The Downward Spiral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama wins Round 2

Nattering Naybob: I think even you, Red Ranger, have to admit that President Obama won the debate last night, by most objective benchmarks by which we evaluate modern Presidential debates. Whether it changed many minds either way at this late stage, who knows. Romney acquitted himself fairly well, but his demeanor was a little more surly and skittish than the first debate, and he came out with some head-scratching comments and verbiage. Two key moments from my perspective:

When Romney was describing how he sought to include more women in the interview process for his Cabinet in Massachusetts, he characterized the collection of resumes from qualified female candidates as having compiled “whole binders full of women”. This surely had to be one of the most unusual bits of imagery ever put forth in a Presidential debate. Romney also described one of the chief ways that he tried to be more inclusive of women in his administration by allowing them to leave early so they could get home and prepare dinner for the family. A noble gesture to be sure, but not exactly one that will help undecided women determine who better understands women’s struggles to be taken as seriously as men, in the workplace. An article in today’s online edition of The New Yorker summarizes Romney’s entire struggle with the original question posed to him of equal pay for equal work.

The second key moment was near the end of the debate when Romney foolishly insisted that President Obama never specifically called the Benghazi attack, and act of terrorism. Obama coolly let Romney tie a knot sufficient to hang himself and then allowed moderator Candy Crowley to point out, if somewhat sheepishly, that President did explicitly condemn the attacks in the opening remarks in his Rose Garden speech the day after the incident. I am not sure why Romney focused so much on this relatively semantical point when he might have benefited more by bringing the conversation more to overall question of how this was allowed to happen.

These two moments seemed to represent the demarcation of three distinct “sections” of the debate. From its opening thru the “binders full of women” comment, Romney seemed assured and confident. Between the “binders” remark, and the “did he call it terrorism” remark, Romney’s tone sounded a little more defensive and nervous. After the “terrorism” remark, Romney seemed like he couldn’t wait for the debate to end, which for his sake, did soon after. Your thoughts, Red Ranger?

PS: After the debate, most major news outlets featured at least one interview with an undecided voter who still said they needed more information and to learn more about each candidate, to make up their mind. Incredible.

The Red Ranger: I would rate the debate a draw. Both sides were able to get their points across. I think some fisticuffs when they got in each other’s face would have livened things up significantly. Candy Crowley could have then stepped in and smacked down both of them. The only reason that people are saying Obama won is because he looked so much better than he did in the first debate. I think people are getting confused as they are comparing Obama to himself in the first debate as opposed to Romney.

In regard to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi Obama did not specifically call the Benghazi attacks a terrorist attack immediately. He said something condemning acts of terror in general. Even many days after the attacks he was still blaming them on the video and not terrorist. If he did call them terrorist attacks in the Rose Garden then why did he not continue to do so. I believe that this is just a clever way for Obama’s team to try to wordsmith their way into convincing people that Obama called them terrorist attacks from the beginning. Why wasn’t this argument pointed out immediately when questions arose about what the president had called the attacks. After several weeks his team has had enough time to review all of his comments and then twist them around to make it sound like he said something that he didn’t actually say. I believe that the moderator was out of line here (as was also pointed out by media outlets).

I believe that Romney’s high point was when he laid out the litany of facts (higher prices, slowing GDP, etc.) about the economy during Obama’s term and how his policies are impacting the economy.

What is up with Michelle Obama leading applause during the debate? This is clearly a rules violation. She should be banned from the next debate and hit with a $25,000 fine.

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger rating the debate a “draw” is akin to your saying that Romney got creamed.

Why would Obama have opened his remarks on Benghazi with a reference to terrorist attacks, if he did not think it was a terrorist attack? And theoretically speaking, an attack on a consulate or anything else, could be BOTH a reaction to a YouTube video AND an act of terrorism. I really don’t know why everyone is so hung up on the semantics of the issue, but since Romney insisted Obama did not do something he did, then Obama might as well go ahead and reinforce the fact that Romney doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Obama’s uttering the phrase “terrorism” or “terrorist” in the opening remarks of his speech the day after the attack, should have precluded the Romney campaign from even suggesting that Obama did NOT say it was a terrorist attack. Whoever is doing the research for his campaign is asleep at the switch. But then again, Romney himself has said that his campaign is not concerned with fact checkers. His entire campaign has been one big continuous series of lies and flip-flops. Romney lies almost as much as Curtis Granderson strikes out in the playoffs.

And what are you talking about regarding Michelle Obama “leading” applause? There were only two very brief, fragmented bursts of applause that I can remember during the actual debate. What kind of evidence do you have that she was “leading” applause? Please forward it to the Committee for Presidential Debates, I’m sure they will be very eager and fine the First Lady your prescribed amount of $25,000.

The next and final debate on this coming Monday is about foreign policy. Given Mitt the Binder’s utter cluelessness about how diplomacy works, he should be very frightened by that prospect.

The Red Ranger: Here is the official list of debate violations currently under review by the Committee for Presidential Debates and video proof of Michelle’s clapping.

Nattering Naybob: Thank you for the links. Below is a quote from a well-known evening anchor on a cable news network that speaks to the charge that Michelle Obama applauded during the debate:

“Have you seen the articles? The First Lady got caught clapping? Oh my… is that REALLY an issue with some? Whether the First Lady broke a debate rule by spontaneously clapping one time?… If the nation is arguing about whether the First Lady spontaneously clapped, we have now gone off the deep end.”

Rachel Maddow, you guess? No. The above was from Greta van Susteren, of Fox News. However I must say that I am encouraged that you are looking at Slate.com these days.

“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.