecution’s lead attorney), that Simpson try on a set of black leather gloves that Simpson supposedly used in the murder of his ex-wife Nicole. The glove that Simpson put on did not fit his hand properly, probably because leather expands and contracts over time, and even if it did fit SImpson, that in itself would not have proven much of anything.

Even given your proclivity for outlandish political analysis, I believe that you and I could most likely, without any formal legal training, together put on a combined prosecution of any criminal suspect, better that most trained prosecutors in the country.

The Red Ranger: I think that we would make an awesome prosecutorial pair. Our first case should be the trial of Lois Lerner the IRS lackey who targeted conservative groups for unfair scrutiny.  Any government employee who takes the fifth amendment should immediately be tarred and feathered.  To think that you and I contributed to paying her salary.  As you can tell her actions (pleading the fifth) really annoyed me.  I can understand the targeting of the conservative groups, as wrong as that is, but at least admit the truth when you are caught.

Nattering Naybob: Yes, but my fear is that if we ever prosecuted the IRS case, you would insist on making Ms. Lerner try on a black leather glove that doesn’t fit, which would confuse the jury to no end and probably cause a mis-trial.

Drudge plays the Hitler card. Republicans stay quiet (again).

Nattering Naybob: Many Republicans (not necessarily you, Red Ranger, buy many Republicans), react with shock and indignation when anyone charges that the Right-Wing blamestream media complex, are on the extreme edge of what used to be considered common respect and decency. Matt Drudge is, as you know, perhaps the most influential Right-wing blogger out there today (The Red Ranger is gaining ground). Below is a screen shot of the homepage of the Drudge Report at one point late last week.

Prominent Right-wing personalities consistently get away with saying and writing things that would once have been considered so outrageous that it would have ended their career. Not so any more. I do not recall any high-profile Republican Thought Captains having condemned Drudge or his onerous homepage that appeared on the Internet last week.

There is a habit that has become something of a cliche, to say that “both sides are guilty”. Not so. Name me any example of prominent (emphasize: “Prominent”) Liberal-leaning bloggers who ever come up with anything resembling the kinds of outrageous horrible attacks that the Right-wing media complex ever do, and get away with regularly. The one episode that sticks out in my mind is that of Rush Limbaugh mocking the involuntary movements consistent with Parkinsons Disease about seven years ago, because Michael J. Fox had the audacity to make a campaign ad for then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who was supporting stem cell research. Yet Limbaugh was never disciplined or suspended, nor did he apologize. That is why I laugh when I hear Republicans claim there is a Left-wing media bias in the country. What complete and utter boulderdash!!!

The Red Ranger: So I see you watched the Ed Show last Thursday night.  I had hoped you had something better to do with your time.

I have to laugh when the left gets all riled up whenever anyone has anything negative to say about Obama.  What about the eight years of vicious, vile attacks that George Bush withstood with such great dignity?  What about all the attacks on your favorite, Sarah Palin.  The left wing media darlings (not necessarily bloggers) Maher, Moore, Goldberg, Behar, etc. all get away saying whatever they want with nary a mention of it in any of the liberal, biased MSM.  This bias displayed by the left is so ingrained in society now that it has become their accepted norm and those on the left, yourself included, do not even realize it anymore.  You cannot see the forest for the trees (or whatever the saying is).

While I do not agree with the comparison to Hitler, from your outrage at this I am assuming that you are then comfortable with the President using an executive order to deny Americans one of their constitutional rights.  This time it may be the right to bear arms.  Maybe next time it will be freedom of speech because as you have indicated here the left cannot bear to take any criticism.

To not admit that the MSM has a liberal bias is confirmation of the fact that your mind has gone to mush and that you have succumbed to their brainwashing.  It is sad to see a once great mind operating in such a diminished capacity.

Nattering Naybob: NOW you tell me you think I at least has a great mind, once. To date you had never even told me that in all the 43 years we have known each other, so I consider that a victory of sorts.

