Posts Tagged obama

Psalm Before The Storm?

Posted by Matt on Friday, November 20th, 2009

Pun.

Damn right, you are.

This week, a large number Conservatives began purchasing bumper stickers, t-shirts, and Starter Jackets adorned with Psalm 109:8 as a “prayer for Obama.”  It reads:

May his days be few; may another take his office.”

This seems innocuous enough.   I mean, it’s almost Christmas – you want to balance that political opposition with some practical biblicality before leaving the house.

After all, Bumper Sticker Liberals slapped 1/20/09 all over their Subarus for the last 4 years.

However, while certain people thrive on to taking quotes out of context, the snooping widow in me was curious to check out the following line. This reads:

May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow.” (Psalm 109:9)

Yikes. That just went from pious opposition to hateful desire.  Apparently, these Psalmericans don’t want to wait for the wheels of democracy to turn to 1/20/13.

Some further background:

Psalm 109 belongs to a special category of the psalms known as “imprecatory” prayers — it is a lament in the form of petition to destroy one’s enemies.  It is the personal prayer of an individual, someone who has been dealt an injustice by another (usually more powerful) person.  The words of Psalm 109 are those of deep agony, the longings of a victim for retribution and justice.  This psalm is considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms — full of violent images of vengeance and death.   Many a biblical critic has struggled with its words, and not a few — including Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant theologians — recommend it not be used in public worship, much less as a bumper-sticker political slogan.

I guess it’s not surprising the people who have toiled through 10 months of oppressive Obama policies (such as the tax cuts for 98% of working Americans) maintain this ongoing feeling of victimization that so suddenly arose in January.

Former evangelical activist Frank Schaeffer put into a little more perspective on Maddow’s show:

The situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement, for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it’s coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler…as something foreign to our shores, we’re reminded of that he’s born in Kenya, as brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin’s “not a real American.” But now it turns out that he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed, who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there’s a direct parallel here with Timothy McVeigh’s t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing in which he said the tree of liberty had to be watered occasionally by the blood of tyrants. And that quote we saw again at a meeting at which Obama was present being carried on a placard by someone carrying a loaded weapon.

…This is serious business. It’s unAmerican, it’s unpatriotic and it goes to show that the religious right, the Republican far right, have coalesced into a group that truly wants revolution and if it turns out to be blood in the streets, so be it.

Will someone please wake me up when these clowns get to one of the many parts of the Bible that condemns blind hate or extols selfless love?

Hatred stirs up strife,
but love covers all offenses
.  Proverbs 10:12

Bam. That’s some serious versing.

Read the rest of this post →

{1 comment


Multimedia Friday: People From Jersey

Posted by Matt on Friday, November 20th, 2009

A couple months ago, Don Paul Pro did a nice treatment to one of my posts.  I’ve been meaning to share.  Here you go:

Original post here.

 

Friday, yo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Read the rest of this post →

{no comments


Take Your Rings And Shove ‘Em

Posted by Matt on Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

Congratulations, Chicago.  You won in spite of yourself.  And it only cost $100 million for the losing Olympic bid.  Bless you.  But can we stop the ridiculous storyline that Oprah, Obama, or Ronnie Woo-Woo had anything to do with it?  The fact is, the bid was bad.   The fact is that the IOC has long been in a financial power struggle with the USOC.  And the fact is the IOC goes where they can make the most coin.

Nothing Wrong With This.

Nothing Wrong With This.

Above all, however, is the fact that the city just wasn’t into it.  While conservative media derided Chicago as this bastion of sin and corruption, other Americans wanted the Olympics to come to Chicago (84%) way more than Chicagoans themselves. Recent WGN/Chicago Tribune polls put local support for the Olympics bid at around 50%. The 3 other potential host cities had public support in the 70%-80% range.  The politicians and business elite did not represent the will of the people. What a surprise.

The reveling of conservative media in Chicago’s defeat was far from surprising.  Not long ago, Glenn Beck was extolling the success of Salt Lake City’s Winter Games as evidence of Mitt Romney’s presidential qualifications. Now? The gate-keepers of patriotism have decided the failure of the IOC to award Chicago the Olympics is evidence of Obama’s failed foreign policy.  Would it be wrong to characterize this elation as “Anti-American?” Maybe. It’s at least a Silver Medal in the sport of Logical Gymnastics.

