Thursday, January 31, 2013

Sorry Paul, But You're Wrong On This One

Paul Constant is one of my favorite writers, but he recently wrote about something that I have to take issue with:

There has never been a good movie based on a video game. Think about that for a second. For twenty years, Hollywood has been trying to adapt video games to film; Wikipedia lists 29 adaptations made in that time. They've never successfully made a good one.
Hollywood never made a good video game based movie? Sure, their track record is pretty terrible, no doubt about that. But a little movie called Mortal Kombat: The Movie would like to have a word with ye. Not only was it not bad, but it was actually pretty decent. Plus it had a killer soundtrack.

No doubt, after acknowledging this little oversight, Mr. Constant will go back and amend his original post, accordingly.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Ron Johnson Fails Again

It should surprise no one that tea bagger senator, Ron Johnson, is a fan of Ayn Rand. He recently gave an interview with the Rand-inspired, Atlas Society, where he made, as you would expect from someone like Johnson, a lot of stupid comments. However, one particular thing he said hasn't achieved as much attention as it probably should have (skip to 6:37):

For those of you who can't watch clips at work:
"It's a real concern," Johnson said, when asked if he saw examples of the private sector "shrugging"—that is, wilting under the pressure of government regulations. "As I talk to business owners that maybe started their businesses in the '70s and '80s, they tell me, with today's level of taxation and regulation, there's no way I can start my business today."

See, this is why it's difficult to have a grown up conversation with these folk. This is yet another example of a far right douchebag trying to argue his case by once again rewriting history.

So taxes in the 70s and 80s were much more business friendly than under Chairman ObaMAO's regime? Let's take a look, shall we? Here's a list of the historical corporate tax rates from the non partisan Tax Policy Center. A quick glance shows that the top rates ranged from 49.2% in 1970 to 40% through 1987, with the last few years of that decade going at 34%. How does that compare to the anti freedom environment we have today? Currently, the rate is a whopping 35%!

Well, that appears to somewhat undermine Johnson's complaint. But Let's continue. What about the capital gains tax rate? The rate seemed to range from 20% on the low end, to as high as nearly 40% in those two decades. Up until the the beginning of this year, the rate under the entire first term for Obama was a crushing....15%?


So how do you suppose Johnson squares this circle? I would imagine that he rationalizes in by one of two ways. One theory is that Johnson may belong to that group of people who subscribe to the belief that numbers worked differently back in the old days before the stupid liberals recruited the homosexuals to write our arithmetic textbooks.

Alternatively, as Johnson has demonstrated quite recently, it could be that he simply just doesn't care about getting his facts in order.

Cross posted at Dead Heat Politics

Monday, January 28, 2013

Note To My Conservative Friends: It's Important To Read All The Way Through Something

So my man, Noel Shepard of Newsbusters was in a pretty good mood this morning, thanks to a report that was released by the Research Council of Norwegian corroborating right wing assumptions about man made global warming being nothing but a big ole' practical joke:

It hasn't been a good few days for media members devoted to Al Gore's money-making scam called anthropogenic global warming.

Prior to Monday's revelation that heat from megacities is making for warmer winters on some parts of the planet, the Research Council of Norway issued a report last week titled "Global Warming Less Extreme Than Feared?":

"After Earth’s mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise."

Noel, no doubt jizzed repeatedly to this news. Unfortunately, it seems he blew his load a bit early. Had he read a little bit further down:

Terje Berntsen [the project manager for this study] emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.


While the study claims the effects of global warming aren't as extreme, it doesn't disagree with the idea of man made global warming.

It's okay, Noel. At least Al Gore is still fat.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Why Am I Not Surprised By This?

So last week I wrote about a very amusing infographic I saw from the Wall Street Journal.  Well, turns out that commenter, Foo Bar, tracked down the artist's blog. The artist, Tim Foley was questioned about the graphic, and his answer was very interesting, to say the least:

As usual with these assignments, I'm given a bare outline of what is needed (ie: single mom with two kids, retired couple, etc) and little, if any of the actual copy that will accompany them... and when I eventually saw the article, my jaw dropped at the salaries assigned to each of these people. They obviously didn't base them on illustrator's salaries.

