Science vs Jindal

 Election, Featured, Politics, Presidency, Science  Comments Off on Science vs Jindal
Aug 302015
This entry is part 7 of 31 in the series Daily Douche-Bag

Well, Bobby Jindal succeeds, yet again, in making an idiot of himself. He apparently decided that he should tell President Obama what the President should and shouldn’t say during his visit to New Orleans. An article on Think Progress discusses Jindal’s fear that actual facts and science might be discussed in Louisiana this week.

“While you and others may be of the opinion that we can legislate away hurricanes with higher taxes, business regulations and EPA power grabs, that is not a view shared by many Louisianans. I would ask you to respect this important time of remembrance by not inserting the divisive political agenda of liberal environmental activism.”

Again with the hyperbole in fealty to the Koch’s coal lobby. Only a moron like Bobby would imagine that hurricanes can be legislated away. What can be legislated is the reduction of harm we are doing to our tiny planet (the only one we have). That we can and should do, but of course, not if one is a Teapublican trying to out-idiot the rest of the Republican field. Continue reading »

Presidential Debate-October 22

 Election, Politics  Comments Off on Presidential Debate-October 22
Oct 232012

The final 2012 Presidential DebateSo who won last night’s debate? The polls seem to give it to Obama by a pretty good margin. I’m already reading some Facebook posts about “binders full of horses and bayonets.” But, let’s see what the few of us that read the posting here at Deep. think about it. Cast your vote in our poll and let us know who think won last night.

Who won the October 22 Debate

  • Obama (75%, 3 Votes)
  • Romney (0%, 0 Votes)
  • I watched Drag Race All Stars (25%, 1 Votes)

Total Voters: 4

Loading ... Loading ...

New Poll: Who’s Going to Win the Presidential Election

 Election, Politics, Presidency  Comments Off on New Poll: Who’s Going to Win the Presidential Election
Sep 232012

Here’s a new poll for you to consider as election day 2012 gets closer. This isn’t about who you are supporting in the Presidential election, but who you think is going to win. Let us know where you’re at on the subject.

Who do you think will win the 2012 Presidential Election (not who you support, but who you think will win)?

  • Mitt Romney (45%, 46 Votes)
  • Barack Obama (46%, 47 Votes)
  • Too close to call (4%, 4 Votes)
  • Don't Know (5%, 5 Votes)

Total Voters: 102

Loading ... Loading ...

We Don’t Need No Firemen

 Election, Politics  Comments Off on We Don’t Need No Firemen
Jun 112012

Last week the President made a poor choice of words in talking about how the private sector was adding jobs, while the public sector was laying off. He said, “the private sector is doing fine.” Of course it’s not overall, but what he meant was that, in comparison to the public sector, it’s better. Faux News and the media have been all over, but barely giving any coverage to Mitt Romney’s response.

Romney’s response ought to be far more damaging, and more telling about what he thinks of the middle class, as he suggested we shouldn’t hire more cops, firefighters or teachers:

Romney said of Obama, “he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Yes, yes, by all means, let’s cut back the number of the teachers…because, literally, it’s been shown that the less education one has, the more apt one is to vote Republican.  We can’t have those damned educated and smart voters running loose out there. They might vote for a progressive agenda. And police officers and firemen…really, who needs those. I’ve got locks on my doors and a garden hose if anything goes wrong.

I’d like for Romney to go to the Texas town that had to lay off its entire police force last year or to Detroit and Philadelphia, which have to do “rolling brownouts” of fire coverage because they can’t afford to fully staff their fire departments, and say it to the faces of the citizens of those towns.

Jun 272010

Yes, that’s right folks. I knew it would be just a matter of time, but the tea bagger crazies are now claiming the oil spill in the Gulf was caused by God.

So why would you say God would blow up an oil drilling platform off the Louisiana coast? Well, Katrina was because of those devil worshiping, gays down in New Orleans, so you might think this was because the people down there keep electing prostitution supporter, diaper wearing David Vitter, but you would be wrong.

Turns out, it’s all Obama’s fault. I’m sure that comes as a surprise to you, because it certainly couldn’t have anything to do with the Cheney/Bush cabal eliminating all regulatory control. So what did Obama do you might ask. Well I’ll tell you. Follow me here, it’s a little complicated, and has a lot to do with the Jewish Lunar Calendar. Seems Israel celebrated it’s Independence Day on April 19. Then Fox News reported on the evening of the 19th that the Obama Administration had announced the U.S. would no longer automatically stand with Israel in every United Nations Security Council decision. (You know, maybe because Israel keeps bulldozing people’s homes for no good reason, and killing people on humanitarian missions. God certainly can’t put up with that.)

