Sunday, November 11, 2012


Election Day has come and gone. President Obama has been reelected.

In the end, the election wasn't even close in terms of the Electoral College tally. Voters in every swing state (except North Carolina, for those who consider that one) broke for the President. In an election that any GOP pundit told us was about jobs and the economy, America spoke: they decided that they just trusted President Obama more than they did Governor Romney.

It would be nice if we, as a country, could go forward from here. Obama will face no more presidential elections; there are no political points to be scored through obstructionism and attempting to make him look bad. The hope is that the two sides can come together and compromise, though it already seems that that may not be realistic.

For example, anyone may look up Donald Trump's Twitter rant (I refuse to link to such nonsense here) on election night. The same night, a Republican CNN contributor remarked that Obama should give in to 80% of the House's demands. Now, I don't think Obama should be handed the world on a silver platter, but considering that the American people did just reelect him, it seems to me that basically putting the Republicans in charge is not only unwarranted, but is ignorant of the will of the people.

Speaker Boehner of course still opposes raising taxes on those making over $250,000. Honestly, "raising taxes" doesn't seem to be the correct phrase; all indications are that the Bush tax cuts were to be temporary, considering that that's how they were written. President Bush cut taxes to an extremely low level, and when the expiration date of his legislation comes, suddenly "Democrats want to raise your taxes". Very clever indeed. The arguments for keeping the break for the wealthy are dwindling: they don't seem to need the tax cuts at this point (did they ever?), and the CBO released a report stating that a tax hike for the wealthy won't kill growth. At this point, the fight to keep the cuts for everyone seems to be more of an ideological struggle from the GOP than it is a practical point. 

The fact that the GOP still refuses to come to the bargaining table over something which would seem to have minimal practical impact is disturbing. The hope was that the days of "we don't care if we don't have a valid reason, we're gonna oppose you just for the hell of it" were over with the election, but reality may be setting in. The GOP still seems unwilling to compromise, and it would be ignorant for the President to not fight for his positions, considering that he has the will of the majority of the American people behind him.

We may be in for a bumpy four years.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Superstorm Sandy


Just..... wow.

The images coming in from the destruction caused by hurricane/superstorm/Frankenstorm/whatever Sandy are incredible. Streets of New York City underwater. Tunnels flooded. Fires destroying 80 homes in Queens. Oceanside houses wrecked.

Even as the storm passes, challenges remain. Close to 8,000,000 people without power. The mass transit system of NYC completely shut down. Water on the runways at Laguardia. Feet of snow falling in West Virginia.

My thoughts go out to those in the affected areas. It appears that the federal response has been swift, with the President declaring disaster areas, and receiving and communicating information all throughout the night. Even Governor Christie of New Jersey has praised the President's response to the disaster, which really says something. President Obama and Governor Romney have put aside the campaign for the moment to focus on the relief efforts (though, honestly, the cynic in me says that is at least partly because campaigning during these events would appear insensitive, thus losing votes). Even though it can't be a major concern at the moment, part of me does wonder what sort of an affect the storm will have a week from today, when people from all over the country will (at least try to) go to the polls. The NYSE was even brought down for two days because of this, something that hasn't happened due to weather since the 1800's. This is perhaps one of the most astounding symbols of how historic this hurricane truly has been.

For now, the focus will be surviving the storm and picking up the pieces. It remains to be seen exactly how much work that will require, and what the financial cost of this tragedy will be. It's nice to see that the country seems to be pulling together in support of the affected region, but at the same time it saddens me that it takes a historic storm of epic proportions for this to happen.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

RIP George McGovern

George McGovern has died at the age of 90.

Regardless of his political positions, every person who considers themselves a patriot should respect McGovern for having the courage to stand up for his convictions. His vocal protest of the Vietnam War gave a voice to so many of the voiceless soldiers who were used as pawns by their own government without having a say in the matter. Standing up and speaking your mind, even against the government he served, was a true embrace of the ideals embedded in the founding of our country.

It sickens me to see some of the comments that people have posted about McGovern. I shall not dignify them by quoting them here; instead, I link to a Yahoo article with a comment section so you can see for yourself the vile trash that comes from the fingertips of such radicals. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated; it should be vigorously pointed out that one cannot call themselves a patriot while simultaneously speaking such things about such a great American. A true patriot agrees to disagree with others while still respecting each others' rights to their own opinion. A true patriot follows in the footsteps of our heroes and works with those he does not agree with for the betterment of our nation. A true patriot does not think of other Americans as the enemy because they do not agree with his opinion. This is the sort of thought that the founding of America was expressly supposed to stamp out, that those who created this great nation sought to escape from. Anyone espousing such views is the true traitor to the American way.

Let us on this day celebrate the life of a true patriot and pay no mind to those who would show him hatred, for they are not true Americans anyway.

RIP George Stanley McGovern,
July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

It Has To Stop

Ever since the release by an American citizen of an anti-Islam film, Muslims around the world have been rioting, targeting American interests in particular. Whether the protests are because of the video or the video is just a pretext for attacks is debatable.

However, it seems that American embassies are not the only things in the cross-hairs. Today in Bangladesh, Muslim protesters burned Buddhist temples and homes after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam.

This is beginning to get ridiculous. Well, it has always been ridiculous, and I just feel like something needs to be said. The interesting thing is that Islam itself seems to be the main religion most forgiving of blasphemy. According to Leviticus 24:16 of the Christian Bible,
"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."
The Bible clearly sets a death penalty for blasphemy; furthermore, it is discussed in multiple places throughout the Bible as being unforgivable:
Mark 3:29 - But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.
Luke 12:10 - And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. 
These are just two examples. Judaism has similar teachings; for example, the Leviticus passage is part of the Torah as well. What's more, Israel has current laws punishing blasphemy:
Insult to religion
170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years imprisonment.
Injury to religious sentiment

173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.
 Maybe not as extreme as those suggested by Leviticus, but it's definitely nontrivial.

So, you must be thinking: wow, if Christianity and Judaism do that, the Quran must take it to another level. In fact, on the subject of blasphemy, the Quran says...

...wait for it...