But alas, there will be no Michael Phelps finger-banging some DePaul student of the Le Passage dance floor.  No Canadian softball player enjoying an Al’s Beef.  No 12-year old Chinese gymnasts being ogled by weird middle-age men from Rockford.   We could’ve had it all!  Not a working contract for the CPD. Not smaller class sizes and better paid teachers for the CPS.  Not a 21st Century CTA.  But a 2-week athletic event-money pit we could’ve been paying off for the next 30 years.  Ah, what a shame.

Naperville 2024.

Read the rest of this post →

{1 comment


Small Non-Profit Destroying America!

Posted by Matt on Thursday, September 17th, 2009

This ACORN shit baffles me.  Here are some excerpts from Greenwald’s excellent article on the subject:

Earlier this week, I wrote about how the Fox-News/Glenn-Beck/Rush-Limbaugh leadership trains its protesting followers to focus the vast bulk of their resentment and anxieties on largely powerless and downtrodden factions, while ignoring, and even revering, the outright pillaging by virtually omnipotent corporate interests that own and control their Government (and, not coincidentally, Fox News).  It’s hard to imagine a more perfectly illustrative example of all of that than the hysterical furor over ACORN.

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years — an average of $3.5 million per year.  Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street.  Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR.  All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries…

So with this massive pillaging of America’s economic security and its control of American government by its richest and most powerful factions growing by the day, to whom is America’s intense economic anxiety being directed?  To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America’s poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding at the first sign of real controversy — could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry? 

Apparently, the problem for middle-class and lower-middle-class Americans is not that their taxpayer dollars are going to prop up billionaires, oligarchs and their corrupt industries.  It’s that America’s impoverished — a group that is growing rapidly — is getting too much, has too much power and too little accountability.  Anonymous Liberal has a superb post on the manipulative inanity of the Fox-generated ACORN ”scandal” (h/t D-day):

Let’s take a step back and consider just what ACORN is. It is a non-profit organization whose mission is to empower and improve the lives of poor people. As with many other organizations, ACORN has a number of legally distinct parts, each of which has different sources of funding and engages in different kinds of activities (ACORN’s conservative enemies routinely conflate these various parts to imply that ACORN is using federal money for improper political purposes). Since its founding the 70s, ACORN and its employees and volunteers have fought successfully to, among other things, increase minimum wages across the country, increase the quality of public education in poor areas, and protect people from predatory lending practices. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, ACORN helped rebuild thousands of homes and assisted victims in relocating and finding housing outside of New Orleans. The ACORN activity that has drawn the most conservative ire is its voter registration efforts which, consistent with ACORN’s mission, are primarily aimed at low-income voters (who tend to vote Democratic). . . .

But even if you take these film-makers at face value and assume the worst, the reality is that ACORN has thousands of employees and the vast majority of them spend their days trying to help poor people through perfectly legal means (and receive very little compensation for doing so). Even before yesterday’s Senate vote, the amount of federal money that went to ACORN was very small. This is a relatively insignificant organization in the grand scheme of things, but it’s an organization that has unquestionably fought over the years to improve the lives of the less fortunate in this country.

That the GOP and its conservative supporters would single out this particular organization for such intense demonization is telling. In September of last year, the entire world came perilously close to complete financial catastrophe. We’re still not out of the woods and we’re deep within one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. This situation was brought about by the recklessness and greed of our banks and financial institutions, most of which had to be bailed out at enormous cost to the American taxpayer (exponentially more than all of the tax dollars given to ACORN over the years). The people who brought about this near catastrophe, for the most, profited immensely from it. These very same institutions, propped up by the American taxpayer, are once again raking in large profits.

But rather than focus their anger on these folks, conservatives choose to go after an organization composed almost entirely of low-paid community organizers, an organization that could never hope to have even a small fraction of the clout or the ability to affect the overall direction of the country that Wall Street bankers have. ACORN’s relative lack of political influence was on full display yesterday, when the U.S. Senate (in which Democrats have a supermajority) not only entertained a vote to defund ACORN, but approved it by a huge margin (with only seven Democrats opposing).