Then, as we all know, it was April 20th that the well blew up.


Trolling for an Assassination

 Politics, Religion, Right Wingnuts, Society  Comments Off on Trolling for an Assassination
Nov 182009

From time to time I have a discussion of politics with someone at work. He’s very much a conservative Republican.  Yesterday our discussion went to how far off the cliff the most extreme elements of the right-wing have gone. He kept insisting there were extremists on the left as well.

I made the point to him that I agreed there were some on the left so as extreme as to be somewhat embarrassing, but the difference was that I’d bet him dinner he couldn’t find reliable reporting on or Youtube videos of left-wing people going to the steps of the Justice Department for the express purpose of trying to incite someone to beat the crap out of a gay person. I challenged him to find a story of a left leaning person who had killed a doctor, or a Youtube of Democratic Congressperson taking to the floor of the U.S. House and calling the death of the college student a “hoax” with the mother of the student in the gallery. He cut short to conversation.

And now come forth the Psalmists. Apparently they are now printing the phrase, “Psalm 109,” on mouse pads, bumper stickers, and even teddy bears. The Biblical verse Psalm 109: “Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children become fatherless; and his wife become a widow.” Frank Schaeffer, a one-time evangelical leader, tells Rachael Maddow that this latest Bible-quoting campaign is nothing short of “trawling for assassins.”


The hate is just beyond belief and frightening, but even more frightening is the lack of outcry from the leading ministers and clerics against such activities.

Jun 152009

It is time again for a letter. This time to the President. Printed on letterhead, signed with ink, and sent via the U.S. Postal Service.

June 15, 2009

Barack H. Obama, President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Recognizing you have a challenging workload, I will get straight to my point. As a gay man and a life-long and active progressive Democrat I could not be more disappointed with you and your administration, nor could I be any more ashamed of the positions you have recently taken.

I voted for you expecting an about face from the medieval policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration on the “unitary executive” and “war powers” theories. I expected new government respect for Constitutional protections concerning privacy and domestic surveillance. I expected a return to accountability for government officials and corporations when they violated the laws of our Country, and I expected your government to respect the right to habeas corpus for the people we imprison. I expected war criminals and those who ordered torture to be called to account. You promised to be a fierce advocate for Gay and Lesbian equal rights, and you and your team has cleared the agenda of any mention of those issues. (DOMA, DADT, ENDA, Hate Crimes)

Not only have you failed to deliver on these promises, you have sought to defend and continue many of the policies of your predecessor. You have provided little in the way of “change I can believe in.”

But I was finally prompted to write you after reviewing the Motion and Brief submitted by W. Scott Simpson, Chief Trial Counsel of your Department of Justice in the case of Smelt and Hammer v. United States.

First is the claim by The White House and DOJ spokespeople that the DOJ is required to defend all laws that are “on the books.” While not entirely true (your oath is defend the Constitution…not specific laws), let’s assume there is a legitimate need for the DOJ to enter this case. That does not mean the Government (my government, the one I help pay for) is required to sink to hateful and demeaning rhetoric, and trot out patently ridiculous arguments. I’m no attorney, but even a layman can determine bigoted and hateful reasoning when it rears its head. If this constitutes “fierce advocacy” for Gay Rights, please just stop.

The claim from line 32 of the brief is the most absurd of all. “DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits.” This is a frequent claim made by religious fanatics in respect to all sorts of laws restricting gay rights based on a claim that all these laws, including DOMA, don’t discriminate against gays and lesbians because they are free to marry people of the opposite sex. No “homosexual” is denied marriage so homosexuals qua homosexuals suffer no hardship. Gay man? Marry a woman, says the DOJ. This is the same formulation used to argue for upholding the Texas homosexual-only sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas: a law banning only gay sex doesn’t discriminate against gays because it equally forbids homosexuals and heterosexuals to have homosexual sex and because it equally allows homosexuals and heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex.

