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…

 

 

 

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.

How can this be happening?

The Red Ranger: Just another sign that the Obama economy is a disaster.

How can household income be going down since the recession was over?  Shouldn’t income go up in a recovery?  If not what is the definition of a recovery?

I do not solely blame Obama for this but he is a big contributing factor.  Look what Obamacare is doing to jobs in this country.  75% of new jobs are part-time.  Companies are cutting back people’s hours so that they do not fall under Obamacare.  Now companies are starting to cut out spousal medical benefits if they can get them elsewhere.  I honestly believe that the vast upheaval in the medical insurance arena is exactly what Obama and the Dems want.  They want it all to fall apart so badly that a government run and controlled healthcare system looks better and better to the masses.

We are on the long inexorable match toward a fully socialist society.

Nattering Naybob: There are many factors at play here, and I am gratified that you are not blaming Obama solely. One factor that you fail to mention is income inequality. Corporate profits and the salaries and pay packages for corporate CEOs are at an all-time high. And this article from the New York Times (a little lengthy but well worth the time investment) lays out a frightening situation of how poorly these United States stacks up in a host of human metrics. And I do not think any one person as President can make a difference until we find a way to bridge the partisan divide. I think that is the single key issue in all of this that has to be overcome.

Regarding your claim that “Obama and the Dems” want the medical insurance industry to fall apart… I think that is not an accurate characterization. Conversely I believe that a Socialist form of healthcare for people whose circumstances prevent them from otherwise getting access–without disrupting the extant health care coverage and apparatus for people with them means to purchase more comprehensive coverage–is not a bad thing. I think Obama’s biggest mistake in the run-up to his healthcare legislation was not including a simple “Medicare for all” provision, which some have referred to as the “public option”. But Obama thought that excluding this option would signal a willingness to compromise with the Republicans, which would then reap benefits later. But Obama failed to realize that Republicans in Congress now, are generally not sane people.

The Red Ranger: I believe that this income inequality has accelerated under Obama and he has done nothing to reverse the trend.  While CEO’s are an easy target given their sometimes outlandish pay packages I do not think that this is really the root cause of the issue just due to the mere fact that there are so few of them.

In regard to healthcare, I too believe that there should be a fallback for those who cannot help themselves.  But again, like in so many other discussions I have a hard time when those you won’t help themselves or make bad decisions piggyback with those who cannot help themselves.

Natterng Naybob: Unfortunately I think that it has to be considered “the cost of doing business” if any type of assistance or relief program, counts among its rolls those who are truly undeserving whether it be the result of fraud or recklessness. I am all for the vigilant weeding out of these miscreants. But I am opposed to punishing those who are truly needy and have had some honest misfortune in their lives from getting help, because of the (what I regard to be) statistically low instances of the fraud or undeservedness of others.

The 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.

What could a Muslim religious scholar, possibly know about Jesus?

Nattering Naybob: Greetings, The Red Ranger. I assume you saw or heard of the so-called “interview” conducted by Lauren Green of FOX News, where she spent nearly ten minutes repeatedly questioning author Reza Aslan on why a Muslim was qualified to write a book about Jesus (“Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”) or if he or she were qualified, why would they then write that book at all. The fact that Ms. Green holds the title of “Religion Correspondent” for FOX News makes her “questions” even more absurd.

Red Ranger, I know that every single media source or website that I link to or quote from, you think is biased or not valid, so this time I am going to annotate the story by linking to an article from the American Conservative.com, that refers to the “cringe-worthy” interview featuring a “misguided line of questioning”. As our President is fond of saying, “Now…let me be clear”, because this bears repeating: This article is from the American Conservative. Good for them for calling out FOX News’s totally transparent agenda of fear-mongering. The article links to the entire video of the “interview”, which lasts almost ten minutes but is worth watching if for no other reason than Mr. Aslan’s cool, calm, collected, yet firm, reaction to the whole fiasco.

The Red Ranger: OK, so I was wondering why would the Nattering Naybob get so worked up about this relatively innocuous, pedestrian interview, Then through a little detective work I realized that the radical left was all abuzz over this interview and commentary about it had popped up all over the liberal blogsosphere.  As is usually the case the left never fails to crucify anyone who dares to defend Christianity.  Here is a link to something found on FOX News.