That's right, the Quran, the holy book of Islam, says nothing about blasphemy. Furthermore, the hadith, the teachings attributed to the prophet Muhammad, also say nothing on the topic. How can this be? It seems that Muslim jurists created the offense of and punishment for blasphemy, and added it to the Sharia law. Punishment for blasphemy has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with the extremists doing everything they can to control the masses. It's easier to control everyone when they are only allowed to think one way.

Unfortunately for many common citizens in the Middle East, this is the only way of life they know. The teaching of the religion is so closely tied into the Sharia construct that it's hard to tell the difference. The radicals in charge are in complete control of the masses; because the "sin" of blasphemy is so ingrained in the everyday Muslim, all the leaders have to do is point to a target to send the masses into a riotous frenzy. The people don't know any better; not only are they used to blasphemy being handled in such a way, but it must go through their mind that if they don't react violently to an offense, will they be seen as sympathetic to it and therefore a blasphemer themselves? And so they riot, and destroy, and kill. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't seem likely to stop anytime soon.

As much as we in America would like to, we can't blame Islam. We can't blame Muslims in general. In fact, the religion of Islam itself is the one thing that can correctly be said to not be a contributing factor to this mess at all. We need to fix the situation in the Middle East, but to do that, we must first understand the situation. We cannot paint all Muslims with a broad brush. The average Muslim is no different from you or I in principle. The line of thought that "all Muslims are terrorists" or "Islam is a hateful religion" only serves to add to the chaos in the world. I write this article so that we can better understand the situation, because without knowledge, we are no better than those we rail against.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

A Not-So-Civil View On Civil Rights

civil rights (n): Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

With that out of the way, I'd like to direct you to Ann Coulter's comments on who deserves civil rights.

I'll give you a moment to recover from your shock.


Ready? Okay.

While there are many good choices, I think this was my favorite quote:
"We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left."
So it seems that, in Ann Coulter's mind, a certain class of people deserve equal rights only if they have been enslaved in the past. I could go on a diatribe explaining why this is categorically ridiculous, but I'm not sure Miss Coulter leaves anything to be said. The fact that she thinks rights are some sort of currency to be doled out based on the degree to which a class was repressed is nonsensical. Whether or not this is more crazy than the fact that she seems to believe that immigrants, women, and homosexuals have never been repressed is debatable. Miss Coulter's ignorance of who deserves rights is surpassed only by her blatant disregard for current and historical events.

I don't think it possible for anyone to defend Miss Coulter's remarks. Whether or not you are pro-choice, whether or not you agree with gay marriage, no matter your beliefs on immigration, you cannot possibly believe that personal liberties and freedoms should be bargaining chips to be used as payment to bury the past. Shame on Miss Coulter for her remarks, and I believe that she should apologize: not to women, or gays, or immigrants, but to all Americans who should be offended that a woman who claims to be an American can have this sort of view on civil rights.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Forgetting the 47%

We've all seen the video clip by now, with Mitt Romney discussing how he feels about voters who support President Obama:

Romney has since doubled down on his comments, while allowing that they "were not elegantly stated". I suppose that's smart; he'd have a hard time trying to explain that he didn't really mean what he said. After all, the comments were made during a private fundraiser that was not supposed to be filmed, which would seem to be a perfect setting to speak candidly about what he really believes.

Most people shouldn't be surprised that Romney feels this way. By now we are all well aware of his total and utter disconnect from the issues that trouble anyone not at the very top of the income spectrum. His "lower the rates and broaden the base" statement is about the only concrete piece of policy we've heard from him in the entire campaign. Apparently, the 47% of people who owe no income tax each year are all completely dependent on entitlements, and have no desire to move up the economic ladder.

After all, we all know that the 50% of recent college graduates that can't find a job are just sitting back and loving it. The elderly who receive no income could be in the factory working their butts off, but they just think they're too good for that type of work. And soldiers? They think that just because they're on the front lines of the War that Never Ends that they should be exempt from getting a real job and actually doing something for their country? Please.

Humorously, many of the 47% that Romney has such contempt for are probably supporters of his. Seniors have tended to back the GOP for some time now. The military will always have a strong connection to the party that can't cut a penny from defense spending (even though our military spending is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined). Many southern states that back the Republicans based on religious and social considerations (the "Bible Belt") are among the poorest states in the nation.

The former governor's comments are ridiculous in every sense of the word. He has tried some damage control, but cannot stop himself from saying stupid things. As quoted in this article, Romney believes that his comments underscore his effort to "focus on the people in middle". How are you focusing on the middle of the country if you have thrown out nearly half of it? The hits just keep coming in an interview with Fox News:
"There are a number of retirees and members of the military and so forth who aren't paying taxes and that's how it should be. 
"But I do believe we should have enough jobs and take-home pay such that people have the privilege of higher incomes that allow them to be paying taxes. 
"I think people would like to be paying taxes. The good news is if you're doing well enough financially that you can pay a tax. And the problem right now is you see in this country so many people have fallen into poverty that they're not paying taxes they have to rely on government and the right course to help them is not just to have government handing out but instead government helping people to get back to good jobs."

It's funny how in one breath you can stand by your comments, and in your explanation, you completely change what the comments said in the first place. The quoted remarks are clearly in direct conflict with the position that the 47% of people who do not owe income taxes are dependent on government and do not want to take responsibility.

We all knew how Mitt Romney felt. Still, there's something sickening about hearing it come so bluntly out of his own mouth. It saddens me that a man such as this can be so close to becoming the President of the United States of America.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Obama Isn't Cooking The Books

So, I was just poking around the internet and started to get interested in saying something about this. During this election cycle, we hear an earful from the GOP about how the unemployment rate is "actually much higher than the 8.2% number that the government reports". In one of Mitt Romney's latest appearances, he said that "the true number... is probably 15 percent".

Now, we can argue until the end of time about what is the best way to compute this, and other, statistics. What I have an issue with is the seeming implication of many in the GOP, leading to belief by many Americans unable to think for themselves, that President Obama is somehow manipulating the unemployment numbers to appear more favorable for himself. The fact is that Obama is using the same numbers that have been calculated for decades, and the last major change of any kind that would affect the statistic came in 1994, when the questionnaire was last significantly changed.