Your DOJ goes on to compare, as the religious right so often does, gay marriages to incest and pedophilia. It is gratuitously insulting to lesbians and gay men, referring (unnecessarily) to same-sex marriage as a “form” of marriage, and arguing (with a straight face, I can only assume) that discrimination against same-sex couples is rational because it saves the federal government money. These arguments go beyond absurd, and merely prove the discriminatory and unfair nature of the law on its face. Really, your administration is determining whether or not to support civil rights based on whether or not those rights might have a financial cost? Seriously?

Your government (because it’s obviously no longer my government) continues to send me a tax bill every year to help pay for the benefits of married people. May I get a free pass from taxes?

Thinking, intelligent people just roll their eyes and laugh at such reasoning. I would laugh too, were this not my life you were talking about in such language. Do you believe that Loving v. Virginia should have been decided differently because it increased the burden on taxpayers to provide benefits to the spouse and family of mixed race couples?

Mr. President, I voted for you with high expectations that your administration would return this country to the principles of fairness, respect, and government of, by and for the people as set forth so eloquently by our founding fathers. The previous administration had created a credible and very real threat to this Republic, and you made a promise during the campaign to restore those founding ideals. During your inauguration, you took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I have to admit that I am, thus far, gravely disappointed in the actions of your administration, and now…I’m just hurt and insulted.

I go about my life trying to earn a living, trying to respect my neighbors, adhering to spiritual and social principles of Methodism, my chosen religion. I work to maintain a home, and help my “significant other” (since I can’t call him my husband lest I offend your Justice Department and place an undue burden on us taxpayers) advance his education.

I expect that same respect from this government, and your administration has failed to provide that basic level of respect. I now ask and expect you to do better.

Sincerely yours

GOP Hypocrisy and The Sotomayor Nomination

 Featured, Politics, The Courts  Comments Off on GOP Hypocrisy and The Sotomayor Nomination
May 292009

I pointed out in a post on May 8 that the GOP was already gearing up for a smear campaign on Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, whoever it turned out to be. Well, the hypocrites have certainly rolled out of the woodwork to condemn Judge Sotomayor. Let’s take a look, shall we?

court_rustic2_1.jpgThe leader of the Republicans, Rush Limbaugh claims she should be stopped because, “She is a horrible pick, she is the antithesis of a judge by her own admission and in her own words. She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court, she may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals given all the time she’s overturned.” Let’s get right to this reversal thing. Out of nearly 300 decisions, she’s had 6 reviewed by the Supreme Court, and been reversed 3 times…That’s 50%, but then Rush is using that Republican math I guess.

The average reversal rate is 75%. Let’s remember, the SCOTUS reviews cases in which it thinks there may have been an error. So I would think the reversal rate would be on the high side. The issue is how many cases reached the SCOTUS.

Rush goes on to say, “So she’s not the brain that they’re portraying her to be, she’s not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy.”

Well, first, I’ll take a smart Latina over old white men any day. Let’s see what Rush and the other old white men have brought us:

  • A stolen Presidential Election
  • The Presidency of George W. Bush
  • Two simultaneous wars, one of which we entered on false terms
  • Government sponsored torture
  • The erosion of our Constitutional protections
  • The health insurance industry
  • Jim Crowe laws
  • The Wall Street debacle
  • The economic meltdown

And the hits keep on coming. So, I think it’s about time we give someone else a shot. But of course you can’t base a SCOTUS nomination on just that. So let’s take a look at the context of the comment on which they are relying to make their claim that she is a racist. Here’s what Media Matters has on it:

“Contrary to Kelly and Greenburg’s claims, Sotomayor did not say or suggest that Latina or Latino judges are “better” than white male judges, but was instead talking specifically about “race and sex discrimination cases.” From Sotomayor’s speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:”

And now Orrin Hatch has weighed in opposing Judge Sotomayor. Never mind that he voted to confirm her for the Court of Appeals (and, oh by the way, it was George H. W. Bush who nominated her for appeals court). Hatch has his nickers all in a wad over a comment where they claim she said that Judges make policy. The statement on which they are relying is:

“The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made.”

It was made as part of panel discussion at Duke University, but let’s get, as Paul Harvey used to say, “The rest of the story.” You see Sotomayor continues:

“And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m — you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating –”  Continue reading »

Healthcare: Government Bureaucrats or Insurance Company Executives

 Congress, Featured, Politics, Presidency  Comments Off on Healthcare: Government Bureaucrats or Insurance Company Executives
Mar 082009

Choose your poison.