So I will agree that maybe the interview did not live up to the exceptionally high standards that the FoxNews network has become expected to deliver it is still better than anything put out by the schlock, faux journalistic MSM.  I guess when you are the best, people are ready to jump on even the slightest misstep.

Nattering Naybob: As a tribe, you Republicans are nothing if not lock-step. As you all invariably do, you defend the actions of someone on the Right, or who espouses Right-leaning dogma in an offensive and intolerant manner, by saying that it is an “attack” or an attempt to “crucify” that person’s advocacy for that issue. For example, if someone on the Right makes a speech or posts a blog saying that there should be absolute unfettered access for all Americans to assault weapons, and a Liberal replies by saying that might not be a good idea, the Right-winger will say that the Liberal hates the Constitution, or that they are are soft on criminality, or that they are unfairly savaging the Right-leaning blogger in a partisan fashion.

So it is with this issue, Red Ranger, when you claim that Ms. Green was “defending Christianity”. Only you are wrong on two accounts, achieving a kind of propagandistic daily double. First, Ms. Green’s question about “why a Muslim should be writing a book about Jesus” had nothing to do with defending Christianity per se’. Instead it was yet another attempt to demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim, which has been FOX News’s stock and trade since September 11, 2001.

Second, and perhaps most important, it is not the anchor’s job to “defend” Christianity in the first place, it is her job to bring out points and ideas from the author’s book that will enlighten or educate the viewers. Ms. Green did none of that, and when the author suggested that she did not even read his book, she did not disagree with or correct him. Instead of giving Ms. Green the title of “Religion Correspondent”, why doesn’t FOX News just call her “Christianity Correspondent– or sometimes Judaism Correspondent When President Obama Calls For a Two-State Solutions and So Hates Israel”?

The Red Ranger: As usual the liberal left’s paranoia and insecurity comes through.  Has there ever been any group that is so completely and utterly inept at defending there positions or supporting why they have those positions.

How does posing a simple question demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim.  I suppose that if I wrote a book on Islam and was questioned by an Islamic reporter about why I wrote it then they would be demonstrating a deep mistrust of all things Christian just because they asked the question.

I didn’t realize that you had written Ms. Green’s job responsibilities.  Does your emploiyer know that you are moonlighting at another network?

Breaking news: Black kid killed, white killer goes free. Again.

Nattering Naybob: Excuse my rather blunt post title, Red Ranger but I think it justified, given the verdict that was handed down on Saturday night. If I were African-American, I would be pretty pissed off right now. What do you suppose would have happened if a black security guard (or whatever Zimmerman’s title was), targeted a white kid who had no apparent intention of committing any criminal activity, and, ignoring his supervisor’s orders to stand down, caused an unnecessary confrontation that resulted in the black security guard’s shooting of the white kid. I’m sure FOX News and all its adherents would be just as anxious to give the security guard “his day in court”. I doubt it.

I do not watch FOX News. I would rather be tasked to find a lost dime from the muddy ground inside a nest of hungry Komodo Dragons. So since I know you do watch FOX News, maybe you can answer this: Did you ever see anyone on that station, between the time of the initial killing of Martin, up to the present moment, ever express the slightest remorse or condolence for the death of an innocent teenager? Rather than their exclusive focus on Trayvon Martin’s Facebook page or the fact that he was caught smoking marijuana?

The Red Ranger:  I am starting to think that you are just writing these blurbs in an effort to keep our blog vibrant.  You cannot honestly believe what you are writing here.

The only thing that I agree with here is that if I were an African-American I would be pretty pissed off right now.  That anger would be directed at my fellow African-Americans who only seemed to get riled up when a fellow African-American is killed by a white, Hispanic or even a white-Hispanic.  The dozens of black on black murders committed daily do not seem to cause any amount of angst in the black community.  They are just accepted and people move on.  Perhaps a little more concern within their own community could lead to a reduced level of crime and violence.  Instead, of worrying about the rare instance where an armed white-Hispanic is viciously beaten by a drug addled black man and then defends himself they should turn their attention inward and focus on their own community but as is the case within the liberal Democratic world it is always someone else’s fault and no one needs to take responsibility.