There are multiple measures of unemployment, which has conveniently explained in this article. President Obama is doing nothing wrong or different by reporting the U-3 number; it's the same number the last President Bush reported as well. And back then, I don't recall Republican congressmen saying that it was important to change the way unemployment is calculated, as has seemingly become so important to them in this election cycle.

Even so, it is noteworthy that while the GOP touts that states with Republican governors are doing better with unemployment, they use the U-3 number to do so, which is the same number they criticize the President for reporting.

So much hypocrisy... though I'd be lying if I said I were surprised at this point.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

GOP Fanatics Are Only Hurting Americans

By now, I'm sure the whole country is aware that the Supreme Court of the United States has (more or less) upheld the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. This isn't stopping Republicans from fighting it; if anything, they have only been invigorated in their efforts to kill the ACA.

Many GOP leaders have redoubled their efforts to deny health care to the masses. In this article, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell said that the decision "marks a fresh start on the road to repeal". Senator Rand Paul goes as far as to question the validity of SCOTUS's decision, saying "just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". It's interesting that when the decision goes their way, the GOP seems to believe that the Supreme Court's word is absolutely unquestionable. Clearly their opinion has changed.

Even more harmful than rhetoric, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare even after the ruling by the Supreme Court. The ACA does allow until 2014 for states to set up health care exchanges, even though people desperately in need of health care obviously would like their state to move more quickly than that. Instead of going forward with this, Governor Jindal has decided to put his efforts into making sure Mitt Romney is elected to repeal the law. Clearly, this is not helpful to the citizens of Louisiana. Jindal, along with many in the GOP, has decided to completely abandon any semblance of trying to make economic progress in this country in order to launch a full scale assault on Democrats in the fall. This not only affects those in need of health insurance, but the country as a whole that needs the full attention of all its leaders at this critical economic juncture.

Certainly, this will be the GOP's excuse for not getting anything done until the election. They are "putting their efforts into a full repeal" even though it is clear that that just isn't possible at this time. This means that they will accomplish absolutely nothing, and the GOP's base will absolutely eat it up. I suppose one could view this as a genius move by the Republicans, though the only reason it can work is because it is what their base wants. To get rid of Obama and his signature piece of legislation at any cost, even it it means completely paralyzing the country until at least November.

Read more here:

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Generosity Is Now A Crime

Now, a majority of my posts here are political; it's hard not to have it that way, considering that so many politicians do and say so many ridiculous things.

However, it's refreshing to be reminded that people outside the world of politics can be just as stupid.

Apparently, a man in Ohio was issued a $344 littering ticket after accidentally dropping money on the ground out of his car window while trying to hand it to a panhandler.

I can picture the entire scene in my head: the man tries to hand the money over and misses. The dollar slowly floats the ground. The police office behind him has his hand hovering over the controls for his lights, and flips the switch as soon as the money hits the ground. I always find it annoying when an officer seems to set his focus on a person, looking for any reason to pull that one person over. While ignoring 10 other obvious, and more dangerous, crimes that are probably going on in the immediate vicinity at the same time. I can't think of any better way to describe what seems to have happened here.

Now, it should be said that it is actually illegal (at least in Cleveland, where this happened) to solicit money or to give it on the side of the road, as was done here. So, maybe this ticket wouldn't be so ridiculous, if that was what the ticket was actually for. Instead, in the officer's single minded pursuit of this man, he went with the first offense he could think of.

In the end, the ticket was dropped, as the city "decided the cash didn't qualify as trash". My only response is... really? I hardly think Cleveland has a big problem with people throwing large amounts of cash out of their car windows. No rational person would have called this littering.

Well done, police. Way to make people even less likely to be generous with those in need. In a society with an alarming amount of real crimes with real impacts on people's lives, it's good to see that cops have their priorities in order.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Kansas Bans Islamic Law



Sam Brownback, the Republican governor of Kansas, has signed a bill that "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of [their] state and our nation when deciding cases and will not rely on the laws of foreign jurisdictions".

I'm sure Kansas, like most of the country, has its own share of pressing issues facing it. I would guess that an alarming amount of judges suddenly choosing to throw out the US Constitution and abide by sharia law isn't one of them. This is nothing but pandering to the Islamophobic segment of the GOP base; what else could make the lawmakers think that this was really necessary?

Did it really need to be made clear that the US abides by US law? I think not. This law can only be harmful. The only time sharia law is allowed to be referenced now is in very special cases, such as divorce cases between Muslims, where both parties consent to sharia law being used. This is no different than prenuptials going around what the law would normally require and acting out the agreement that was consented to by both parties.

This reeks of racism and hatred. Now, some members of the GOP will probably call me "un-American", or say that I would "choose Muslims over Americans" or something ridiculous like that for taking this position, but that's hardly surprising. If the GOP wants people to stop viewing them as racist, maybe they need to stop doing things like this.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012


First, a quick thought; why is everyone spelling it as "Taxmaggedon" rather than "Taxmageddon"? Strange.

Anyway... does this song sound familiar to anyone? Congress can't seem to figure out what to do about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, automatic spending cuts, and expiration of the payroll tax cut that are all scheduled for the end of the year. Pulling from the tried and true playbook of GOP rhetoric, Republican senators sent a letter to Senator Reid stating "...President Obama and Congress have spent much of the past year advancing misguided redistributionist policies in the name of fairness".

It's starting to get tiresome that every time a tax increase on the wealthiest is mentioned, or even just letting previous tax cuts on them expire, we are suddenly talking about Obama's socialist wealth redistribution policies. I don't think anyone is really talking about collecting all of the money in the country and equally dividing it among all citizens. That would be redistributionism. Are the rich going to even notice it if their taxes go up by letting their tax cuts expire? Well... of course they will, because they notice every penny as if it will be the last they ever see. But I hardly think they would be adversely affected by paying an amount more consistent with their income.