I actually did not watch the Ed Show the night that this appeared, but you basically admitted that you did, by saying Ed Schultz talked about this. Is your insidious addiction to FOX News, weakening? We can only hope.

By the way, the Republican’s all-time favorite Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (whose oft-stated allegiance to the Yankees is his only saving grace), said that the Second Amendment does not imply, or grant, exemption from regulation of guns. This finding was contained in the 2008 Supreme Court case 554 U.S. 570, District of Columbia v. Heller, and was summarized as follows in this main article in Wikipedia.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Therefore, since any sane-thinking person would acknowledge that President Obama would never attempt a sweeping confiscation of everyone’s guns, any Executive Order to implement rational limitations on large magazine clips, etc., would NOT be in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Is your heretofore moderate view on sensible gun limitations, eroding? Has the National Rifle Association implanted some kind of chip into your brain without your knowledge?

Our Government

The Red Ranger: Here is a quick quiz:

1. Post WWII what year saw government spending at its highest percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2009   4) 1950

2. Post WWII what year had the second highest government spending as a percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2010   4)  1950

3. Post WWII what year had the third highest government spending as a percent of GDP?
1) 1974   2) 1985   3) 2011   4) 1950

4. Post WWII what 3-year period was the only period to see revenue as a percent of GDP be below 16% for each of the years?
1) 1964-1966   2) 1953-1955   3) 2009-2011   4) 1980-1982

5.) Who was president during the period of highest government spending and lowest revenue as a percent of GDP since WWII?
1) Bush   2) Clinton   3) Obama   4) Nixon

Answers:

1) C

2) C

3) C

4) C

5) C

Quite a record for the Big O.  I know that your canned response will be to blame it on Bush, however, even the OMB is forecasting spending as a percent of GDP to only come down to the highest end of post WWII spending levels.  My guess is that even those estimates are too rosy.

Can financial ruin be far behind…

Nattering Naybob: First, a housekeeping matter. You said that the answer to each question below was “C”. The third option in each of your list of potential answers, was in fact labeled “3)”, not “C)”. Don’t worry, I will not ask you for a revised blog entry with corrections, I will base my reply according to your confusing presentation of facts. But please remember that such sloppiness undermines your credibility right out of the gate.

On to the (ostensible) substance of your case. The dip in “revenue” referenced in Questions 4 and 5, is clearly because Obama, despite the lunatic, saliva-spewing rantings and protestations of the Survivalist, uh I mean, Republican Party, is actually reducing taxes to their lowest point since the 1950’s. So I imagine you should be happy that the recent Fiscal Cliff negotiations resulted in higher tax rates for certain segments of our nation that have not been pulling their weight with respect to taxes, while keeping them low for the middle class.  Regarding questions 1 thru 3, there is no secret that spending has been historically high in the first 2-3 years of Obama’s administration. You are re-litigating old news, because you have no new news about Obama’s so-called failings. You may consider this to be “blaming Bush”, but the fact remain that Obama was left with a historic financial meltdown, plus an unfunded, unnecessary war (Iraq), whose United States involvement Obama has effectively ended. I see that there was no mention made of “spending as a percent of GDP” (there you go again trying to confuse me with your fancy lingo), for CY 2012. That may be because this data is not published yet, or it could also be that federal spending is now on its way downward, as Obama promised.

The Red Ranger:  Thank you for not asking for a re-post.  I was feeling so sick after looking at these numbers I wasn’t thinking clearly.

I did not mention 2012 because it is an estimate at this point.  And by the way the estimate is higher than 2010 and 2011.  George Bush was also fighting wars during his tenure but his spending was a good 4 to 5 percentage points below Obama.  By the way, how long have we been out of Iraq now?  Where are the benefits of ending that war showing up in our spending?  Obama has effectively taken these savings and spent them on other programs to ensure that the democratic voting bloc is addicted to the government thereby almost guaranteeing reelection from this point forward.