I am sure there are numerous instances where a black person shoots an innocent white person every day but this does not make the headlines in the MSM since it does not fit their narrative.  I would love to see a statistical breakout of every solved murder to see how many of the killers were white/black vs. whether the victims were white/black.   I am fairly certain that the numbers would show a larger proportion of black on white murders than white on black.

I know that you have fallen prey to the MSM’s portrayals in this case but let’s face the facts.  A jury found Zimmerman innocent so via the transitive property Martin must have been guilty of attacking him to allow him to defend himself with immunity.  Therefore, you cannot call Martin an innocent victim.  Perhaps if Martin were not high on drugs he could have handled the situation in a more mature manner.  Instead of violently attacking Zimmerman he could have just as easily introduced himself, thanked Zimmerman for trying to protect his neighborhood and maybe shared some Skittles with him.

In regard, to FOX News they certainly have had commentators come on who have said that this was a tragedy for all involved and  have expressed remorse over the situation.

If the DOJ seeks civil rights charges against Zimmerman the people of this country will need to take a long hard look at where this country is heading.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you cite cases of same-race murder or murders of whites by blacks, so can I cite many many instances of black suspects being railroaded over the years for victimizing whites. Last time I checked my history (a topic ignored by most Republicans except in the rare cases it suits their needs), very few whites were lynched over the past hundred or so years and if there were, I doubt that any all-black jurors failed to convict the black lyncher(s) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I might also add as a point of fact that the vast majority of lynchings of blacks in the 20th century took place in the Deep South, which is also a Republican stronghold. I’m just sayin’.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman has a history of targeting African-Americans, he was told by his supervisor to stand down and not pursue Martin, and he ignored that direct order, and it was his gun, shot by his hand, that killed an unarmed teenager. And he walked away totally free on Saturday night, probably into a waiting job at FOX News as a criminality or security analyst.

The Red Ranger: Like any good Democrat you try to paint southern Republicans as the root of all things racist.  Weren’t some of the most racist figures in southern history democrats (George Wallace for example).   By the way did you see the instance on either CNN or MSNBC where when showing a clip of George Wallace they labeled him a Republican.  Of course, I am sure that any card-carrying liberal believed that since there this is no way a democrat could ever be a racist.  I think that this shows either the complete incompetence in the staff of these networks or indicates the total lack of ethics they have as they try to distort history to a gullible American public.

Southern democrats and southern Republican all voted against the civil rights act so it is not just a Republican thing.  A Republican wrote the voting rights act..  A Democrat put the Japanese in internment camps.  I could go on and on but history has time and again shown the Democrats to be the more racist party.  However, the MSM has taken it upon themselves to re-write history and portray the Democratic party as some long standing champion of minorities and immigrants when they were historically anything but that.

To me the bottom line is you have Trayvon Martin with a history of drug abuse and violent behavior viciously attacking someone who was just trying to make their neighborhood a safer place.  Martin misjudged his victim as I am sure he thought he could beat up some overweight white guy.  I am sure that if he Zimmerman was not legally carrying a weapon he would have become just another victim of black on white crime and Trayvon would have boasted on his Facebook page about how he beat up some “Cracker”.

Nattering Naybob: We have a fundamental disagreement on this one. Zimmerman and his family, especially his brother, have a history of racist attitudes that indicate a proclivity on George’s part to target out an African-American teenager. How in God’s name is it pertinent whether he had a “history of drug abuse”, meaning he was caught smoking pot. I guess that makes Zimmerman’s murder, justifiable homicide in your eyes. Yet Zimmerman was not even charged with that.  This article lays out a report released by the city of Sanford, which summarizes serial instances of Zimmerman acting recklessly and focusing much of his suspicions on African-Americans, some of whom may be he imagined. I find the whole thing disgusting.

Finally, your portrayal of Zimmerman as am “overweight white guy” is a little mis-leading. It is true that right now he probably could stand to ignore the recipes in the latest Paula Deen cookbook, but on the night he murdered Trayvon Martin he actually looked very fit.

