Can NASA also protect us from Republicans?

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

 

Artists rendering of us all getting killed

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

As we were saying…

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

There may still be hope for the Catholic church

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, as you know we both have had some distractions at work (damn job!) and at home so our little blog has been on hiatus for a little while. I think going forward we can be back to normal for the immediate future at least. Due to the recent SGM dormancy, this content of this post is slightly outdated bit I think is still note-worthy.

We discussed in a previous post (in somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion) what a breath of fresh air Pope Francis seemed to be at the time of his installation this past Spring. My comments to you were concerned mainly with the symbolism of the new Pope’s eschewing of much of the pomp and ceremony that seemed to be the currency of Francis’ immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict, and of many previous Popes in general.

But recently came news, via The Huffington Post and other news outlets , of a potentially seismic shift in the way that the Catholic church does business. While giving an interview to an Italian paper called La Civilita Cattolica, he basically said that the Catholic church has been too obsessed with enforcing its stifling, archaic stances on gays, abortion and contraception… more specifically, on the church’s absurdly impossible opposition to both abortion AND contraception.

I am what you would call a “lapsed” Catholic. I felt that I could no longer support a church whose hierarchy turned the other cheek for decades while its priests, bishops and in some case, cardinals, were inflicting horrible acts of abuse on young boys. Most odious to me, other than the actual crimes and resulting cover-ups themselves, was the fact that the church was draining the pockets of many in its flock to help pay for the multi-million dollar lawsuit victories awarded the victims of church-sanctioned pedophilia… while doing nothing to sell of its own stashes of gold, paintings, and statuary first (we’ll see if Francis does anything about this display of conspicuous consumption in future months and years).

But Pope Francis’s comments seem to signal a realization that the Catholic church needs to adapt to the times in order to re-focus on its true mission of helping those who need to be saved, rather than condemning those they think should be damned. If Pope Francis is successful in the Herculean job of changing the culture of the church, or at least starting that journey, then I would be curious if Republicans would also modify their nonsensical opposition to both abortion AND contraception. I have to temper that wish with the fact that the institution of Modern Republicanism is trending more and more towards fundamentalist / evangelical Protestantism, and accordingly may not find much legitimacy in anything that the Catholic church does or says anyway. Much like they treat Obama.

The Red Ranger: Again as you know I am not a very religious person but I respect those who are.  I find it interesting that you refer to the Catholic church as a business as that is sometimes how I view it.  They are more interested in pulling in donations than actually helping their congregations.

If the pope changes the Catholic church’s stance on abortion, contraception, gays, etc. I will then change my stance on religion and be a staunch supporter of the banning of all religions.  If a religion can change its basic tenets on a whim to bring itself into the mainstream and perhaps enhance its monetary pool then it is really not a religion but it is a business as you suggested that is just catering to the needs of its customers.

If I were a long time parishioner of a parish where the priest has been sermonizing against abortions, gays, etc. for the past twenty years and all of a sudden one Sunday he comes in and says, “You know all those things I have been preaching about the last twenty years, forget it, abortion is OK, a homosexual lifestyle is fine and by the way we have a sale on condoms 3 for $15 and you can pick them up on your way out”.  Just doesn’t seem right to be able to change like that.

I would have much more respect for the Catholic church if they actually dug in their heels and held firm to their beliefs regarding abortion, contraception, gays, etc.  Perhaps God is testing them by putting so much immorality in the world now.  If the church caves then we are on a path to certain destruction.  It will be slow but ultimately we will get to a point where anything goes and whatever each person wants to do as long as it makes them happy will be acceptable.

I do not understand why you feel that opposition to both abortion and contraception is absurd.  If someone is able to display self-control and take responsibility for their actions then there would be no issue.  However, when people are always looking for their immediate satisfaction regardless of the outcome then I could see how there could be an issue here.  I guess this just goes hand-in-hand with the anything goes attitude that so many people have today.

Nattering Naybob: Interesting take you have there, Red Ranger. My problem with being opposed to both abortion AND contraceptives, is from a policy perspective, not from a moral one. I do not believe that morality can be imposed. It must come from within. Your interpretation of the Pope’s interview seems to me, to fit right in with what he is worried about: that the Catholic church has become more worried about castigating certain types of behavior, rather than welcoming imperfect people into their fold. As the Pope himself perfectly summarized the problem in his interview:

“We must always consider the person. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing… God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in this person’s life…This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.”

Unless he turns out to be a total phony who might later “clarify” his statements, this Pope is a true man on the cloth. He seems to be a genuine follower of the teachings of Christ, who many cite at every opportunity but whose message of unconditional mercy is not observed.

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.