Well there you have it, people. Seems Mr. Foley had no idea what would actually be attached to his drawing. All this time everyone was mistakenly thinking the artist was an out of touch asshat, when in fact, it was just the WSJ editors.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Wingnuts Make The Lamest Videos

So I was browsing professional skivvies soiler, Glenn Beck's website, The Blaze (cause I had nothing better to do and also cause I'm VERY self loathing) and I came across this piece:

In 2011, there was a set of commercials that made their way around the internet by gun-maker Glock and featuring popular Marine drill sergeant Lee Ermey, aka “Gunny.”  Pro-gun people loved them, as they make the case for those who are passionate about the Second Amendment in a slightly-funny, common-sense way.

And now the manufacturer is back with a new one that’s sure to grab attention.

The ads all are a play off the idea of robbers picking the wrong business, house, or person.

Here's a few examples of the videos they've produced:


Needless to say The Blaze, their folks in their comments section, and pro-gun advocates in general absolutely love these videos.

My biggest complaint with these videos don't even deal with the political message, but rather just how utterly awful the acting is. Though I suppose that's what you get when you hire Stephen Baldwin as a consultant.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Anti-Abortion Activist Refuses To Answer What The Punishment Should Be For Women Who Have Abortions

On Tuesday, Chris Matthews had on his program Marjorie Dannenfelser, of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony Foundation. During the interview, there was one portion that really stuck out to me (fun starts at 4:09):

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For those of you that can't watch the video, Matthews spends the last few minutes of the show to try and get an answer from Dannenfelser on what law she would like to have in place regarding abortion. Matthews asks her roughly thirteen times, and Dannenfelser either ignores, deflects, or offers nonsensical, meaningless answers (she kept yammering on about achieving "common ground", whatever that means).

This exchange reminded me of a line from the always brilliant LOLGOP, roughly paraphrased as:  The secret to Republicans winning elections is to pray that the voters have no idea they're actually voting for Republicans.

(Sadly, I can't find the actual quote, as it was said it a much more elegant fashion than my somewhat mangled recollection.)

The point being is that Republican ideas are generally horrific when actually clarified and elaborated. This is why they're always vague, and rarely offer any specific policy proposals (ex. "Cut spending! But we won't tell you where we want to cut!"). Matthews repeatedly asked Dannenfelser what the punishment should be for someone who commits an abortion, offering suggestions like prison sentences, which Dannenfelser insisted she didn't support.

Look, I realize abortion is a very complex and serious issue for a lot of people. While I personally am pro-choice, I can totally respect a pro-life person's opinion that they feel there's no difference between a fetus and a baby. However, we have to also realize that by accepting that line of thought, it leads to some very uncomfortable, and very dangerous roads. Things like, as Matthews said, imprisoning women who have an abortion, or forcing raped women and girls to have their rapists' child.

Also, I know most of my fellow lefties aren't big fans of Chris Matthews, but I always love it when he has moments like this.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Multimillionaire Professional Golfer Wants to Take His (Golf) Ball And Go Home Cause Of Mean Old Taxes

I don't generally pay attention to professional golf (or unprofessional golf either), but this story caught my eye. Seems some guy named Phil Mickenson, is a little bit unhappy at all the new taxes he might have to pay thanks to Obama and California:

"There are going to be some drastic changes for me because I happen to be in that zone that has been targeted both federally and by the state and it doesn't work for me right now," Mickelson said.

While Mickelson didn't state specifics, increases in federal taxes under the deal to avoid the fiscal cliff in Washington D.C. and the passage of Prop. 30 in California in November to raise money for school funding have all increased taxes on the wealthy class.

"If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent. So I've got to make some decisions on what I'm going to do."

So what might those possible decisions be?

The 42-year-old golfer said he would talk in more detail about his plans – possibly moving away from California or even retiring from golf – before his hometown Farmers Insurance Open, the San Diego-area event that starts Thursday at Torrey Pines.