I do find it surprising that the idea of fairness is such a disgusting thing to the GOP. Again, when Democrats say "fairness", they don't mean equal distribution of wealth. They just mean that everyone pays a reasonable amount in taxes. America is a great country, but clearly some people have benefited more than others from being here, and I don't think asking a fair (not exorbitant, but fair) amount in return is unreasonable.

The GOP politicians know this, but it doesn't fit their message. So they go to the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric, all but saying it at every opportunity. Which is unfortunate because, as it seems it always is with them, the middle class suffers because of it. When it comes to taxes, the GOP version of compromise is "give us everything we want, and then we can talk". And the Democrats have been doing it because, in the end, they recognize the stakes for the average citizen. It's just too bad that, while they may be able to keep the ship afloat like that, no progress can truly be made under these conditions.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Let's Ignore The Issues... That We Keep Bringing Up

Mitt Romney, campaigning in Colorado, stopped for an interview with CBS Denver. After being asked about a variety of issues, Romney made it quite clear that the only thing he wanted to discuss was the economy. He answered questions about marriage equality, but a question about marijuana was just too much, apparently:
“Aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about? ...The economy, the economy, the economy. The growth of jobs. The need to put people back to work. The challenges of Iran. “We’ve got enormous issues that we face, but you want talk about, go ahead, you want to talk about marijuana?"
This sentiment seems to be echoing throughout the GOP politicians in the House and Senate. When asked for comment, Speaker Boehner said "The president can talk about it all he wants. I’m going to stay focused on what the American people want us to stay focused on, and that’s jobs."

So I suppose the GOP wishes the Democrats would stop bringing up social issues in legislation across the country. Except... the GOP themselves are the ones that tend to keep bringing it up. Earlier this week, the GOP-led North Carolina government was successful in adding Amendment 1 to the state constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal partnership. Also, the state of Tennessee, with a Republican governor and majorities in both the state House and Senate, Friday signed into law a bill that says teachers can no longer condone so-called "gateway sexual activity", whatever that means.

Time and again, it seems that the Republicans are the ones who are trying to legislate social issues; the ones trying to tell people by what values they should live their lives. If Romney and Boehner want the focus of the party to be on the economy, maybe they need to tell the other lawmakers in their own party first.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Political Spin... Or Cyclone Of Untruth

We're all used to political spin and taking statements out of context. Even so, I found this particular incident amusing.

President Obama had a fundraising campaign stop in Seattle on Thursday. At it, he said the following, speaking about the state of the economy at the time when he became President:
" was a house of cards, and it collapsed in the most destructive, worst crisis that we've seen since the Great Depression. And sometimes people forget the magnitude of it, you know? And you saw some of that I think in the video that was shown. Sometimes I forget. In the last six months of 2008, while we were campaigning, nearly three million of our neighbors lost their jobs; 800,000 lost their jobs in the month that I took office."
Never one to miss an opportunity to stretch (or obliterate) the truth, the Republican National Committee quickly whipped up a video highlighting Obama's comments. It begins by asking: "How can a sitting president forget about the recession?" The video goes on to talk about how America hasn't forgotten about the recession, even though our president may have.

Obviously, the video and its message are ridiculous. No one with a working brain (that hasn't been brainwashed by Fox News) would take what President Obama said and honestly believe that he forgot that the country was in a recession. It should be clear that the point the President was making is that this country has indeed come quite a way since January 2009; that we're not in a perfect position right now, but things were so much worse just three years ago. And I think Obama is right; a lot of people do forget (whether it's on purpose or not is another story...) how bad the economy was when he took office. If you seriously stop to think about where we were then and compare it to today, any rational person would have to admit that the country is going in the right direction.

Unfortunately, Americans don't tend to be all that rational. Many Americans don't really have the ability to form their own opinion about something, so they'll take this video from the RNC and go around online telling people "lol can u believe obama forgot about the recesion". Republican voters tonight will sit around their dinner tables and discuss how the President is so rich that the recession didn't concern him, and how Mitt Romney is so much better positioned to know what it put the average American through. And they will do it over and over until they convince themselves that they aren't lying.

People complain about politics and career politicians; I say that the only reason that "career politician" is even a possibility is because of the gullibility of America as a whole. If we weren't so eager to believe all of this nonsense, most politicians would not be able to last in the spotlight. Maybe we need to look at ourselves before we complain about the state of politics.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Going Forward

It seems like I've been spending a lot of time on this issue lately... but that's only because it keeps finding its way into the news.

In a history making statement, President Barack Obama has confirmed that he supports gay marriage. In this linked article, the President admits " this electoral map. It may hurt me." Which, most logical people would admit, is a very big possibility. While there continue to be polls that say that Americans today support gay marriage by a very slim margin, the issue loses every time it is put to a vote. This is because, as with many issues, the people against something tend to be more passionate and outspoken than the people for the same thing. These people are therefore more motivated to come out and vote.

This is a problem for the President; while this is unlikely to gain him many voters (people will vote against him over the economy, and this stance probably won't attract many of those people who happen to support gay marriage), it could be a turn-off to some of his supporters who may have been wavering. While they may not flock to Romney, some people, such as Evangelicals, may stay home instead of turning out for Obama. In an election that is already projected to be very tight, this could be a disaster.

I believe, knowing this, it took a great deal of courage for the President to come out an confirm something that he has probably personally believed for some time. I don't think he was necessarily forced into it by Biden or anyone else; Joe Biden is allowed to have an opinion on something, and that does not have to reflect the President's view. The way that the media has been beating Biden's comments to death may have had something to do with the timing of Obama's statement, however. The President did the right thing by standing firm and saying what he believes in, regardless of the inevitable political consequences.

Some call Obama's announcement a flip-flop. I suppose it could be construed that way, as the President has, in the past, argued against gay marriage. However, I also see a person's opinion on gay marriage as something that can change over time, much as Obama's view has. Being a Christian on one hand, and someone who favors equality and fairness on the other, one could see how the President could struggle with the issue. I believe it's understandable that someone's opinion on this could waver. Considering that the most likely political consequences of this announcement are negative, it would be difficult to cast this as a politically motivated statement (though cast away some on the right will).