If one were to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh — as millions do — one would believe that the burden of the ordinary American taxpayer, and the unfair plight of America’s rich, is that their money is being stolen by the poorest and most powerless sectors of the society.  An organization whose constituencies are often-unregistered inner-city minorities, the homeless and the dispossesed is depicted as though it’s Goldman Sachs, Blackwater, Halliburton and combined, as though Washington officials are in thrall to those living in poverty rather than those who fund their campaigns.  It’s not the nice men in the suits doing the stealing but the very people, often minorities or illegal immigrants, with no political or financial power who nonetheless somehow dominate the government and get everything for themselves.  The poorer and weaker one is, the more one is demonized in right-wing mythology as all-powerful recipients of ill-gotten gains; conversely, the stronger and more powerful one is, the more one is depicted as an oppressed and put-upon victim (that same dynamic applies to foreign affairs as well).

It’s such an obvious falsehood — so counter-intuitive and irrational — yet it resonates due to powerful cultural manipulations.  Most of all, what’s so pernicious about all of this is that the same interests who are stealing, pillaging and wallowing in corruption are scapegoating the poorest and most vulnerable in order to ensure that the victims of their behavior are furious with everyone except for them.

I don’t care if ACORN gets a dime of federal money.  Some other non-profit will likely take the reins, the money, and perform similar services. So why the big obsession? I don’t understand the conservative outrage over a decentralized organization that operates on a shoestring budget and has absolutely NO power (as can be seen by Congress’ vote). 

And when the Federal government builds inadequate levies, destroys the wetlands naturally protecting the area, and then sits on its hands while an American city is destroyed by a storm, it’s groups like ACORN that help the displaced and marginalized pick up the pieces while the government turns its head and the rest of us sit on our asses watching reality TV and eating KFC gravy bowls. So why the outrage? Why, my friends, why? Is it a case of “providing assistance while colored?”  Who knows? Only the indignant. Crazy times.

Read the rest of this post →

{2 comments


Douchenozzle of the Week: People Still Listen To John Bolton?

Posted by Matt on Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

 This is the headline that met me on yahoo.com most of the day when I checked my e-mail:  Bill Clinton rewarding NKorea for bad behavior: Bolton

According to Bolton,

“It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists,” Bolton told AFP when asked about Bill Clinton‘s trip to secure the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee.

“I think this is a very bad signal because it does exactly what we always try and avoid doing with terrorists, or with rogue states in general, and that’s encouraging their bad behavior,” Bolton said.

And Now?

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has issued a “special pardon” to two American journalists convicted of sneaking into the country illegally, and he ordered them released during a visit by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, North Korean media reported early Wednesday.

Ok, ok. It’s great these two women will be released, but what price did we pay for “negotiating?”  This is not my area of expertise.  Apparently, obstructing Congress’ investigation  into “negotiating with terrorists” wasn’t dangerous when Bolton was at the D.O.J.  But now? God help us.

We know Bolton has never met a problem he didn’t want to bomb.  Iraq? Bomb ‘em.  Iran? Bomb ‘em.  North Korea? Bomb ’em. Landscapers cut his lawn too short? Bomb ‘em.  Wife forgot the dry cleaning?  Bomb her.

In fact, Bolton’s fervent support of the Bush Doctrine would be comical if he wasn’t held in such high esteem by Conservative editorial outlets such as WaPo and the WSJ. 

Joe Cirincioni writes:

John Bolton had eight years to test his theories. He failed. The Bush Doctrine he helped develop held that nuclear weapons don’t kill people, hostile regimes do. Instead of trying to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons, we would eliminate regimes. The Iraq War was the first implementation of this strategy.

Bolton and others claimed that the war was intended not just to remove an urgent nuclear threat but to deter others. When Bolton was asked in mid-2003 what lesson other nations should draw from the Iraq War, he replied, “Take a number.” The message was clear: abandon your programs or face overthrow.The strategy backfired. Both Iran and North Korea — two countries that, unlike Iraq, actually had nuclear programs — accelerated their efforts. Both made more progress in nuclear programs in the past six years than they had in the previous 12.

So why do people still treat him like some sage diplomatic and military (never served) expert?  Perhaps it’s his comedic timing and cavalier attitude regarding the destruction of my hometown.  Hilarious…!

Congrats, Douchenozzle. And go ef yourself.

Read the rest of this post →

{2 comments


Dixie’s Alternative Reality

Posted by Matt on Friday, July 31st, 2009

whoarethebirthers

From today’s kos poll:

Here’s another amazing finding from our poll showing that less than half of Republicans and southerners believe Barack Obama was born in the United States: 7 in 10 Americans who don’t believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S. live in the south, which has 30% of the U.S. population. Nearly 6 in 10 are Republicans, who compromise just 22% of the population.