Since 1950 up until Obama was elected spending as a % of GDP averaged 19.8%, Obama’s average spending is 24.5%.  Since 1950 revenue as a percent of GDP has averaged 18%, Obama is averaging 15.2%.  Even you with your rudimentary understanding of mathematical concepts have to admit that this is a dismal performance.

Any raising of the debt ceiling MUST be accompanied by meaningful spending cuts if we are to ever get back to any level of fiscal responsibility.  I am including defense spending in possible spending cuts.    If the Republicans do not demand this then there truly is no one watching out for the good of the country and we are doomed.

Nattering Naybob: The below is an extract from FactCheck.org, which is a non-partisan “referee” for claims made regarding governmental activities, spending, et al. I believe The Red Ranger himself has cited this website in the past, both prior to and after the birth of our little blog.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

Here is the link to the article. Extra credit if you read the whole thing. It is a long read, but very rationally concludes that while Obama is certainly not blameless, he also should not be pointed out as the villain that you and your Republican friends would have us believe… and that by many metrics, spending has been slowed over the last year or so.

Another fact: George W. Bush inherited a $281 billion SURPLUS left over from Bill Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. Eight years later, when Obama took office, that had turned into a DEFICIT of $1.2 trillion. What’s that you say? That was because of the free-spending Democratic Congress under Bush? Well then why are you not blaming the Republican-controlled House for any alleged spending increases after 2010?

Finally, please offer proof that Obama has “addicted” his “Democratic base” to higher government spending as a tool to ensure he remained in office. That ridiculous claim does not pass any sane logical rigor. Why would Obama try to “bribe” his rock-solid constituencies by offering them increased government spending? Would these voters not already be supporting Obama regardless? And if you claim that Obama is instead luring Independents and Republicans by his so-called higher spending, would both of these supposedly clearer-minded voters reject his, again “alleged” spending promises and vote for Romney anyway? The Red Rangers needs to stop leaning on Sarah Palin-esque platitudes and slogans, go into a quiet, darkened room perhaps with a modest lamp, pen and legal pad, and spend a few hours thinking these things through on his own and come out of that room prepared to draft and deliver a heart-felt apology both to Nattering Naybob and our readers for his misleading screeds.

The Red Ranger: So the article basically supports my premise that spending is out of control as a percent of GDP.

The article seems to cherry pick some specific spending initiatives to assign to Obama but fails to identify significant spending reductions that should have taken place.  It seems like every time Obama has a one-time spending program it is just replaced by another one-time spending program even though the original spending program was supposed to solve our problems.  I would have thought that after the recovery summer things would have gotten back in line with historical spending levels but I guess the recovery summer really wasn’t.

Also, please do not forget that as one was brilliantly outlined in one of first blogs the blame for the financial meltdown can be placed squarely on policies implemented under Clinton.

If Obama was originally elected with Hope and Change, where is the change?

Also, while I was looking at some figures for spending on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it appears that even though the war in Iraq is over total spending in the two countries has not been reduced significantly.  So whatever money was saved in Iraq is being spent in Afghanistan.  I would love to know how that money is being spent at this point.  Not blaming Obama for that it just seems like the military may have gotten used to a certain spending level and is now just finding ways to justify that spending level.

Finally, the numbers I have seen indicate that these wars make up about 10% – 15% of the budget deficit.  Hopefully, the spending can be significantly reduced over the next two years and Obama and Congress can work meaningfully on the other 85% – 90%.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you claim President Obama has not indicated what spending he wants to cut, neither have any Republicans. They just talk about cutting spending in the abstract. Finally, I noticed that you said nothing of the $1 trillion worth of spending cuts that took place after the earlier round of fiscal cliff negotiations to summers ago. I have nothing more to say on this subject, my good man. Good day to you.