In the end, I am proud of our President for showing true leadership and character on this issue. At a time when politics does nothing but constantly cause me to embarrassed for our country, this is a rare high note.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Going Backward

There are many reasons I weep for America, but I think this may jump straight to the top of the list.

On 5/8/12, the state of North Carolina voted to amend the state constitution to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership in the state is marriage between a man and a woman". 

This is troubling for many reasons. We have:

- A majority voting to deny equal rights to a minority,
- Religious arguments (mostly erroneous and misquoted even if we accept the Bible as truth, by the way) being the basis for laws/amendments,

among other issues. These are just the two flagrant violations of the founding principals of America that immediately come to mind. I thought that we had done away with both of those long ago, but apparently not.

As a side note, I continue to be amused at the hypocrisy of those that use the Bible to condemn gay marriage because it is convenient for their belief system based on hate, but completely ignore the parts of the Bible that are bothersome for them (i.e, the people that have been divorced 2 times. Go see what the Bible has to say about that.)

Sigh... every so often I get my hopes up that this country may finally move into the present day in terms of social issues. It seems so simple... equality. One word... about as simple as it gets. However, Americans demonstrate time and again their inability to grasp even the easiest concepts. This episode has pretty much knocked down my hopes again, and all I can do is wonder what it would be like to live in a country that doesn't openly condone hate.

Friday, May 4, 2012

GOP Is Stuck In The Past

I suppose the title of this post is very vague; the GOP is stuck in the past on so many issues.

Today, I'm talking specifically about their opinion on homosexuals. Mitt Romney recently appointed Richard Grenell as a national security and foreign policy adviser for his campaign. Unfortunately, Mr. Grenell is openly gay. As one might guess, that did not sit too well with social conservatives. Because apparently, even having a gay man as an adviser is an affront to all that is right with humanity.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association tweeted "Romney picks out & loud gay as a spokesman. If personnel is policy, his message to the pro-family community: drop dead."

I cringe every time I hear that pro-family nonsense. Since when are gay people "anti-family"? How does the fact that gay people exist tear families apart? The only thing I can think of is that these families spend far too much time concerning themselves with what homosexuals are doing, and don't put any effort into their own family life. I'd have to say that's something they need to learn to deal with themselves. Sounds like some deep-seated issues there.

Mr. Grenell voluntarily removed himself from the Romney campaign, stating that he was becoming too much of a distraction. However, I think we all know the real reason, and I can't blame him: who wants to be criticized for just existing? My political leanings notwithstanding, I'm sure Mr. Grenell is a perfectly competent adviser. The fact that he was driven out of his position by people like Bryan Fischer and the AFA, in 2012, is sickening. These people should all be ashamed of themselves, and I am embarrassed for America that we still condone such behavior.

Maybe some good can come out of this... maybe Mr. Grenell will be able to see the GOP for what they really are and come over to the light side.

What Passes For A Gaffe

As I've said before, the reason that the media may seem liberally biased to some is that Republicans, and conservatives in general, seem to say wacky things on a much more consistent basis than Democrats do.

Want proof? This is what has to pass for a significant gaffe from the Democrats. This article seems to be an attempt to showcase a serious gaffe from Joe Biden that "jinxes US-Mexico relations". According to the article, "[Biden] began to make a toast, saying, 'It's considered bad luck among the Irish to toast with water. So I'm not going to do that.' But ultimately Biden couldn't resist, so he toasted anyway, 'To friendship, to Mexico and
to America, happy Cinco de Mayo.'"

Yes... because of Biden's major error, relations between the US and Mexico will never be the same. In fact, I think we can blame any issue the two countries have ever had with each other on this atrocity.

Honestly, there are so many gems that the GOP gives us to pick from. When this is the story that has to be used to compete with those, is it so surprising that the media seems to "liberally biased"?

Friday, April 13, 2012

Illogical Arguments Against The Buffett Rule

Gotta love Yahoo!. And I do love Yahoo!; I like the page layout and the easy access to all the top news stories.

What I'm less of a fan of, however, are the comment sections on the articles. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be allowed to comment about things and speak their minds. But I have to question what is actually going on in the minds of many of the Yahoo! users. More often than not, the comment section has far more than its fair share of Obama hatred (even on articles not anywhere near concerning him), and (even though I'm very careful about throwing around this accusation, as it gets used far too often) even overt racism. You need look no further than any article mentioning the Williams sisters (or any tennis article... it will get brought up eventually) to see what I mean.

This article contains a discussion of the Buffett Rule, but the article itself contains nothing particularly interesting. The comments, as usual, are another story. My favorite argument against the Rule:
 "If he or anybody else thinks they aren't taxed enough, why do they utilize the so-called 'loopholes' to lower their taxes? Why don't they just pay the higher rate? Why don't they simply send a check to the government?"
Ah, the sweet smell of ignorance (well, maybe the sweet smell is the smell of my cookies baking... I think ignorance smells like something else entirely). The point isn't for one person to pay more taxes, it's that it simply makes no sense for people with more money to pay a smaller share than someone with less money. (Whether or not there should be a flat tax is another discussion, but for the richer person to actually pay less makes no sense.)

This whole "well if you think you should pay more, then send the government a check" argument is ridiculous. If our tax system was voluntary, this country would never have survived two months, much less 200+ years. No person should have to send the government a check to make up for an obvious imbalance in the way taxes are collected. What is even sadder is that this same argument has even been used by Republican congressmen to shoot down the Rule.

Is the Buffett Rule the way to go? Maybe, maybe not. But if you want to say no, come up with a reason that actually halfway makes it look like you even considered the question at all, and aren't just saying what Fox News tells you to.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Apparently, The Fat Lady Isn't Even Enough To Stop Gingrich

Newt Gingrich has admitted that Mitt Romney is "far and away the most likely" Republican presidential nominee. He says he is $4.5 million in debt. Yet, he refuses to exit the race. 