The Red Ranger:  Martin not only had a history of drug abuse he had drugs in his system on the night of the incident.

What is your definition of fit?  He was described by someone during the trial as being a .5 and a scale of 1 to 10 in regard to fitness. I cannot comprehend how you reference everything in Zimmerman’s past but fail to recognize anything in Martin’s past as being integral to this case. Clearly, you are having a hard time accepting the fact that you are wrong in this instance since the jury found him not guilty. Why do you constantly fall victim to the MSM and liberal manipulation of the facts?

In the last paragraph Zimmerman did not call to report a black male.  He only identified Martin as potentially being a black male when asked by the dispatcher.  This is the exact misrepresentation of the facts that has gotten NBC, etc. into hot water.

The Nattering Naybob: I submit forthwith a before and after image of George Zimmerman. Compared to how he looks  now, I feel confident stating that he was “fit” immediately after the shooting. As an apologist for a de-facto law enforcement agent who deliberately disobeyed his supervisor’s orders, resulting in the murder of an unarmed teenager, I know that you will do anything to portray Zimmerman as being at a physical disadvantage on the night of the shooting. If he was in fact at a fitness level of “0.5” on a scale of 1 to 10, as you state, he should not have been on duty in the first place. I think we should give our small but loyal band of readers time to digest all our comments above, then we can continue with another posting during which I will respond to your latest “blame the victim” whining.

“This is now decided as a nation”

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I am curious what you think about the Supreme Court’s twin rulings yesterday that basically represents a sea change in the acceptance, both legally and socially, of same-sex marriage. I will allow the following typically pithy and eloquent quote by Rachel Maddow to summarize the importance of both rulings:

“Bottom line here: the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. California’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. There are 12 states in the country where this is now legal, and the political winds on this are blowing so hard in one direction that the idea that we will go back is almost unimaginable in any state in the country … This is now decided as a nation. The argument is won.”

I admit that my stance on same-sex marriage has evolved over the last fifteen years. I suppose you could say the same of many thousands, I dare say millions, of other people across the country. I would like to think that my initial oppostion to it was based largely on what I believe is a basic human instinct of not publicly supporting a lifestyle in which you yourself would not engage; in other words, I could not ever conceive of marrying another man, or having sexual relations with another man, which must mean that I am against other people doing either or both.

And besides, like I said to my wife yesterday, why should heterosexual married couples be the only ones miserable? Although my wife has been a long-time supporter of gay rights, and same-sex marriage, I get the feeling that this rationale did not resonate with her. Since I said this yesterday, she has not spoken to me. I am not understanding this, did I say something wrong?

The Red Ranger: Like you, I cannot conceive of marrying another man (unless of course Sean Hannity comes out).  I am generally against the gay lifestyle but if allowing gays to marry tones down their in your face attitude about their lifestyle then that would be a good thing in my mind.  In general I do not believe that this will have a significant impact on my life.  I just worry that we cater too much to the fringe, deviant element in society while ignoring those who lead an honest, hard working, moral life.

Also, extrapolating this ruling out, shouldn’t I be allowed to have as many spouses as I want (one wonderful wife is not enough).  I am sure that in twenty years they will be saying that people are born with the need for multiple spouses and that they do not have a choice in the matter.

This ruling is just another step in the inexorable march toward a society that lacks any moral compass and is just another move closer to the downfall of society which is happening slowly over time with each of these seemingly small events.

Nattering Naybob: Thank you for using one of my favorite words,”inexorable”. However I do not understand your extrapolation about marrying multiple spouses as it pertains to same-sex marriage. What is the connection? At least you don’t say, “Same sex marriage? Good God, what next? Allowing people to marry horses?? [harumph, harumph]”, like most Repubicans say when asked about same-sex marriage. Maybe you had that planned in your rebuttal, who knows.