Whoa. Sounds kind of drastic to quit your career entirely, but I guess if the government is confiscating that much of your hard earned money, then there's probably really little incentive to continue, right?

Well, I was curious to see how much money the poor guy would be left with after Obama's IRS Gestapos were through raiding his wallet. It seems in 2011, he was merely the second highest paid athlete, with a pitiful $62 million (both salary and endorsements).

So let's do some quick calculations. If we take that number and tax it at the rate Mickelson claims, 63% (it almost certainly wouldn't actually be that high since we have progressive taxation, and things like Social security taxes only apply to the first $108k, but I digress), his after tax income comes in at an utterly depressing $23 million. Who the hell can live on such a meager amount, I ask?! You might as well make nothing!

I should also highlight this particular exchange that Mickelson had with a reporter from USA Today:

Q. How do you balance that against the TOUR’s retirement plan which by all standards is the best retirement plan in sports?

PHIL MICKELSON: I don’t understand. What do you mean?

Q. Well, I mean I understand the 60 percent part of the equation, but in the TOUR’s plan, you guys put about as much money aside as you want. It’s treated differently under tax laws than most anybody else’s tax plans. Where most people can only put away $45,000 or $50,000, you guys can put as much away as you want. And so at the end you guys end up with a much larger pot of gold than most people can.

PHIL MICKELSON: But when it comes out, it’s still taxed at the same 62 percent rate.

Q. Well, you’re still making that kind of money. That’s if you’re still in that bracket.

PHIL MICKELSON: (No response.)

Right Into My Veins...

Oh yeah:

Fox and Friends said the “third Monday in January” is “most depressing day of the year.”

That's the stuff.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Neil Cavuto Thinks People On Food Stamps Aren't Being Shamed ENOUGH

Fox News' Neil Cavuto did a typically Neil Cavuto-esque piece on his show lamenting once again how the filthy poors have it sooo easy:

Cavuto starts off by pointing out that spending for food stamps is currently at $78 billion and that due to things like rising costs of food, some people have the audacity to suggest spending should be even higher!

He then brings on Michelle Malkin to provide some obvious "common sense" commentary. Malkin mentions a report conducted by the National Academy of Science requested by the USDA, whose conclusion was that stipends need to be higher because in certain places, like urban areas, it's more difficult to afford healthier food. Malkin says that these "federal bureaucrats" don't seem to understand that we need the stigma associated with food stamps, "otherwise people will buy crappy foods." (This part's a bit confusing because I thought the whole point of buying "crappy food" with food stamps is cause it's usually "crappy food" that people on food stamps can afford?)

Cavuto follows up with this brilliant line:

"Well, we put a sheen or gloss to it now where we actually make it like a Norman Rockwell type of benefit where we glorify food stamps."

You have got to be kidding me. Who the hell is "glorifying" the idea of being on food stamps? It's reasonable to say that the vast, vast majority of people who are on food stamps are on them not because it's a great way to build up prestige, but because they need them. I grew up on food stamps, and believe me, Neil, I've never bragged about that fact to any of my friends.

And this highlights one of the many instances where a talking point thrown around by Cavuto, Malkin and their ilk in right wing media conflicts with one of their other talking points. These folks go on the air every single day lambasting Obama for presiding over a bad economy where not many people are working, while simultaneously complaining that those same people aren't out there looking for jobs. For every job opening out there, there's nearly 4 people trying to compete for it.

The Right really doesn't want to hear this, but recessions don't happen because of millions of people coming together and deciding to start being lazy all of a sudden.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

These Are The People The Wall Street Journal Thinks We Should Have Sympathy For?

The Wall Street Journal had an article providing a fairly thorough breakdown of the new tax policies that will now be in effect due to the "fiscal cliff" agreement reached by congress. The article itself wasn't too bad, really. In fact, it was mostly an objective piece. However, it did include one little thing that I thought was worth highlighting, and that was the "info" graphic that accompanied the article:

Yes, in that graphic, every single one of those families makes a six figure income, the lowest being $180 thousand, and yet because of the new tax hikes imposed by Obama, they all appear as though he ran over the family dog.