The former Speaker claims that he is staying in the race to promote agendas such as increased domestic oil production and personal Social Security accounts. Despite this claim and anything positive (grudgingly positive) he has to say about Romney, I would wager that the major driving force behind Gingrich's desire to stay in the race is his loathing of Mitt Romney. Even if his presence in the race isn't doing all that much to Romney at this point, even if his presence may actually be hurting efforts to stop Romney, there is something deep, deep in Newt Gingrich's heart that prevents him from admitting defeat to the man. I think that Newt is going all the way to the convention, where he will be dragged kicking and screaming (metaphorically, of course; though seeing the literal version would be hilarious) out of the race. At least that way, he would never have to make the call himself.

Not to mention that his alleged reasoning is ridiculous: at this point, he could probably further his agendas more by getting a job on Fox News again. That way, he could get paid for his opinion, without having to put himself millions in the hole to give it.

The fat lady has been singing for so long that she has gone completely hoarse from the effort. Perhaps that is why Newt Gingrich can't hear her at this point. Or maybe he just doesn't care. Either way, for now it seems that Gingrich will be in it until the bitter, bitter end, no matter how much people don't care anymore.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Politicizing A Tragedy

I've written many posts which highlight the ridiculous things that the Republican presidential candidates are willing to say in order to cast President Obama in the worst possible light.

However, when it comes to using a tragedy such as the killing of Trayvon Martin for political gain, this is absolutely disgraceful.

In his first public comments about the incident, President Obama said that "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". Obama proceeded to say that we are going to get to the bottom of this case, and talked about how this affected him on a personal level, saying "...when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids...".

What I heard was a heartfelt statement from the President, who I am sure during his life has had occasion to worry about just such events happening which involve his daughters.

Apparently, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum heard differently.

An article on The Huffington Post contains a quote from Newt Gingrich, responding to the President's comments during a Hannity Radio interview. Gingrich began with "What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like," and also said "Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up... Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling."

Rick Santorum accused the President of "politicizing" the death of Trayvon Martin, and of "us[ing] these types of horrible and tragic individual cases to try to drive a wedge in America".

To any sensible person, these comments by Gingrich and Santorum are a reprehensible attempt to use Obama's message to the parents of Trayvon Martin to drive a wedge between President Obama and potential voters, not the other way around. It seems clear that Obama was merely attempting to inject a bit of a personal touch into his message. If he was trying to instigate a race war in the U.S. or condone the killing of white teenagers, then I certainly don't see it.

The Republican candidates have said many things that are ridiculous or flat-out untrue during this campaign... but this is something that these two should really be ashamed of.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Why The Right Thinks The Main Stream Media Is Biased

Sometimes it's nice to be able to sum something up into a nice little package, in just a sentence or two.

Why do those on the right think the MSM is biased? I think much of the main stream is pretty fair (with the obvious exceptions of places like Fox News and MSNBC). It's just that it is those on the right, Republicans, religious extremists, etc, that tend to say more ridiculous and newsworthy things than anyone else.

You want the media to stop focusing on you? Stop saying and doing crazy things.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

A New Low In Parroting

We've all heard the ridiculous accusations: "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is a socialist/communist", etc.

I guess I was just being optimistic when I assumed that there couldn't possibly be that many people that believed this nonsense.

poll conducted by Public Policy Polling shows that 52% of likely GOP primary voters in Mississippi think that President Obama is a Muslim, while 45% in Alabama feel the same way. It's one thing that conservatives spew this sort of garbage... but the fact that people believe it is very worrying. Sure, you don't have to like Obama. But dislike him for valid reasons, not because of some popular sensational lies. It seems like Americans are getting more and more gullible, which concerns me for the future of this country.

Maybe I shouldn't take the result of that question too seriously, though. Over 20% of those polled in both states think interracial marriage should be illegal, and a whopping 60% or more in both states do not believe in evolution. Viewed through this lens, the fact that these people think Obama is Muslim is not only not surprising, but practically expected.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Hate Masquerading As Religion

This is something most people know about, but media attention lately has made me feel like talking about it.

It is positively sickening what passes for "religion" nowadays. Now, I am not religious at all, but I respect the rights of others to believe in whatever stories they want to. The funny thing is, they want me to respect their right to be religious; however, in turn, the frequently do not respect my right to believe and live as I choose. All too often does outright hatred get a free pass in the guise of "religion".

I've recently become aware of a group called One Million Moms, and they disgust me. One of their most recent campaigns has been a failed effort to remove Ellen DeGeneres as the spokesperson of JCPenney. Because, apparently, even having a gay person on television is toxic to our youth. I hate to say it, but if your child becomes gay just because Ellen was on television, then... it was going to happen anyway.

I looked over the group's website (which I will not link to here, under protest). They call themselves a conservative religious group, but all I see is rampant homophobia. Groups like this which associate themselves to the Republican party are constantly voicing the opinion that government should not interfere in their lives; however, they are only too happy to support anything the government can do to take rights away from gays. I'm sure they would also support taking rights away from anyone who doesn't agree with them, such as atheists. Maybe an "atheists can't marry" bill or something.

The ability to voice such extreme hate towards certain groups while protected under the blanket of religious freedom is ridiculous. I wonder how they would feel if an anti-Christian "religious" group popped up and started harassing them the same way. Of course, most gays, atheists, or other groups that are targeted by them are far too ethical to sink to the same level. So it would probably never happen. It's a shame... I would love to see how they would react to a taste of their own medicine.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Left vs Right: Maher And Limbaugh Edition

KAT2VAHE7494 (Ignore this code...)

It's always amusing to watch politicians and political figures go after each other. Without failure, extreme hypocrisy is demonstrated... and what's more humorous than pointing out hypocrisy?

I'm sure that, by now, everyone has heard about the whole Rush Limbaugh issue. Actually... I probably need to be more specific. After Georgetown student Sarah Fluke testified to Congress (or part of Congress...) about contraception, Mr. Limbaugh referred to her as a "slut", among other things. His logic being that her support for insurance provided contraception is tantamount to wanting to be paid to have sex.

Many on the right are crying "double standard", citing Bill Maher's treatment of such conservative women as Sarah Palin; see, for example, this video, and others like it:

To be clear, I don't think such language has any place in politics, whether it comes from the left or the right. However, this doesn't excuse what Rush did. Rush has apologized, which I suppose must be taken for what it is. But as much as some from the left continue to pursue Rush over this issue, just as many from the right won't let it die. They are using Rush's gaffe to go after Maher and Democrats, claiming that this is just a way for liberals to try to silence Limbaugh.