This is incredibly discouraging, yet not real surprising.  The Conservatives have come a long way since William Buckley.  This manufactured story has been ongoing for well over a year.  The facts are right there for anyone who wants them. 

The reality? These fucking idiots choose to believe this.  No amount of logic or evidence will change their minds.  This speaks to the success of such media outlets as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.  The truth doesn’t matter. People like the ”Birthers” only want to hear rhetoric that reinforces their ideology – bigotry and xenophobia included.  Facts are often inconvenient and subsequently dismissed, or used selectively.  Thus, constructive debate concerning important issues is impossible.  Well done.

Read the rest of this post →

{no comments


Chuck Todd’s Perfect World

Posted by Matt on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

During the (2007-present?) Presidential campaign, my old lady expressed serious contempt for NBC’s ineffectual Chuck Todd.  I often found myself defending him – mostly because I never liked Tim Russert, the Beltway’s quintessential, go-along “journalist.” 

But last night, Colbert nailed it.

From Greenwald’s article today, a reader makes a great point regarding the dangerous precedent of refusing to investigate and prosecute the architects of Bush’s torture program:

The huge problem here is precedent. In specifically directing an investigation of those who exceeded Bush’s torture authorization, our Justice Department is actually giving legal credence to Yoo, Bybee, and the Bush gang who sought to legalize these clearly illegal methods. Investigating only those who went beyond Yoo’s memos affirms, as legal basis, Bush’s detention and torture policies as the backdrop to be measured against; in effect establishing those practices listed in the memo as the legal standard.

It is less damaging to investigate no one at all than to use the Bush standard to measure those few who exceeded even those most grotesque of practices against. All we’ll end up with is a few more Charles Graners in prison, everyone above middle management getting away without so much as public acknowledgment of having done something wrong, and a de facto Justice Department affirmation that not only will Bush’s team not be investigated for having done something wrong, but that they never did anything wrong at all as those same standards become accepted baseline to measure future prosecutions against.

This is far worse than Obama’s previous “look forward, not backward” stance. This is looking backward and establishing crimes and indignities against humanity as solid legal footing.

Read the rest of this post →

{1 comment


Obama and Secrecy: Bush Redux (Now With Less Democracy!)

Posted by Matt on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

The Obama administration is supporting Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman’s  Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009.  

As Greenwald states, (this bill)

literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.”  As long as the Defense Secretary certifies — with no review possible — that disclosure would “endanger” American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure.  The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely.  The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.

What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people?  Read the language of the bill; it doesn’t even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes.

That this exact scenario is now happening in the U.S. is all the more remarkable given that the President who is demanding these new suppression powers is the same one who repeatedly vowed ”to make his administration the most open and transparent in history.”  After noting the tentative steps Obama has taken to increase transparency, the generally pro-Obama Washington Post Editorial Page today observed: “what makes the administration’s support for the photographic records act so regrettable” is that “Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government.”

While I understand that Obama entered the Oval Office following an administration that greatly expanded executive power and was criminal in its considerable violations of the Constitution and rule of law, the increased use of  ”state secrets” justification is complete bullshit.  Merely saving the government from embarrassment or preserving political capital are not appropriate reasons to sacrifice transparency and disclosure.  Greenwald continued…

What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it.  For decades, we had laws in place authorizing citizens to sue their telecommunication carriers if the telecoms allowed government spying on their communications in violation of the law, but when it was revealed that the telecoms did exactly this, the Congress simply changed the law retroactively so that it no longer applied.  For decades, we had laws imposing civil and criminal liability on government officials who engaged in or authorized torture, but when it was revealed that our government did that, the Congress just retroactively changed the law to protect the torturers.  And now that courts have ruled that our decades-old transparency law compels disclosure of this torture evidence, the Congress is just going to retroactively change the law — again — this time to empower the President to suppress that evidence anyway.