By the way, I think that another complaint about same-sex marriage–that it “cheapens” the institution of marriage–is patently absurd on its face. Think about it: If gay couples can now get married, and now DO in fact get married, how does that cheapen your own marriage, or my marriage? (Or the perfect marriage of peanut butter and chocolate?) Do you think it would prevent a young heterosexual couple from getting married? “Oh, darling, if it were ten years ago, I’d get an engagement ring and ask for your hand in marriage, but since same-sex marriage is now allowed, gee… I just don’t know. Maybe we should be just friends.”

On my way home from work each day I walk right past the Fox News headquarters on Sixth Avenue. If you want, you can forward to me a mash note to Sean Hannity, and I can drop it off at the reception desk of Fox News. Hmmm… “Red Ranger-Hannity”. Has a nice ring to it.

The Red Ranger: It is not in regard to same sex marriage per se but the expanded definition of what marriage is.  I was taking the revision of the marriage definition to an extreme.

I agree that it does not cheapen the institution of marriage.

Perhaps I can connect with Sean on e-Harmony.

Nattering Naybob: Good for you for not buying into the standard “cheapening marriage” theory. Regarding e-Harmony, whatever floats your boat, Red Ranger.

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.

Oops…

The Red Ranger: So last week came news that the GDP shrank in the 4th Qtr. by -0.1%.  We are halfway to a recession.  Although these numbers will probably be revised to show a 0.1% increase so that Obama can avoid a recession at least for the time being.  I am glad he is being laser focused on the economy and job creation, has he mentioned anything about that recently.  I guess he is too busy trying to get 11 million illegal aliens to be citizens and taking away people’s constitutional rights to own guns.

One interesting tidbit is that some of the decline seems to be due to lower government spending mainly military related.  If that trend holds true then that is a long-term positive for the economy.  Also, consumer spending was up about 2% but that will probably be wiped out in Q1 2013 with the increase in payroll taxes.

Overall, we continue to muddle along with the only thing really keeping us afloat is the Fed continually pumping dollars into the economy.  However, that is going to have to end soon.

Nattering Naybob: Meanwhile the stock market is nearing an all-time high. Not to mention corporate profits setting records the past calendar year. Perhaps this is evidence that what’s good for Wall Street is not necessarily good door for Main Street, a cliché’ to which The Red Ranger has subscribed in the past.

The metrics that you cited were only a few of the many that trended upward in the recent economic reporting. The bottom line is that the severe cuts that have been mandated by Republicans, and the Republicans’ threat to shut down the government if their extortionist threats are not met, are the main causes for the shrinking of the GDP. Quit fear-mongering this issue, my good man.

The Red Ranger: You are correct in your analysis that what is currently good for Wall Street may not necessarily be good for Main Street.  The underlying reason for this is due to the fact that the Fed is artificially reducing interest rates and pumping dollars into the economy to mask the fact that there is no job creation under Obama.

Can you provide proof of other metrics ticking upwards.  I believe that consumer confidence fell to its lowest level in a number of years.  Rather than calling the cuts mandated by Republicans severe I would call them necessary to offset the reckless spending and additional debt accumulation that has occurred under Obama’s drunken sailor-like spending ways.

Nattering Naybob: The Consumer Metrics Institute, which has been one of favorite websites since the advent of the Internet, lays out many positive economic indicators. Only in this era of Republican obstructionism can there actually be a substantial decrease in government spending (which is what your gang of ruffians has been clamoring about for decades) yet Obama gets blamed for its resulting perceived temporary adverse impact on the economy.

The Red Ranger: Interesting website.  I briefly perused it and noted that they were seeming to imply that the Obama administration pushed DOD expenditures into the third quarter to show an inflated view of the GDP growth in Q3 prior to the election.  Of course we all know that that could not of possibly happened since the Obama administration is the first administration in US history to be completely open, honest and free of any ulterior motives.

Also, I believe that the President has again managed to miss the deadline for submitting a budget.  Of well it is only a law that he submit a budget by the first Monday in February.

Nattering Naybob: Funny how I don’t ever hear you complaining about the Republican practice of Gerrymandering to garner electoral advantage, the same way I hear you complaining about some mis-understanding regarding the submission of a budget or some such trivia.

The Red Ranger: I believe that both parties engage equally in gerrymandering which I am not sure is illegal.  Whereas not submitting a budget in a timely fashion is a crime.

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?