Sunday, August 10, 2014

Stupid or Liar? You decide!

I don't know whether Roger F. Noriega is a stupid man.

He does have a Bachelor's Degree from something called Washburn University, so I'm guessing he's not actually stupid. But it's hard to tell.

There are two schools of Right-Wing punditry, the stupid school ( Tucker Carlson, Sarah Palin, everyone on Fox & Friends) and the dishonest school (Charles Krauthammer, George Will, etc). And of course, there are those with one foot in each category (lookin' at you, Sean Hannity!)

So it's hard to say whether Roger F. Noriega was being stupid, dishonest or both when he belched up this column, printed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution under the headline


Border Crisis is Obama's


WASHINGTON — Try as he might, President Obama cannot escape responsibility for the debacle at the U.S. southwest border, caused, in part, by his administration’s mismanagement.

Now, if one were trying to do actual legitimate journalism here, one might point out an example or two of the President trying to evade responsibility, but Noriega is from the American Enterprise Institute whose motto is "Facts? We don't have to show you any stinking facts!"

Until Congress returns next month, he should use the tools he has to secure the border and to discourage illegal crossings. One can only hope that he will not take unilateral actions that might make matters worse.

So, he should act on his own without Congress, but hopefully not take any unilateral action.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/56360704/h976DEBD1/


 After all, the current crisis has been stoked by loose talk in Washington about a possible “amnesty” of illegal immigrants, stoked by Obama’s 2012 decision to suspend deportation of youth with long-standing ties to the United States, and news that young children arriving at the border were being released pending hearings.

Okay. Except the "loose talk" has come from Republican scare-mongers who scream "Amnesty!!!" every time anyone suggests maybe treating immigrants with some human decency.
And the children being given hearings is due to the Obama Administration enforcing a law signed by president George W. Bush.
Other than that, though, sure. Clearly all Obama's fault!


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4721232128/h15BC0ACB/


  During a visit to Washington last month, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez cited “ambiguities” about U.S. border enforcement that are part of the “pull factor” encouraging people to rush across the U.S. border.

 Sure. Because, obviously these children are leaving the only home they've ever known, traveling 1,200 miles across a rapist-infested desert clinging to a train that they themselves refer to as the "Death Train" because of an "ambiguity" in US Border enforcement. Sure, that's probably it. It couldn't be the fact that their hometowns have become so overrun by gangs, cartels, and assorted murderers that the Death Train seems like a slightly safer alternative to staying in their homes.

 Hernandez also explained the “push factor”: Narco-violence that sows insecurity and deadly street gangs preying on youth in his country and neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala. Unfortunately, these are poor nations with governments unable or unwilling to deal with these challenges.

Are you even going to try to find a way that that's Obama's fault?
No?
You got nothing?

Okay, carry on!


Refugee advocates contend that more than half of those arriving in recent months have bona fide claims that require a hearing under U.S. and international law.
That is contradicted by a Border Patrol survey in May that found that nearly all of those interviewed made the trek because of recent rumors of leniency. According to sources in Central America, so-called “coyotes” — criminals who make their living smuggling people — have been advertising lax U.S. border enforcement to drum up business.

Oh my God, how many times does that need to be debunked?
Do you really think these desperate children are, in between ducking bullets and evading kidnappers. thumbing through the local paper looking for articles describing the state of border enforcement in El Paso?
It's interesting that you don't provide a link to this survey, because from what I hear, most of these kids haven't heard these rumors until their journey is well underway.

Your stupidity  Makes my brain hurt.


 Part of the initial problem in responding to the border crisis was the administration’s overly broad application of a 2008 anti-human-trafficking law that requires a complicated hearing on an immigrant’s asylum pleas.

Overly broad how?
And seriously, complicated? Is that really the problem here? Are the hearings too "complicated" for immigration judges? Who have law degrees? And specialize in exactly these kinds of cases? Really? Oh, no, these hearings are just too darn complicated, let's send these children back to their deaths. That's much simpler!