The median household income in the U.S. between 2007-2011 was $52,762, but the American people are all supposed to shed tears for those that make between three to twelve times as much? Seriously, how out of touch do you have to be to think that? Of course, this is the same outfit that supported a guy who thought making $250k qualified as "middle income".

This is also further insulting considering right wingers bitch endlessly about government workers like teachers supposedly living high on the hog.

I have to say though, the most puzzling thing about that comic: why is that minority couple who hasn't had their taxes increased also depressed?

Oh, also I would be remiss if I didn't link to this highly appropriate piece by Gawker's Hamilton Nolan:

The Top 1% Must Stop Insisting They’re Not Rich Right This Instant

UPDATE: Well, this is interesting. Seems the Illustrator of that graphic was just as flabbergasted as the rest of us.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Heritage Releases Report That Shows Freedom Hating Countries Are Less Freedom Hating Than U.S.

You would think that mistakes like this wouldn't be made now that the think tank is under the leadership of Jim DeMint:

Former Senator Jim DeMint, the new president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, has decried Obamacare as “a cancer” that is “is fundamentally inconsistent with liberty.” During the Senate Obamacare fight, DeMint famously declared “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

But a new report from DeMint’s own organization suggests that, far from being incompatible with freedom, countries with health care systems with as much or significantly more government control over healthcare are the freest countries in the world.

The report in question is Heritage’s Economic Freedom Index, released annually since 1997. The report defines the concept of “economic freedom” in misleading right-wing terms, but even by those standards, it appears that universal health care systems far more expansive than Obamacare aren’t “fundamentally inconsistent with liberty.” In fact, the ten “freest” economies in 2013 by Heritage’s lights range from mandating individuals save a certain amount of money for health care to almost the entire health care system, including hospitals, being owned and operated by the government:
The countries they listed were:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Canada
7. Chile
8. Mauritius
9. Denmark

The U.S. under Obama's oppressive socialist regime comes in at a fairly distant no. 10. If only Obama would learn more from one of the paragons of right wing governments, like Canada.

Once again, I find myself being consistently baffled  at how these clowns release reports like this that would immediately raise one's eyebrow considering how they tend to undermine their own moronic talking points. The most generous excuse I can provide is that the Right will argue that despite these countries having UHC, they are still very right wing in other areas. This would be a fair point....HOWEVER, as we've learned throughout the past four years that there's very, very, very few things that are a worse affront to freedom than the government sticking its nose into people's lives to prevent them from going bankrupt from health costs/dying. (See: here)

Personally, I think health care is a tremendously important thing for a society to have, and I wouldn't mind if the government did a few conservative policies in certain areas of the economy in exchange for UHC.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

You Would Think The Party Of Money Would Actually Have Some Idea of How Money Works

From the National Republican Congressional Committee (via Balloon-juice):

As ma boy Steve Benen explains:

But even putting that aside, the problem with the image and initial argument is that the NRCC appears to have forgotten how money works. A $20 bill does not have $20 worth of paper. Indeed, the paper and fibers that go into a $50 bill do not have five times the value of a $10 bill. And as such, a $1 trillion coin would not need $1 trillion worth of platinum. 
Maybe you think the coin idea is sensible; maybe you think it's ridiculous. Either way, the conversation would be more productive if Republicans who support holding the nation hostage brushed up on the introductory facts. As Jamison Foser joked, "The NRCC reminds me of old Letterman joke about offering Dan Quayle two fives for one twenty." 
The value of the materials that go into American currency is unrelated to the monetary value the government assigns to the currency itself. Does the NRCC think a nickel is worth more than dime because the latter is physically smaller and lighter? When we print $10,000 bills, do they assume we use really expensive paper? 
It's not at all reassuring that the NRCC finds this confusing.


And it's these same dumb asses who unfortunately have this completely undeserved reputation for being the party who knows how money and finance works. This is why the left generally considers education a good thing, and this is what happens when you have people who insist on not having a curriculum that includes anything more complex than finger painting.