Chris Lane

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

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

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

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

Nattering Naybob: Here we go again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Downward Spiral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Anniversary to Us

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, don’t give me the silent treatment for forgetting this, but this past July 9th was our one-year anniversary of subjecting our small but loyal band of readers to this little blog of ours. Sadly, one of our first posts was about the Aurora moviehouse shootings, and our most recent one is about the Trayvon Martin shooting (with the Newtown massacre in the middle). So the reckless use of, and easy access to, guns, has certainly been one of our main themes so far. Another has been my courageous (and mostly effective, I think) defense of our President and Commander-In-Chief against your withering, cruel, and frankly un-patriotic attacks. Plus we threw in a little Yankee stuff. And let’s not forget the Boston Marathon bombing and your riveting first-person accounts of that horrible day and its aftermath. Thus it was a very busy first year, The Red Ranger. Your thoughts.

The Red Ranger: Wow, time flies when you are having fun.

It was an interesting first year.  I think we started off strong, hit a lull and are now picking it up again.  I certainly enjoy the back and forth of a good debate although your tiresome rehashing of the same old liberal talking points can be a little tough to take at times.  I have to keep reminding myself that you are not allowed to have any individual thoughts and must follow the mantra of the democratic party no matter how misguided it is.

Nattering Naybob: I was going to send you a belated anniversary card, but not after that snide and false allegation. Your saying that I employ talking points of my identified party,  is like George Zimmerman calling someone else “reckless”. More thoughts on that verdict soon, The Red Ranger.

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).

 

Study on long-term unemployment proves Republicans wrong yet again

Nattering Naybob: I came across an interesting study done by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco that debunked the notion that long-term unemployment benfefits of up to 99 weeks, discourages recipients from seeking new jobs. This myth has been put forth by Republicans as established fact for years now. The study proves this theory has no basis in fact. Yet another Republican charge that has been proven false and utterly without basis.

The study, co-authored by Princeton Professor of Economics Henry Farber and Robert Valletta of the San Francisco federal reserve says that, accordng to an article on CNBC.com

….the extended benefits given from 2009 to 2012 to the unemployed increased the overall employment rate by only 0.04 percentage points, which the report says is minimal compared to the peak recession unemployment rate of 10 percent.

“There was some criticism that people on long-term unemployment benefits would not want to go back to work,” said Henry Farber, a professor of economics at Princeton University and co-author of the report. “But that’s not true. We could find no real effect of the benefits from keeping people wanting to work,” Farber said. “People are not staying on unemployment to avoid taking jobs.”

Farber said his report looked at previous downturns in the economy when extended unemployment benefits were shorter—up to 79 weeks in early 2001-2002—than came out of the recession of 2007-2009. The findings for both periods were similar, he said.

“There was never much serious work done to look at this issue of extended benefits and the effect on the jobless rate,” Farber said. “That’s why we did this. We wanted to find out if there was a correlation and we didn’t find one.”

I love that last part about “never much serious work done to look at this issue”… that’s the core tactic used by Republicans over the years to popularize their ridiculous theories and dogma. Once their claims are studied and analyzed, they are mostly debunked. I expect a response from The Red Ranger something along the lines of “Princeton is a liberal university”, “or the Federal Reserve is in Obama’s pocket, or “the fact that it is based in San Francisco means that it is a left-wing institution”, yadda yadda. Your thoughts.

The Red Ranger: Are you sure Nancy “Unemployment is Good for the Economy”  Pelosi didn’t write this.  If this is true then why limit unemployment at all.  They should just pay unemployment until the person either finds a new job or reaches retirement age.

Also, why did you just cherry pick a couple of lines out of the 43 page report.

I usually like reading these types of analysis but I had a hard time following this one.  I am sure that the numbers are right using the samples that they did but I would imagine that someone else using a different sample or different assumptions would come up with a different answer. I believe Farber is just trying to pound his chest and champion his work while discrediting anything done in the past.

Nattering Naybob: Well congratulations, Red Ranger, you have preserved your perfect record of never believing in the validity of a report whose findings you do not agree with or whose overall premise is in opposition to accepted Republican dogma (did you realize that “Republican dogma” is only two letters away from “Republican dogmeat”?) All the study is saying is that there is no evidence suggests that people are any less like to look for a job because they receive extended unemployment benefits during a basically jobless recovery, thanks to the corporations who are making record profits but are not hiring, instead working their existing employees to a bloody and demoralized pulp (the part about the corporations was not in the report, full disclosure).

And by the way, unemployment is actually good for the economy because desperate people who do not have a job, but get unemployment (no matter how meager) tend to pump more money back into the economy by purchasing discretionary trifles like food and medicine.

Kentucky Senate race

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

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

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

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