The Red Ranger: I believe the spending cuts you are referring to are reductions in the rate of spending increases and not actual cuts.  Typical liberal ploy.

Nattering Naybob: I believe I said “GOOD DAY TO YOU”!!  (to paraphrase Willy Wonka…)

…And he wanted to President !

The Red Ranger: What is up with Al Gore?  He is working hard to solidify his place as the biggest, pompous buffoon in the Democratic Party.  So he goes and allows the TV network that he has a stake in to be sold to Al-Jazeera network, which is anti-American.  In addition, the timing of the deal is suspect since it was completed at the last minute before capital gains taxes went up as part of the fiscal cliff deal.  He has to be one of the most hypocritical people in the public eye today.

All I can say is thank God he invented the internet or else I wouldn’t be able to rant about him.

Nattering Naybob: To say that Al-Jazeera is “anti-American” is probably a knee-jerk reaction that is typical of most Republicans these days (I say “probably” because I have to stipulate I have never seen Al Jazeera and know little of it except what I have read about it in various newspapers and online resources.) The reputation of Al-Jazeera was cemented largely by George W. Bush’s passive-aggressive fear mongering following 9/11. Would your opinion of Al Jazeera be changed if you knew that Colin Powell said that it is the only cable news network that he watches? Al Jazeera has established a reputation for straight, penetrating journalism without the “fluff” that many on the Right, including Mr. Red Ranger of Massachusetts, has decried ad nauseum, regarding the American “MSM” (Main Stream Media).

I cannot document that there has never been any stories or reporting on Al Jazeera that could conceivable be deemed “anti-American” (Conservatives’ threshold for something being “Anti-American” is notoriously low), but I agree with Mohammed el-Nawawy of Queens College in Charlotte, NC when he was quoted in this article from the Los Angeles Times: “Average Americans will say Al Gore is not going to embrace a terrorist network…He may be boring, but he’s not a terrorist.”

It looks like Gore and Current TV co-owner Joel Hyatt are desperate to unload Current TV which was founded with good intentions but never took hold. Its hiring of increasingly paranoid Keith Olbermann as the centerpiece of its network a couple years ago, ended in flames and Current has never recovered. The former icon of MSNBC was probably Current’s best and only shot and unfortunately Olbermann let his personal demons get in the way of his undeniable talent and unique take on events of the day.

The Red Ranger: Wow, if Mohammed el-Nawawy of Queens College in Charlotte, NC said it, it must be true!  Love how you Libs fawn over anything said by a college professor (I am assuming he is a professor although your reference doesn’t identify his connection with the college, for all I know he could be the head of food services).

What was Keith Olbermann’s undeniable talent?

Nattering Naybob: Mr. el-Naway is in fact a professor at Queens College, although even if I had identified him as such, you probably would have rejected the legitimacy of that title since all intellectuals are Socialists or worse, according to modern Republican doctrine.

Keith Olbermann, was, at the height of his tenure at MSNBC, the modern-day equivalent of H.L. Mencken. His show was a compelling summary of the days’ events, crisply edited with insightful guests and incisive, courageous commentary. The fact that this commentary usually exposed the complete absurdity of the modern Republican party, probably renders it impossible for you to grasp or acknowledge Olbermann’s talent as a broadcaster.

Here is a link to one of Olbermann’s most famous “Special Comments” on MSNBC, about the dangers of Tea Party candidates just prior to the 2010 Election, which turned out to be the final nail in the coffin for the electoral viability of moderate, sane Republicans.

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.

Round 1

The Red Ranger:  Romney romps in Round 1.  Pretty much a unanimous decision.  Even your comrades on MSNBC  so say except for Rev. Al of course

Next week Ryan will annihilate Biden.

I hope you can get some sleep tonight.  You may be waking up with nightmares given Obama’s dreadful performane.

Nattering Naybob: How about those Yankees, huh? Despite all their injuries and runners left on base all year, they still wound up with the AL East, best record in the American League, and home field in the AL playoffs.