The current crisis is fueled primarily by smuggling, not trafficking. Border personnel should be allowed to use their experience and discretion to screen for legitimate refugee or trafficking cases.

Yes, just like street cops get to use their discretion whether to jail someone. It's not like there are trials  and judges and what-not. That would be too "complicated!"

 Of course, bona fide refugees in U.S. territory must be attended to lawfully. However, the U.N. should work with local governments to offer relief to refugees in their country of origin, rather than wait for them to run the gauntlet to the U.S. border.

And since Barack Obama is totally in charge of the UN, this is clearly another failure! Impeach!!!
I mean, he must be, right, seeing as how this is "his" crisis!

One thing that all can agree upon is that no one is better off risking the thousand-mile trek through Mexico, during which many migrants are abused, robbed, raped or killed.
If the perception of lax enforcement lures people to risk life and limb, that must change immediately. Republicans made these arguments while crafting a tough measure that would strengthen border enforcement, make it easier to deport new arrivals and send an unambiguous signal that the border is being secured.

Right, the only humane thing to do to a child who has survived the hellish journey is to send him on a return trip back through the robbers, rapists and murderers, so that he can spread the word back in his hometown that our borders are secure, goddammit!

Although the president initially talked tough on border enforcement, his political advisers apparently recommended that he toss the “hot potato” to congressional Republicans.

 Wait, are you saying that he expects Republican legislators to legislate? He actually thinks that lawmakers should make laws? No, clearly he is completely derelict in his duties by not acting unilaterally so that John Boehner can then sue him for acting unilaterally.



https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2932788736/h74B84467/ 



However, securing the border is the responsibility of the president, not the Congress. And, the president does not need new authority to get a handle on this crisis by sending an unambiguous message that illegal crossings will be stopped, most new arrivals will be turned around, and a sweeping unilateral “amnesty” is off the table.

Okay, let me see if I got this. Border enforcement is the purview of the Executive Branch. And the executive decides how to execute the laws. And it is up to him to decide  whether to show basic human decency by taking in child refugees or to turn them around, give them a swift kick in the pants and say "sorry, kid. Try not to get murdered on the way back!" That's up to him right? Then how about you shut the fuck up and let him do his job? When you're the president, you can decide how to execute the laws of the land. Until then, the guy who is President is going to have to do that. And the fact that you don't like it isn't all that relevant. You want a more cruel border policy? Win an election. Find a candidate who isn't batshit insane, unctously corrupt or both and try to win an election. Until then, just get out of the way and let the grownups handle this.


http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/24954329.jpg

Saturday, August 9, 2014

I present the inaugural "You Go, Girl" award to. . .



So this was an unexpected headline:

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Wife Is Screwing Up His Re-election Campaign – Big Time (VIDEO)

Author: August 9, 2014 5:58 pm

Yeah. . . I don't know who could possibly be screwing things up for Mitch McConnell more than Mitch McConnell.

Although, I guess a Kentucky Republican might be hurt by being married to a non-Caucasian woman, even one who worked for The George W. Bush administration.

But no, that's not even it.

This is too good:

  •  McConnell says that he is a “friend of coal.”
  • But Chao sits on the board of Bloomberg Philanthropies which supports a “war on coal.” (This is former New York Mayor Bloomberg’s. organization)
  • McConnell is big on tobacco.
  • But Chao is advising Bloomberg which “backs a global battle against tobacco.”
  • McConnell vows he “will do everything in his power to defend the Second Amendment.“
  • But Bloomberg is very anti-gun
Oh my God. She's actually hurting McConnell's campaign by doing something decent! I mean, I'm sure she's working for the Bloomberg group for the money, not out of any sense of conviction or human decency, but by somehow finding herself on the side of, if not good, then at least "not-evil," she is having the unintended side-effect of hurting her horrible husband's re-election chances. 

Cecil Roberts, Union Mine Workers Association (UMWA) union chief, released a statement,
“One has to wonder just where Sen. McConnell is with respect to this, and whether he supports his wife’s continued service on the board of this organization, one whose actions have already cost thousands of coal miners in Kentucky and elsewhere their jobs.”