I'm sure some will see this as bias, but I will say that I do find a difference between the two incidents. Maher's comments, while not really acceptable (though one could argue that, as a comedian doing a comedic act, he can say whatever he wants), aren't really on the same level as what Rush did. There is a difference between name calling and mudslinging, and complete character assassination and embarrassment for no reason. It's the difference between me calling some guy a "jerk", or spending days trying to convince anyone who will listen that he cheats on his wife given absolutely no evidence of such. If Rush had just said he doesn't like Ms. Fluke or he doesn't agree with her, or even called her a one-off derogatory name or two, I think that would have been on Maher's level. I think three days (see, for example, this article on The Daily Beast) of referring to someone as a prostitute is another step up (or down, as the case may be).

Next, I want to mention the calls for President Obama to return Maher's million dollar donation to his super PAC. The logic being, I suppose, that someone who has ever used foul language should not be allowed to donate to a political campaign. I think that Obama should return the money as soon as the right agrees to take Limbaugh off the air permanently. The right certainly is entitled to make as big of an issue as they want about Maher's donation, but I don't think using rude language should disqualify anyone from making donations. If it's okay for Rush to say the things he does in an effort to influence politics, then it's okay for Maher to influence politics through donations.

To close, I have a personal observation about this whole mess. It's astonishing how both sides can defend their own while condemning the other side for doing more or less the same exact thing. This is nothing new, and certainly isn't limited to Limbaugh and Maher. That doesn't stop it from still being amusing, though.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Free Speech In The Military, And Double Standards

I started thinking about this after reading this article on Yahoo!.

Basically, we have Marine Sgt. Gary Stein making a Facebook post saying that he "wouldn't follow unlawful orders" from the President. Actually, according to the article, the original post said that he would not follow orders from Obama at all, but was later edited to include only "unlawful" ones.

Now, I have no problem with refusing to follow illegal orders. In fact, I believe that's required of anyone in the military... which hardly makes it worth a Facebook post. That would be like me going on Facebook and posting "today, I'm not going to rob a bank". Well... yes, that's fantastic, and I'm sure everyone could agree with that stance. But since I would not be expected to rob a bank anyway, it would be quite odd for me to emphasize that fact.

I do have a couple of issues with this, however. I believe this post is more than just a statement that he wants to follow the Constitution; it seems to be intended to stir up bad feelings for the President. If we suddenly have troops who stop doing as ordered just because they don't like the President, that is obviously a huge problem. The military is no place for political activism. President Obama is the Commander In Chief, which basically makes him the big boss of the military. If it bothers a solider to the point where they don't feel they can follow orders, they should resign. Good people can lose their lives if this sort of thing starts really spreading.

The other, more political issue, is the huge double standard. When President Bush was sending us into Iraq, anyone (especially Democrat/liberal) who voiced dissent was immediately called out, and in many cases called names such as "terrorist". This article from 2006 contains such gems as "the concern is Bush will succeed in the battle against terrorism and relegate liberalism to the dustbin of history" and "No one is worried about declaring war on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda except Liberal Democrats. They are playing Russian Roulette with our lives". Implying that liberals would rather see America destroyed than see Bush succeed. Which is interesting, because that seems to be precisely how Republicans are behaving today with respect to President Obama. Better to let America die than let Obama claim any sort of victory.

Brendan Nyhan has a website with a very nice list of such statements. One quote from Attorney General John Ashcroft, speaking about liberals questioning provisions in the Patriot Act: " those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists...".

Double standards like this abound in politics, and it is both annoying and humorous. Just another example of the Republican motto: "We support the Constitution and free speech... as long as your speech is pro-Republican."

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Santorum's View On Separation Of Church And State

Ah... if there's one thing we can say about Rick Santorum, it's that we can trust him to consistently say things that smack of radical right-wing extremism.

Here is an article on Yahoo! entitled Santorum says he doesn't believe in separation of church and state. That's quite interesting. Because separation of church and state is the only way to guarantee the religious freedoms afforded by the First Amendment. As soon as matters of the church become mixed with those of the federal government, we lose that part of the First Amendment. Whether it's because government is taking a special interest in and promoting a certain religion, or singling one out for criticism, it doesn't really matter; to me, any mixing of the two is a clear violation of the First.

Santorum is quoted as saying "The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."

Wait... what?? Actually, I'm pretty certain the First Amendment means the exact opposite: we let people practice their own religion on their own time, and the government neither espouses it nor interferes with it. I would also argue that the First Amendment equally protects those who choose to follow no religion at all. If we start bringing faith into government matters, aren't the rights of atheists being violated? Not to mention the rights of everyone who follows a religion different from whatever religion government is promoting.

And, as I expect at this point, he has taken Democratic words and twisted them into a convenient talking point. In 1960, President Kennedy gave a speech outlining the idea of separation; the idea that, in order to guarantee religious freedom, government should be totally divorced from any religion.

Commenting on this, Santorum said "To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says. That now we're going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith."

I'm pretty sure the idea isn't to say that "people of faith have no role in the public square". Otherwise, the government would be comprised completely of atheists at this point. I'm honestly not even sure what he's trying to say in the latter two sentences. How does separation of church and state translate into "the government imposing its values on people of faith"?

Because, if you love the First Amendment as much as Santorum claims to, surely you must see that separation is the ONLY viable option. I hardly think turning America into a theocracy is the way to guarantee religious freedom for all. 

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal, And It's The Government's Fault

To me it's very clear that gay marriage should be allowed. But maybe not for the reasons many people think.

If it were just a question of a "celebration of love" or "a holy contract between a man, a woman, and God", I honestly wouldn't care either way.

But that's not what marriage is. At least, not anymore. Government decided to get involved. In the present day world, marriage is a contract between two people and the government. There are tons of benefits of being married; actual, tangible benefits. This website has an enormous list of the benefits of marriage. Especially amusing is the quote "if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union... none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships". Also, " may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner... and other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply".