The debate over whether there is value in disclosing these specific photographs is entirely misplaced.  That isn’t how open government works.  The burden isn’t on citizens to prove that there is value in disclosure.  Everything that government does is supposed to be transparent to the public unless there is a compelling reason for secrecy — and the whole point of FOIA always has been that mere embarrassment, the mere fact that information reflects poorly on our government, isn’t a legitimate ground for concealment.  That’s a critical principle for open government.  This new law explicitly guts that principle.  It institutionalizes the pernicious notion that secrecy is justified where disclosure would reflect badly on the Government and thus “endanger” American citizens and/or our troops.

Combine all of this with the increasingly disturbing spectacle taking place in a California federal court in the Al-Haramain case — where the Obama DOJ is on the verge of being sanctioned by a federal judge for defying the court’s order to make available documents relating to Bush’s illegal eavesdropping activities — and the infatuation with excessive presidential secrecy, the linchpin of government abuse, appears alive and well in the new administration.  Is there really anyone who wants to argue that defiance of a federal court’s order and enacting a new law authorizing suppression of torture evidence — the disclosure of which is compelled both by courts and FOIA — are remotely consistent with anything Obama said he would do, or remotely consistent with what a healthy democratic government would do?

As I said, Obama came into office after 8 years of utter incompetence, indifference and mismanagement. I wouldn’t be surprised if he found elephant dung under some shredded documents when he opened the top drawer of his desk in the Oval Office.  Though it’s obviously way too early to judge the administration, I think he is generally moving this country in the right direction.  He has been proactive in areas from health care (SCHIP) to civil rights {of some} (Lilly Ledbetter Act) and has appropriately engaged the foreign community.  However, for someone who has a background teaching Constitutional Law, I am incredibly discouraged by his administration’s continuation and (in some cases) expansion of Bush-era policies in the areas discussed above.  

Unlike some liberals, I was under no illusion that Obama would be the leftist-ideologue, elected to swing the pendulum 180 degrees.  He never presented himself as that guy during the campaign.  But as a self-proclaimed pragmatist (and student of history), he should realize that sweeping the past 8 years under the carpet only ensures that these transgressions will occur again, giving this nation the proverbial “black eye,” and ultimately eroding the fundamentals of our democracy and making this country less safe.

Read the rest of this post →

{3 comments


You Say Tomato, I Say Sean Hannity is a Fucking Idiot.

Posted by Matt on Saturday, May 9th, 2009

I should just re-title this site “Who Fucking Cares?”  

I will preface this by saying I am clearly biased regarding this subject.  I fucking hate ketchup.  It is the most overrated condiment around.  Evidently, my hatred of ketchup (along with my ownership of African art and my love of the Canadian national anthem) makes me elitist, un-American, and probably a threat to national security.  

Last week, President Obama went to a burger joint and ordered a burger with mustard (and no ketchup!!!).  And not just any mustard:  Dijon mustard.  HOLY SHIT!  THAT’S A CITY IN FRANCE!!!! FRANCE, I SAY!!!

So with the Taliban moving into Pakistan, a messed up economy, evidence pouring in regarding torture and the moral bankruptcy of the previous administration, let’s cue the clowns…

Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a “fancy burger” with a “very special condiment.” 

Laura Ingraham? Show me the testosterone young lady:

“What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup, but Dijon mustard?”

Seriously.  A real man eats ketchup, pisses motor oil, and shits handguns. How about you, Limbaugh fill-in Mark Steyn?

“He’s amazing, Obama. This coverage — he’s a regular guy. He eats a hamburger with Dijon mustard — Dijon mustard. John Kerry couldn’t get away with that stuff, but he makes it seem like just like a regular thing to do. Now there’s — I see that some of the left-wing commentators are saying, ‘Why are people making a fuss about the Dijon mustard?’ but that’s just an example of the way Obama is able to enlighten us.” 

Kind of a low blow to Kerry. We all know he’s a “Heinz” guy anyway.

Anyway, all you unenlightened assholes outside of Chicago need to listen up.  Ketchup (catsup?) is for jerks and Methodists.  Hot dog logic can certainly be applied to the realm of burgers.  As Chicago’s legendary Vienna Beef states on their website:

And be forewarned – if you ask for ketchup, you’d better be under the age of twelve.

Or in the case of Hannity, at least have the intelligence and maturity level of someone under 12.

Read the rest of this post →

{5 comments


Revisionist History: Smearing FDR

Posted by Matt on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

Here’s Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt:

All of the Republicans agreed that the plan is a spending boondoggle that won’t turn the economy around. U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt made the most pointed criticism of it in his speech Friday night: “I guess you can’t be Franklin Roosevelt if you don’t create a depression,” he said of President Barack Obama.