Also, as of this moment, the NRCC still hasn't taken down that idiotic image from their twitter feed. Similar to Todd Akin, I guess they're still quite proud of it.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Republican State Rep. DebraLee Hovey to Gabby Giffords: Stay Out


State Rep. DebraLee Hovey, who represents Newtown and Monroe, posted this on her public FB page. From Florida. (Note: Hovey removed the post from her public Facebook page on Sunday afternoon).

Giffords visited local officials and Sandy Hook families Friday in meetings that were closed to the press.

She then posted this:

You would think that some decorum would be warranted for somebody who got shot in the head, but then you'd probably be a stupid, second amendment hating commie.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Your Laugh Of The Day

Seems that one of the dumbest constituencies in the country aren't big fans of potential Secretary of Defense appointee, Chuck Hagel:

As President Barack Obama is set to nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as defense secretary, the Log Cabin Republicans have released a full-page ad in the Washington Post opposing him.

The ad by the conservative gay rights group criticizes Hagel's record on issues of LGBT equality.
In 1998, Hagel called James Hormel, then President Bill Clinton's choice for U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, “openly, aggressively gay." He characterized Hormel's sexual orientation as an "inhibiting factor" that would prevent him from doing "an effective job."

Hagel recently apologized, saying his 1998 remarks were "insensitive." Hormel has said the former senator's remarks seemed politically timed but accepted them as a "clear apology."

The Log Cabin Republicans' ad says Hagel's apology is "too little, too late," and includes a timeline of the senator's record on gay rights.

 Yes, the Log Cabin Republicans are all worked up cause Chuck Hagel said some (admittedly) stupid things about the gays 14 years ago. I could see how one would be vexed about such a thing, but unfortunately it's a little difficult for me to take complaints like this seriously from a group of nimrods who decided to ally themselves with a party whose major platforms include doing everything in their power to deprive people like those in the LCR of their civil rights.

It points out that in 1996, he said he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. In 1999, he also said he opposed repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the military that was repealed in 2010.

This part in particular is quite hilarious. You know who else, voted for DOMA and was against repealing DADT to the bitter end? John McCain. And who did the LCR support for the presidency in 2008? Not John McCain, of course.

Time and Time again these clowns have supported people who were less than tolerant of their life styles, from Mitt Romney to Sarah Palin. It only makes sense that the only time these dipshits call out anyone is when it involves Democrats.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Judson Philips Is Still An Unhinged Scumbag

Here's Tea Party Nation founder, Judson Philips going full retard (yet again) in a daily e-mail to members of TPN. From Right Wing Watch:

What he really wants is the power to be a dictator.

Barack Obama does not like the American system of government. He doesn’t like our founding fathers either. Our founding fathers were very wise. They dealt with tyranny in their lifetime. The fundamental purpose of the way they set up our government was not to be efficient or even to accommodate rapid change.

It was to block the accumulation of power by one man.

Barack Obama wants to change this.

Obama does not love America. He hates America. He looks at America through his Marxist background and sees not the greatest nation in the world. He does not see the country that has done more good for more people than any other nation. He sees the evil oppressive power that Marxists always view America as.

By continuing to borrow money, unabated, he knows sooner or later debt will completely bring down the American economy and possibly the American state.

There is a deeper battle here as well.

If Barack Obama and the Party of Treason can beat the Republicans down to the point where they abdicate or at least refuse to fight for their Constitutionally mandated role in controlling the purse, America will no longer have three co-equal branches of government.

If Obama wins this next battle, it will fundamentally transform America and our government. Which is exactly what he said he wanted to do when he ran in 2008. Obama has spoken several times, almost longingly talking about how he wishes he had dictatorial powers. Now, here is his chance.

The legislative branch, instead of being equal to the executive will now become inferior and submissive. The tyranny of the strong leader that our founding fathers feared will have materialized here in America.

At the very least he seemed to be able to show a bit more self restraint than normal since he didn't call him a homosexual crackhead this time. Progress, I suppose.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Barack Obama: Manchurian Candidate For the... Wealthy?