Romney did OK too I guess. Don’t get cocky, my Republican friend..

The Red Ranger: Yes, it was great to see both the Yankees and Romney win last night

Did you see Chris Matthew’s meltdown on MSNBC last night?  I hope he does not consider himself a journalist.

Nattering Naybob: I am surprised that you are questioning the journalistic viability of Chris Matthews because he actually was very complimentary of Mitt Romney last night. He said that Mittens was the more organized and cogent candidate and that he tried to “win” the debate, as he should have. If the scenario were reversed, and it was Obama who had the unexpectedly strong performance, Fox News would be saying that it was because the moderator (JIm “no, no, your time is up, ah, OK, go ahead) Lehrer, was to blame. That is the key difference between MSNBC and Fox News

I too thought that Romney was the more “organized” candidate. Obama looked tired and distracted. I believe he will do much better in the next two debates. The recent history of the modern debate (since 1976), tells us that an incumbent president seeking a second term, often turns in a lackluster debate performance in the first debate (Reagan 1984, Bush Sr. 1992, and Bush Jr. in 2004).

I first thought it might be a long night for Obama as early as the end of the first segment when both candidates were talking over each, and when Jim Lehrer said they were already going past their allotted time, Romney said “It’s fun, isn’t it?” That typified Romney’s level of comfort last night; he seemed to exude a much more positive energy. However. I expect that this will be the “high water” mark for the Romney campaign, especially since the “substance” of Romney’s performance is now being vetted by the fact checkers, and much of what Romney said, is being proven to be almost comically incorrect, especially in terms of what Romney said he believes is and does not believe in. What I want to know is what in the world was going on during Obama’s debate prep, it seemed like he had no plan and not prepared for some of the charges directed towards him by Romney. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Obama.

Is it “Jimmy Obama” or “Barack Carter”?

The Red Ranger: The presidencies of Obama and Carter are really becoming strikingly similar. Both have proven to be inept at managing the US economy and now just like Carter, Obama is facing a crisis in the Middle East. Carter’s presidency ended with an economy in recession or at least on its way there and hostages in the Middle East. Obama leads an economy with a persistent 8%+ unemployment rate and US citizens murdered in the Middle East and our embassies under attack in multiple countries.

In contrast to one of your prior posts the attacks in Libya were part of a planned assault not part of some random protest. I watched your favorite, Rachel Maddow, last night for a little bit before I got nauseous and even he admitted to that fact.

Now there are reports that Hillary may have actually gotten some intelligence about these possible attacks but did not act upon the information.  Remember when under Bush we had threat levels and they varied based upon either upcoming events or “chatter” heard in the intelligence community. Those threat levels were too much for the Obama administration to handle so I believe they were done away with. Probably because someone felt they were offending our Muslim friends. These threat levels were routinely raised on the 9/11 anniversary and at least reminded everyone to be extra vigilant.

One of the “changes” hoped for under Obama was improved relations in the Middle East. Obviously, this is an abject failure on his part. Even he admits that Egypt is no longer an ally of the US. This leaves the US with only Israel and Saudi Arabia as stated allies in the Middle East. Nice job by Obama.

Please do not come back with some illogical rant about Romney. An illogical rant about how wonderful Obama’s policies in the Middle East are would be much more enjoyable

Nattering Naybob: I have noticed that Republicans enjoy comparing President Obama to Jimmy Carter. I guess that is understandable since so many observers rightly contrasted the administrations of George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover. I suppose there is no “expiration date” to the comparisons of current Presidents, to past Presidents, such as comparing say Harry Truman to James K. Polk, or perhaps the George H.W. Bush to Chester Arthur. The possibilities are endless.

The Obama-Carter comparison is factually correct only in that the most recent US Ambassador to have been killed took place under Jimmy Carter’s term in 1979. I only hope that no future President has to be compared on a like-for-like basis to our most recent (Republican) President, under whose administration over 2,000 people were killed on US soil due to a report that may have been ignored.