Now, is this true? No, probably not. There seems to be no shortage of coal-powered plants in the US and around the world. If anything, coal mining jobs have probably been lost to mountain-top removal and other technological advances which make it possible to extract more coal with fewer workers, but who cares? If the coal-miners union is coming out in opposition to McConnell, that can only be good news for Alison Lundgren-Grimes. I don't know enough about Ms Lundgren-Grimes to know if she would make a good Senator or not, but I know enough. I know that she is not Mitch McConnell, so she would definitely be an improvement over Mitch McConnell.

So, to former Labor Secratary Elaine Chao, I say "You Go, Girl!"

http://www.birthdaydirect.com/images/86854-icarly-award-ribbon.jpg



Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Conservatives should never try to be funny ever.


Last week, I said that Michael Ramirez was Exhibit A in the case of "Conservatives Should Never Try to be Funny Ever."

Exhibit B is David M. Hitch

Here's a recent example:


David Hitch





Okay,  why is that even supposed to be funny?

The whole point of the political cartoon is that the joke has to be based on something that actually happened in the real world.
 See, here's how a professional does it:

073014-toon-luckovich-ed

See, the joke is based on Sarah Palin's repeated insistence that the Affordable Care Act would contain "Death Panels." That's what makes the joke work. (That and the fact that Sarah Palin is pretty much a living, breathing punchline)

For your joke to work, Al Gore would have had to have claimed at some point that a movie or TV show or some other work of fiction served as evidence to back up his warnings about global warming.

But he didn't do that.

So there's no joke.

Also, there absolutely has been reams of scientific evidence supporting Al Gore's claims about global warming. The scientific evidence is what his warnings were based on. Global warming was not something discovered by or postulated by Al Gore. He was merely serving as a mouthpiece for the entire legitimate scientific community.

And you don't even need any scientific expertise, the average global temperature gets a little higher every year. It's not even climatoilogy at this point, it's basic arithmetic.

There was a scene in an episode of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" in which Charlie is keeping a hornet's nest in a box, convinced that he will eventually get free honey. Dennis explains to him that hornets do not make honey, to which Charlie replies "I don't think there's any good science behind that."
"Yes there is," says Dennis. "there's very good sci - - you know what, it's not even science, it's just true!" (paraphrasing)
That's how I feel whenever I hear someone questioning the science behind global warming. "It's not even science, it's just true!" You can look for yourself. Google pictures of polar ice several years ago vs today

http://scitechdaily.com/images/arctic-sea-ice-comparison.jpg

You don't need a degree in climatology to see the difference.



And that's why conservatives should never try to be funny ever.

Monday, August 4, 2014

You know what, fuck this guy, too!

Somehow, from out of the ass-clown circus that is the Republican's Benghazi committee, actual real-world sanity managed to poke its head out. Of course, it saw its shadow and we're going to get 6 more weeks of bullshit.

House panel: No administration wrongdoing in Benghazi attack


[Rep. Mike]Thompson said the report "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given."


So it's over, right? We're done with this now, right?

Gowdy: More witnesses to testify on Benghazi

But, but. . . it's over. We're done now. There can't possibly be any more, right?

Gowdy, the committee’s Republican chairman, also said the panel is gaining access to witnesses who didn’t participate in previous congressional investigations into the attacks.


Wait, you found more people who weren't there to make shit up? Alert CBS!


“I know I’m biased, but one of the good parts about running an investigation in a way that appears to be serious-minded is that witnesses who were previously unavailable or not interested in cooperating are now interested in cooperating,” Gowdy said.


Oh fer fuck sake! This investigation absolutely does not appear to be any more serious than any of the other phony clown-show  inquisitions. Although I do have to give you credit for admitting that A: you are biased, and B: this investigation only "appears" to be serious-minded. (although, honestly it really doesn't even seem to be)

Gowdy, in an interview, said the panel isn’t scheduled to meet during the August congressional recess, but committee lawyers and investigators will be working.