If you repeat a lie enough times, you can at least blur the truth.  Give Republicans credit. They are very good at lock-step opposition.  They are great at dramatic repetition of fallacies. No one is better at “playing the victim.”

Since Obama’s election, voices on the right have attempted to undermine his attempts to assist the failing economy by claiming the New Deal failed, and the “liberal” policies of FDR damaged the country. Thus, through “guilt-by-liberal-association” any sort of Obama-backed government spending will be detrimental to our country’s interest.

To wit, Brit Hume on January 7:

“the New Deal — everybody agrees, I think, on both sides of the spectrum now, that the New Deal failed.” 

If you look hard enough and pay the right price, you can probably find an economist who will claim the American economy will rise and fall on the price elasticity of adult diapers.  I believe the “sides of the spectrum” Mr. Hume refers to are “far-right” and “farther-right.”  

George Will?  

“Before we go into a new New Deal, can we just acknowledge that the first New Deal didn’t work?” He added: “That is, the biggest collapse in industrial production in history occurred in 1937, eight years after the stock market collapse of 1929, five years into the New Deal.”

While Will cherry-picks the “industrial production” statistic, he fails to mention that 1937 was the year FDR significantly scaled back government spending in an attempt to balance the budget and appease the anti-spending conservatives.  It also ignores the fact that most people were better off in 1937 than 1933.

Which brings me back to Congressman (and ’10 Senate candidate) Roy Blunt.  Unfortunately, to speak using factual assertions is not a prerequisite for any politician.  Neither is a working knowledge of American history.  Blunt’s comment indicates he believes FDR created the Great Depression.

I’ll keep the timeline pretty simple for Congressman Blunt:

1929:  Hoover innaugerated.  Recession begins in the fall. Stock market crashes October 29.

1929-1932:  Lots of government inaction.  A deteriorating economy. Americans suffer.

1932: GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.  GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.

At this point, it’s safe to say the Great Depression is indeed very Great, and very depressed.

1933:  FDR is inaugurated.  Stay with me.  This means that the Depression existed prior to FDR’s presidency.  A flury of activity occurs within the “first 100 days.”  The richest of the rich attempt to overthrow the government for trying to help the millions of American in need.

1934:  GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. 

1936: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.

1937:  Roosevelt, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. However, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.  George Will omits this fact.

The middling economy continues until the start of WWII in a couple years.

I’m not sure if  Blunt’s complete bullshit is successful in undermining Obama or scores points with his constituents.  I guess it depends on your opinion of the people of Missouri.  No comment.  

Certainly, fire-breathing uber-conservatives use “intellectual” and “academic” as insults against liberals.  It’s ridiculous and counter-intuitive. It’s also true.  So it’s not surprising that intellectual dishonesty comes natural to Republicans.

Read the rest of this post →

{no comments


Gratuitous World Blog

    • College Football Players, Awaken…
      January 29, 2014

      [Former NCAA President Myles Brand:] They can’t be paid. [Q:] Why? [Brand:] Because they’re amateurs. [Q:] What makes them amateurs? [Brand:] Well, they can’t be paid. [Q:] Why not? [Brand:] Because they’re amateurs. [Q:] Who decided they are amateurs? [Brand:] We did. [Q:] Why? [Brand:] Because we don’t pay them. – Michael Rosenberg’s 2010 Sports Illustrated interview of former NCAA president Myles Brand Yesterday, quarterback Kain Colter led a group […]

    • GW: Favorite Albums Of 2013
      January 11, 2014

      On time as always! Happy New Year. 20.  Vampire Weekend – Modern Vampires of the City:  Ok kids, we get it. Good work. 19.  Scott & Charlene’s Wedding – Any Port In A Storm 18.  Charlie Parr – Barnswallow 17. My Bloody Valentine – MBV:  Per usual, I can’t understand a fucking word, but still pretty […]

    • REPOST!…SNOW MY GOD WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE…
      January 7, 2014

      (originally posted 2/10/10) then again (7/9/10) now one more time before retirement. for love. UPDATE: So it’s as hot as fuck out east because, you know, it’s July. Anyway, I’m just checking in because although You Know and I Know daily mid-Atlantic microtrends in weather do not offer any proof or disproof with regard to […]