To say that Obama is “soft” on Muslims, or afraid to hurt their feelings, is patently ridiculous. Why would have Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, if he were worried about the reaction of Muslims? Wouldn’t this act have had the most potential for violent backlash against the U.S. or its Western allies? I don’t know how you or any another Republican can logically think that the almost simultaneous conversion of several Middle Eastern nations from totalitarian rule, to a more democratic model, would be seamless and without bloodshed or unrest of any kind.

I think The Red Ranger’s conduct and his view in this post, are a mirror to the conduct of his Republican candidate, who likewise tried to score political points (and failed miserably) by exploiting an international tragedy without first gathering all the facts.

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.

Our biggest problems, Part One

The Red Ranger: Just sitting around thinking about the issues impacting us at this time. I see seven specific areas of trouble, and will detail each one in this post, and a Part 2 post in a few days: These issues are: 1) lack of jobs, 2) rising government debt levels, 3) stagnant home prices, 4) rising food prices, 5) rising gasoline prices, 6) stagnant wages 7) the coming fiscal cliff

Nattering Naybob: Very thorough and imposing bill of particulars, Red Ranger. You must have been curtailing your viewing of the Deluxe DVD version of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska: Season One” to devote your time to more studious pursuits. OK, lay it on us:

The Red Ranger:
Issue 1: Lack of jobs.
There is no job creation in the US.  We no longer manufacture much of anything.  The service industry can only go so far if there is no one able to afford service since they are not working.  Our number one goal needs to be to bring back some well-paying manufacturing jobs to the US. In addition, we need to implement some serious efforts to keep jobs that we have in the US and not offshore them and to try to bring back other jobs that may have been off shored already. This would probably require some serious tax incentives which of course any good liberal would reject. We desperately need to increase the monetary pool of created value in the United States, otherwise we are just continually trying to redistribute the same shrinking pool of dollars. The Red Ranger rating on this issue: SEVERE.

Nattering Naybob: Agree on the corrosive effects of outsourcing, off-shoring, or whatever one wishes to call it. However I suggest you contact your Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (I know you have him on speed dial), who seems to be against the concept of bringing jobs back to America. This past January, after President Obama proposed the very same type of tax incentives you suggested, to bring manufacturing jobs back home, Romney said that this was not in the best interests of companies’ profitability, and that Obama’s proposal showed he is “hostile to free enterprise”. Perhaps if you tell Romney that your Red Ranger rating on this issue is “Severe”, he will call you immediately after he tells his next lie or flip-flops on his latest issue, now that his underwhelming Republican National Convention is over (more on the two conventions forthcoming soon.)

The Red Ranger: Did Obama propose those tax incentives at the same time he was vetoing the Keystone Pipeline that would have created thousands of jobs for the US? I fear that Obama has gotten us too comfortable with an unemployment rate of slightly more than 8%. The US citizenry has been brainwashed into believing that without Obama’s efforts the unemployment rate would have been so much higher so we should just be grateful at where it is now. Are your ready for my second issue?

Nattering Naybob: I suppose….

The Red Ranger:
Issue 2: Rising government debt levels
We cannot continue to spend at the levels we are. The deficit is a spending issue and not a revenue issue.  However, the situation is so severe that an increase in revenue is probably required to help get things stabilized.  We must control spending now.  This means not just reducing the level of growth but also reducing the total spending level.  This is one of the simpler things to fix but no one is willing to bite the bullet. The Red Ranger rating on this issue: SEVERE.

Nattering Naybob: I don’t think there is much debate that we need to curb long-term spending. However neither should we implement a European-style austerity program, as this has proven to be a dismal failure so far for the Euro countries. Nor should we cut spending just to then give millionaires yet another tax break, which Romney and Ryan (‘Ayn Rand’, as pointed out in a previous SGM post…?), want to do. I too am disappointed that Obama could not bring back the nation to the same surplus that we were left with under Democratic President Bill Clinton, a surplus that was promptly frittered away by George W. Bush. Perhaps you forgot about your most recent Republican President. The Republican National Convention, concluded to huge yawns last week in Tampa, certainly seems to have.