So I was just browsing the National Review's website, when I came across an article from my recent new best friend, Kevin Williamson. The article in question, titled "Democrats Raise Taxes on Poor to Subsidize Millionaires" immediately caught my interest, and I decided to take a gander...

There are basically two ways of looking at the fiscal-cliff deal. One possible headline reads:
“Congress does basically nothing.”
For all of the operatic angst and wailing surrounding the negotiations, what was produced was essentially a status quo, kick-the-can extension of most current policies, with a few minor changes that will have very little impact on the long-term fiscal health of the country.
But there is another possible headline:
Democrats insist on raising taxes on poor to protect millionaires and billionaires.”

Sounds intriguing. Do go on.

That is not how the New York Times put it, but it is true.

Of all the tax cuts of the Bush-Obama era, the income-tax cuts for the so-called rich (households earning $250,000 or more) were the least expensive in terms of forgone revenue. The Bush tax cuts for $250,000-plus were estimated by the CBO to deprive the Treasury of about $80 billion a year; the income-tax cuts for the middle class were estimated to cost $220 billion a year; the payroll-tax holiday, which disproportionately benefits the poor and middle class, cost about $120 billion a year.
 Not that important in relation to the main thesis in the piece, but I'd like to quickly comment on two things. 1) I like the use of the phrase "so-called rich" that tends to be used a lot on conservative outlets. Mind you, I suppose there can be a case made that people who make $250k/yr should not be considered rich, but I am curious as to what the threshold is that one becomes officially rich. 2) It appears for the first time in 40 years we have conservatives actually acknowledging that tax cuts aren't free (Williamson isn't the only saying this, mind you). Apparently all it took was to have Obama support those tax cuts. Now it suddenly costs money and hell, probably even adds to the deficit!

Let's continue:

Extending the payroll-tax holiday was on almost nobody’s radar during the fiscal-cliff debate. Why? The cynical answer is that nobody really cares very much about the interests of poor people, and there is something to that. But I think the answer is a bit more complex: Republicans believe (correctly) that temporary tax holidays are bad economic policy, contributing very little in the way of stimulus or long-term growth prospects but increasing uncertainly about future tax conditions. Democrats dislike payroll-tax reductions because they undermine the myth that Social Security is a self-funding investment (payroll taxes allegedly fund Social Security) rather than what it is: a deficit-expanding welfare program for the middle class. And everybody had a good reason to knock that $120 billion a year off of their CBO scoring.

Admittedly, I'm not sure what Williamson means by the "myth" of payroll taxes funding SS, but other than that I don't disagree too much here.

 The expiration of the payroll-tax holiday will reduce the real income of middle-class and working-poor households by around 1.5 percent on average. So while the fiscal-cliff deal raises taxes on those making $400,000 and up, it also raises taxes on workers in the bottom (0.00 percent) income-tax bracket, who do pay payroll taxes. Republicans would have been happy to extend all of those tax cuts into the future, but President Obama and his Democratic allies insisted on tax increases — knowing full well that would mean tax increases on the poor as well as on the high-income.

I can't really comment on this part since I haven't read any reports about Obama and the Dems not wanting an extension. I'd like to see Williamson cite a source.

But not all the rich folks got a tax hike. As usual, well-connected special interest groups — from Hollywood to the booze lobby — secured sweetheart deals for their own narrow interests. So the industry that employs Sean Penn and Ed Asner gets a nice fat tax break, and poor people with jobs get the shaft. The people who rail against “corporate welfare” and “crony capitalism” took the time to cut a nice side deal for the rum industry. You will notice that the Bacardi family is not poor. That’s Washington.
Okay, here we go.

So turns out all that talk about wealth redistributing, and class war waging by Chairman ObaMAO and the Dems for the past four years was a mere ruse this whole time? In fact, they were secretly fighting on behalf of the wealthy all along? That's a twist worthy of that Indian guy who makes those awful movies.