Which is how you can tell how super-important and serious this is, they're not going to let it interfere with their month off.



Last week, the 12 committee members — seven Republicans and five Democrats — met behind closed doors with family members of the four men killed in Benghazi on the 11th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S.


“One of the issues in homicide cases is that the jury knows more about the defendant and virtually nothing about the victim,” said Gowdy, a former prosecutor. “We wanted to give the family members a chance to tell us whatever was on their heart and mind.”


How is that supposed to help anything? Is there something that a grieving family member is going to tell you that's going to crack the case wide open? If these four Americans were brave, noble patriots or if they were jerks who took an overseas posting because they wanted to get far away from their exes, the case is exactly the same. Very bad people stormed the embassy and killed four Americans. It's not like getting some insight into the victims' personalities is going to help you sort through the facts of the case. Facts which, I might add, have already been thoroughly investigated.

Oh, Ambassador Stevens was a big sports fan, eh? So that's how they did it!
Oh, he liked Italian food? That proves that Hillary was in on it!



So  who is this Gowdy character?

Rep.Trey Gowdy (R-SC) rising star in Benghazi cover-up (video ...


 Seriously? That's a congressman? Must be a bad picture.

Biography | U.S. Congressman Trey GowdyRep. Trey Gowdy headlines Franklin County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner ...Gowdy_0.jpg
 
No, that's really what they elected. Wow!

He looks like Draco Malfoy grew up and developed a substance abuse problem.


http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130509164033/pottermore/images/8/82/Draco_Malfoy.jpg

Anyway, I guess the way he looks is kind of the least of his problems. But this guy seriously wants to do another Benghazi investigation? Fuck this guy!

Fuck this guy!

I saw a headline that said the Joe Scarborough had changed his position on the US's continuing unconditional support for  Israel. Like he had finally come to the realization that what we are supporting is just a horrific series of war crimes and maybe we should, I don't know, be opposing that? Maybe?

So I clicked on the article to see for myself.

Joe Scarborough is catching flack for daring to say out loud what a lot of Americans are thinking anyway, namely that the indiscriminate killing of Gazans by Israel has to stop. 


 Well, I'm impressed! I mean, it's not every day that a TV "news" personality gets away with even the tamest criticism of Israel, so this seemed like maybe it could be a sort of turning point, and good on Joe for having the moral courage to. . . oh, wait. . .  never mind.


Israel Loses Joe Scarborough, Calls Gaza Offensive 'Asinine'

Wait, have I been using the word "asinine" wrong this whole time? Does "asinine" mean "horrifically appalling?"


 
adjective
adjective: asinine
1.    extremely stupid or foolish.

That's what i thought | Memes.



“This is asinine,” said the MSNBC host and former Republican congressman. “This continued killing of women and children in a way that appears to be indiscriminate is asinine.”


That can't possibly be the word you're looking for. Asinine? The killing of women and children is "asinine?" Not "evil?" or "reprehensible?" or "malevolent?"
You're going with "asinine?"
You know you're talking about kids being brutally slaughtered, right?


Joe Scarborough: They blew up a popular marketplace yesterday and they blew up a U.N. school where there were 17 warnings — 17. That is indiscriminate. . .  The United States of America — we cannot be associated with this if this continues. This is so bad, not only for the Israeli people, but for us.


Right, because. . . wait, what?!?!?

 

We should not support the indiscriminate murder of children in Gaza because it is bad for the country doing the killing? And for us? Not bad for the people getting murdered?


“Far from taking an antagonistic approach towards Israel,” he continued, “I am most concerned about Israel’s long-term security. And Israel does not become more secure by increasing attacks that continue to kill women and children.”

He warned, as he did earlier Thursday, that Israel’s response could radicalize Palestinian citizens and mobilize a group more extreme than Hamas.


So, the main concern is for the security of the country who is committing the war crimes? The reason that they should stop killing innocent kids is because there could be blowback?

This is the bold stand that Scarborough is taking? This is what he's "getting flack" for? This is why we're supposed to be impressed with his courage? Fuck this guy!