The Red Ranger: Can you provide an example of a European country where a fully implemented austerity program has been a dismal failure.  If this is true, than to use your frequent argument to explain why the stimulus failed (it was not big enough) then I would say that the austerity program was not austere enough. 

Please see this article, I like the headline: “Estonia and Austerity: Another Exploding Cigar for Paul Krugman”

Nattering Naybob: Now you have really crossed the line, Red Ranger. You have insulted Paul Krugman, America’s most accurate pundit!! Ordinarily nobody insults Paul Krugman to me and gets away with it, but since I know you are still smarting over the Giants’ Week 1 loss to the Cowboys, I will let you off the hook this one time. Watch it in the future though.

The Red Ranger:
Issue 3: Stagnant home prices.
I say “stagnant” only because home prices have already fallen 20-50% from their peaks and probably will not fall much further.  Given that interest rates are already near rock bottom and they will probably rise in the future, interest rates should not be looked at as a potential boon to the housing market. The only thing that would drive up home prices at this point would be an increase in worker’s wages.  However, that is unlikely. The Red Ranger rating on this issue: MODERATE (only because the majority of the damage has already been done.)

Nattering Naybob: I believe in our inaugural “Second Grade Minds” blog, The Red Ranger blamed the housing market crisis on Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (you spared Franklin Delano Roosevelt from your wrath, for which I am grateful.) But since you and your lovely family own your own home (as does one of my brothers), I sincerely hope home values rebound.

The Red Ranger:
Issue 4: Rising food prices
Drought is wreaking havoc with corn, wheat and soybean crops driving up prices that will ultimately be passed along to the consumer.  The Red Ranger rating on this issue: MINIMAL for now. However, future years of poor harvests will rapidly raise the impact to moderate or severe. We should be planning right now based upon the assumption that we may have another year of poor crop output.  At least then we can hopefully avoid a crisis situation and if it turns out the next crop is a bumper one then at least we should have learned something from our preparedness.  One thing we have not had to endure in the US is a full-fledged food shortage and I hope we never do. 

Nattering Naybob: Beyond the specific issue of prices (I need to run some more pricing algorithms based on the past 100 years of food pricing based on region, climate, etc.), I see two central issues with food: a) most Americans today, including probably myself, eat too much of it, and b) too much of it is wasted. Amazon.com can now get the latest iteration of “Grand Theft Auto” to a customer anywhere in the country on a same-day basis, yet we cannot get surplus food routed to people who need it. A terrible failure of the vaunted American Ingenuity, if you ask me.

The Red Ranger: Yes, we do all probably eat too much.  I know I have been known to down a few White Castle Cheeseburgers in my day.  One of the things that I firmly believe is that no one should go hungry in the US unless of course you are a lazy Occupier who wants food delivered to their encampment. I would love to know how much food is discarded by supermarkets. One of the things that I would like to see would be to have the food stamps program (now known euphemistically as SNAP) transitioned into a food delivery program so that people are actually getting healthy food with their benefits. This should be fully supported by loons like Bloomberg since then the government can fully control what people eat. Oh well, time to head over to Burger King for my super colossal bacon cheeseburger with a giant Slurpee and mega fries cooked in trans-fat and smothered in salt.

Nattering Naybob: Your dietary choices, like your politics, is unfortunate. Question: Why is it OK for the government to dictate what lower-income people eat, via SNAP, but not OK for the government to dictate what people eat if they buy it on their own? I think I know what your answer will be, The Red Ranger, but we will wait for next time on that. I think we have given our small but loyal band of readers enough to chew on for now (get it? “Chew on”?….)