Don't Debate, Demagogue

I was going to leave the shooting in Arizona alone. But, no. With Sarah Palin calling, “Blood Libel” I can’t.  No thinking liberal SHOULD leave it alone.  I am tired of the Rights assault on reason and willingness to ignore facts that don’t fit its narrative.  I’m tired of Sarah Palin getting a free pass with her idiocy.  I’m tired of people who knowingly accept what Sarah and the Right tell them.  I can’t do much, but I will add my voice to the debate.

 

First off, it’s not Sarah’s fault that some nut job killed people and injured others.  But a person with what one would call a soul, would at least feel bad or feel even a measure of guilt about putting cross-hairs on her district and making her a “target”.  Heck, when my grandparents died, their children each felt they could have done more.  They felt responsible, even though they couldn’t have done anything.  When a person in a fit of pique says, “I wish you were dead!” and then something bad happens to that person, the person who wished death FEELS BAD.  Heck if a sane person says they “hate” someone and that someone gets hurt, well, only an asshole doesn’t feel SOMETHING.

Is "lock and load" rhetoric bad for America?

A great opinion by Marty Kaplan: 

The "Lock and Load" Rhetoric of American Politics Isn't Just a Metaphor

The conclusion is sound:

If you're worried that violent video games may make kids prone to bad behavior; if you think that misogynic and homophobic rap lyrics are dangerous to society; if you believe that a nipple in a Superbowl halftime show is a threat to our moral fabric - then surely you should also fear that the way public and media figures have framed political participation with shooting gallery imagery is just as potentially lethal.

Talk about misdirected anger

Obama has been getting a lot of press for his comments in the recent Rolling Stone interview, but I'll get to those later.  My reaction when reading the interview, and remember I'm ridiculously liberal, was how biased the first question seemed to be.

When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy? (read the full Rolling Stone interview here)

I know that's the truth, but it just seems blatantly left wing.  "I know when you were elected you wanted to work with those douchebags, but when did you realize that trying to work with them was like trying to get Satan to accept Jesus as his lord and savior?"  Most people ask it without the "any real effort".  They usually ask, "why do you think it's been so difficult to achieve bipartisanship?"  Forcing the president to call them douchebags. 
 

A rally for the 98 percenters!

I am very excited about the upcoming Colbert and Stewart rallies.  I'm glad they decided to put forth a moderate answer to the extremist rallies that have been going on thus far.  I hope that they get a million people on the mall to give voice to the 90+% of Americans whose voices are ignored for the guy who is screaming at the top of his lungs.   More after the jump.

Oil Companies v. Muslims

I love when Republicans are angry about something that they essentially do to others.  I think this is called hypocrisy.  So hard to tell nowadays what with hypocrisy being standard to engage in debate in this country.

Now, Republicans want Democrats to stop Demonizing the oil industry. Article Here


Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas), the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he hoped a Republican majority in the House would end the scapegoating of the industry.

litigation vs. regulation: which costs us more.

A great piece in the Economist that makes the case that we need regulations and less litigation to give us more freedom. I like the idea, and would totally support it. I think that currently since we don't have good regulations, litigation is the only thing that keeps certain businesses honest. An excerpt below: (and read the full article at the Economist)

To generalise: for risks I can assess myself, I don't want regulations that prevent me from doing as I please just because I might end up suing the government. For risks I can't assess myself, I do want regulations that give me the confidence to do as I please. One kind of regulation stops me from swimming in a pond in Massachusetts. The other kind lets me swim in a river in the Netherlands. One kind of regulation makes me less free. The other kind makes me freer.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/liberaltarianism_and_regulation

Cell Phones for the Homeless

This topic is a little off the political path what with the uproar over a Muslim community center being built in a Burlington Coat Factory in New York taking up all the headlines.  The topic is cell phones for the homeless.

Earlier in the year a co-worker forwarded an email that purported to show that some homeless person at a government funded soup kitchen was getting a free meal while taking a photo of Michelle Obama with an expensive cell phone.  The email photo wasn't faked.  It was real.  What the email implied was misleading.  The email was meant to make you think that your tax dollars were being used to give freeloaders free meals while they spent their money on Blackberry phones.