I don’t know the final best answer to the healthcare crisis in this country, but I know it’s a mess, and it has to be fixed. Bill Clinton tried, but the Republicans were having none of it. Obama is now trying it, and again, the Republicans are doing all they can to protect the status quo. In fact, even some of the Democrats are bought and paid for by the health insurance companies.

I know one thing that is an absolute certainty. This problem will never be solved until the insurance companies and their influence are removed completely from the process. They have every reason to keep things exactly as they are, and nothing to add to the conversation. They are the ones primarily responsible for the mess we have now.

I have heard some really stupid people who keep complaining that they certainly don’t want the government and some bureaucrat to be responsible for their healthcare. Neither do I. I want my physician making those decisions. The problem is, these people, stand around and ignorantly spouting their Rush Limbaugh talking points have no clue what they are saying.

They make these comments to support Republican positions for keeping things as they are. So what they are saying is that they would prefer to have an insurance company executive and/or (if they’re lucky) some med tech or some other low cost healthcare person, making the decision about their healthcare.

I want everyone who holds such beliefs to think about this…the insurance companies, all of which are publically traded, have absolutely no obligation (none, nadda, zilch) to get you or keep you healthy. Their only legal obligation is to increase shareholder value, and they do that by paying for the least amount of care for you they can.

So, when you all are out there mumbling about our great healthcare, and how you don’t want a governmentbureaucrat involved, just know that you’ve placed your help in the hands of a company that is considered to be in the “financial sector” of the enconomy…and how’s that working for you right now?

Gotta Love Chuck Schumer

 Business, Congress, Politics  Comments Off on Gotta Love Chuck Schumer
Feb 242009

Chuck Schumer is calling bullshit on these Republican Governors who are grandstanding on the stimulus bill. According to Talking Points Memo Schumer has written a letter to the White House saying the stimulus bill does not include any provision allowing Governors to pick and choose which parts of the stimulus money they want to take. Schumer is telling the Administration to tell the governors that it’s all-or-nothing.

As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.

We have Governors like Bobby Jindal not wanting to provide increased unemployment benefits to people in his state, but he wants to take the money for infrastructure.

It’s interesting that the money they want to turn down is money that would directly help people in need. Jindal claims that his state can’t afford to maintain the extended benefits once the federal money is gone. What he hasn’t done is explain why his state couldn’t write law so as to limit the extension to the time covered in the stimulus…something that is perfectly legal.

These Republicans, especially the Governors with their eye on a presidential run, are playing politics at a critical time in the history of this country. I’m certain I could go through the stimulus package and find things I don’t like, but I’m smart enough to know that, on balance, the issue is getting people working, and getting money in their pockets to spend so that others can be working.

In the meantime, the Republicans are hoping to facilitate a complete crash of the world economy so they might regain a few congressional seats and maybe the White House in a few years. It’s so nice to know they have our best interests at heart. I hope the Obama Administration will quit pussyfooting around, and take up Schumer’s position.

Finally-A Judge Who Understands the Constitution

 Constitution, Crime, Politics, Presidency, Society, The Courts  Comments Off on Finally-A Judge Who Understands the Constitution
Feb 242009

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that a Federal Judge is questioning the constitutionality of the law designed to give the telecommunications companies blanket immunity for their illegal wiretaps. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has asked President Obama’s Justice Department to present its views by Wednesday on whether the law gives the attorney general too much power to decide whether a company is immune from lawsuits.

This is some progress, but Obama voted for the law when he was a Senator, and during his confirmation hearings last month, Attorney General Eric Holder indicated he would defend the law.

Under the law, a judge is required to dismiss a wiretapping suit against a telecommunications firm if the attorney general explains the firm’s role to the judge in a confidential statement. The government would say either that the firm had no role or that it participated based on assurances that the president had approved the eavesdropping to protect the nation from terrorism.

Judge Walker rightfully notes that the law appears to set no criteria for the attorney general to use when deciding if he will “grant” immunity for a particular company. I’m guessing it doesn’t because then Presidents Bush/Chenney were fighting to protect their friends. Walker is relying on a 1944 Supreme Court ruling which sets constitutional limits on laws granting power to the President.

Oh, I forgot, under Bush, the Constitution was just a “quaint old document.”