I absolutely love it when people on the Right do this. You see this sort of thing attempted by these folk every so often. See, while many on the Right devote a lot of time trying to fight on behalf of the wealthy, it turns out that it's actually quite difficult to get the filthy masses to sympathize for such a (clearly noble) cause. So this results in the need for pieces like this to appear from time to time, that try and argue that these same people (conservatives) are in fact trying to fight for them (the poor). It's that whole up-is-down, black-is-white, topsy turvy shit from the Karl Rove school of political jiujitsu.

I mean, there's so much that's laughably wrong with this. We're supposed to believe that the same people who lambasted 47% of the country for being leeches and moochers, are saddened that their taxes are going up? LOL. And once again, Obama, who is the most anti-business, anti-success, anti-capitalist, and anti-American dream president to have ever sullied the oval office, that Obama is in fact, a secret ally for the wealthy? Really?

The most generous interpretation of Williamson's complaint I can provide is another line of attack that I see pretty frequently by the same people. In this version Obama still despises the rich, but because of his misguided big government policies trying to tax them in order to help the poor, they inadvertently end up hurting those same people. But even that doesn't work because Williamson clearly pointed to all the corporate welfare goodies that Democrats were handing out, so I'm not sure what he's getting at, exactly.

Kevin, if you get a chance to read this, just know that I don't want to jeopardize our relationship as BFFs, but come on amigo. Let's stick to stereotypes we're all familiar with, ja?

Also, can I just comment on one more thing? One of the biggest problems I have with many right wing outlets: attacking your enemies with descriptors that tend to be incompatible. For example: "Obama's a muslim AND an atheist!". Can't be both. "Obama's a fascist and communist!". Doesn't work that way. "Obama's anti-rich AND anti-poor!". Once again, you can't have it both ways.

Shouldn't be that hard, people.

Deep Thoughts From Bill O'Reilly..

Never change, Bill O:

BILL O'REILLY (host): Now I have to say, Hawaii is one of my favorite places in the world. It's beautiful.

JESSE WATTERS (Fox News producer): Yeah, it's beautiful.

O'REILLY: But when I'm there I'm under water. I'm not talking to pinheads. But the state is in enormous debt.

WATTERS: They are.

O'REILLY: Alright. They've got a lot of social problems. When you says it's the biggest homeless thing, it's because of the addiction.


O'REILLY: The addiction is rampant, all over the place, because they don't enforce the drug laws.


O'REILLY: And, you know, I think the one person who said, Look, this is a place where people come to to escape. This is, you know, generally speaking. But you know what's shocking? 35 percent of the Hawaiian population is Asian, and Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature. They're usually more industrious and hard-working.

Okay, a few things. First, I'd assume this is extremely insulting to millions of Asian people who consider themselves liberal. Second, there seems to be a certain subtle implied contrast that Bill O's drawing against other Democratic constituencies (such as Black people and Hispanics) when he singles out Asians as being hard working and industrious.

Finally, the last thing that bothers me about this is that O'Reilly perpetuates this inane myth that's popular in right wing circles that liberals don't encourage hard work and effort.

No doubt that much of this has to do with liberal support of things like welfare. However, I would like to remind everyone of one of the other major planks of the Democratic platform is increased investment in education (which most people, Asians especially, seem to support). We support things like safety nets as a means, not to get people to cease working entirely, but rather to give them a chance to get back on their feet so that some day they may be able to go to college, and get good paying jobs.

This is probably a good time to remind everyone that the inspiration for name of this blog came from one of the paragons of the right wing who didn't seem to approve of the idea that Obama actually wanted as many people as possible to go them fancy institutions of book readin' and such. And this is a sentiment that's shared by many of his fellow conservatives.

Furthermore, I'd like to also remind everyone that O'Reilly and his ilk also believe that simply being born into wealth would classify a person of being infintely more hardworking than say, a single mom working 80 hr. weeks at two jobs. This is not the type of person you want to be getting lectured from on such a topic.

Oh, and because I never, ever get tired of having any opportunity to post this, I would like to remind the highest paid cable news pundit that despite Democrats desire to make as many people slovenly and lazy as possible, we seem to do quite a bit better than bootstrappin' Republicans in getting people to work.

So please spare us your garbage, Bill.