This isn't a question about religion anymore. It stopped being about religion the moment government benefits came into the equation. It's about the fact that government has decided to endow couples certain special privileges, and as everyone is created equal, everyone should be entitled to these same privileges.

Either that, or eliminate every single privilege enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Whatever floats your boat.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Smaller Government Is Better... For Those We Agree With, Anyway

This is one big contradiction that I just can't seem to wrap my mind around. For the most part, republicans preach less government, less government, less government.

Until, of course, it comes to an issue that they don't agree with. Take gay marriage, for example. All of the sudden, we want to pass laws or even make amendments to the Constitution telling homosexuals that they cannot do something? (I'll save why I believe they should be able to marry for a later post.)

A quote in this article on the Huffington Post says "Even though [Santorum] would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right." (He holds a similar position on contraception in this article.) So while he says he would not personally ban sodomy (which I wouldn't hesitate to guess is solely for political purposes), he thinks states can ban it because it "is not a constitutionally protected right". So... the states have the power to ban anything that isn't specifically spelled out word for word in the Constitution? Whether or not this is legally true doesn't really interest me (as far as this particular train of thought goes, anyway); but it sure doesn't sound like "smaller government" to me. 

I guess I just find it amusing that the party of less regulation and the party of "you have to act this way because the Bible says so" are one and the same. 

American Idol -- Counterintuitive?

Ever since the winner of the inaugural season, Kelly Clarkson, went on to make a very successful career for herself, the winners of the competition have largely fallen flat on their faces as soon as the competition ended. Sure, there have been a few successes, like Carrie Underwood in the country scene. But for the most part, we never hear from these people again.

Why is that? In theory, American Idol showcases the best and brightest talents in the country. They are whittled  down week by week until, finally, we have the best (according to popular vote anyway...) singer in the competition. So what's the problem?

The answer lies in the question: American Idol produces singers. Increasingly, however, it seems that vocal talent is not what Americans look for in their music choices. A quick check of the steady success of Britney Spears should attest to that fact. Artists nowadays are forgoing actual vocal talent in favor of Auto-Tune, sensual dance moves, and over the top production value. And Americans can't get enough of it. (I'm not saying that there are no talented popular artists; for example Adele certainly has loads of talent, and despite her antics, Lady Gaga is actually a very gifted vocalist.)

So maybe it's counterintuitive to hold singing competitions anymore... we should probably be voting on who can don the most outrageous costume and gyrate like a spinning top.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Only Famous People Matter, and the "War" on Drugs

It's very interesting how, even though someone in America dies of a drug overdose every 19 minutes, no one really pays attention until it happens to someone famous.

Please, I don't want anyone taking this as some sort of insult to Whitney Houston. But I wonder, why do the other 27,359 people that die EVERY DAY receive no attention whatsoever? We have this "war on drugs" in this country which is nothing but a shiny toy to distract Americans from the actual problem. We throw dealers and users in jail seemingly at random, or by whoever is unfortunate enough to have a cop pass by at the wrong time. The strategy clearly is doing nothing to address the issue; however, it seems that as long as we keep filling the prisons, both the government and the public are satisfied.

We need better education about drugs in this country (well, we need better education in general, but that's for a later post...). We need to criminalize them less, if for no other reason than to make people feel comfortable about coming forward when they need help. And we need to get rid of the stigma of drug use for the same reason. So many more people would seek the help they need if they knew that society wanted them to get better, as opposed to throwing a party every time the incarceration counter gets another tick. I suppose that's wishful thinking; these people need a reason to feel superior to others, and if they have been fortunate enough to not be struck by addiction, then that's what they cling to. Unless of course it does strike them at some point down the road; these people can do a 180 so fast that it makes MY head spin.

Unfortunately, like so many things in this country, the plight of the masses is swept under the rug until one of those that we worship brings it into the spotlight.

(P.S. May you find peace Miss Houston; rest in peace. You and everyone else who has been stricken with the terrible disease of drug addiction.)

The Short Memory of the Republican Candidates

Of many things, this is probably the one that I find most amusing about the Republican presidential candidates, and really, the Party as a whole.

For example, one of Mitt Romney's quotes on this website supporting him reads "...President Obama instituted the most anti-growth, anti-investment, anti-jobs measures that we have seen in our lifetime." I find that interesting. In January 2009, the last month that President George W. Bush was in office, the U.S lost 598,000 jobs, the worst single month loss in 34 years. Sure, the trend continued for a time after President Obama took office. There's no way it couldn't; problems created over the span of eight years cannot possibly be fixed in a couple of months. Fast forward 3 years; in January 2012, we gained 243,000 jobs. By now, we all know the chart showing the monthly job growth (or loss, as the case may be...) numbers, dating to 2008 (obtained here from the Joint Economic Committee's website):

If Obama's policies are the "most... anti-jobs measures that we have seen in our lifetime", what does that say about the previous administration? To the rational mind, if we are hemorrhaging 598,000 jobs per month, and we then institute even worse policies, we should continue to lose more and more jobs every month. At least, that is the definition of the word "worse" as I understand it. Perhaps Mr. Romney said "Obama" when he meant "Bush". He has been known to make more than his fair share of gaffes. 

The only other rational explanation is that Mr. Romney suffers from a deficiency of skills in either English or mathematics. Or maybe he has some sort of up/down vision inversion issue which causes the above chart to appear upside down to him. Whatever the case, it is clear that something just doesn't add up. This talk may work on the unfortunate masses who get more and more sucked in every time an anti-Obama slur is thrown out, but anybody with the ability to think rationally (even just a little bit) can see what's really going on.

Welcome to The Rational Reaction

Welcome readers!

I am a socially liberal American with a very rational and cynical mind. Considering the fact that there is so much that is irrational about human behavior, I often feel the need to comment on what is happening in the world. I will tend to focus on political issues (for where else are you going to find more inexplicable behavior?), though really anything may grab my attention.

I quite enjoy picking through the thought processes (or lack thereof) of people in the world today, and I hope you'll enjoy the journey through my own thoughts!