Moving quickly to resolve this unfortunate situation

• Sometimes “fact-checking” political claims involves research. Sometimes it just involves remembering. 2008 wasn’t that long ago.

• Fact-checking David Barton is sometimes like “sword drills” from Sunday school. Just look up the Bible verses and you’ll see that they don’t say what he says they say.

Jesus/Romney is the answer. What was the question?

• Paul Krugman stares down Paul Ryan. Krugman “Blinks”. Geek worlds collide.

• Mrs. Dushku is keeping the Faith.

• U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., is like a Republican Cory Booker. Well done, sir.

• Looks like we may have a sequel to Oz’s ElevenOnze de la Mer.

• John Aravosis asks: “Did Haley Barbour make an assassination joke about Obama?” The answer is no. Haley Barbour made a slavery joke about Obama. And everybody knows about Mississippi

• You can break into someone’s house and steal everything they own without facing arrest. If you get caught, all you have to say afterward is, “We moved quickly and have been in contact with the family to resolve this unfortunate situation and right this wrong.”

Just say those magic words and there will be no arrest, no criminal charges, no jail time. (Note: This only works if you’re a bank.)

• The standard response to complaints about school budget cuts seems to be that “You can’t just throw money at schools and expect good results.” True enough, I suppose. But it’s likely also true that Arizona’s 21.8-percent decrease in per-student spending shouldn’t lead us to expect good results either. Or Alabama’s 21.7-percent decrease, or Oklahoma’s 20.3-percent decrease, or

• Dark comedy trigger warnings: Todd Akin’s nonsense prompts a mordantly funny pharmaceutical ad and a cheerfully bleak country song.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And 8% unemployment is the official measure. If you believe the SGS Alternate Measure, we’re looking at an effective unemployment rate of 20% in the USA.

    When WW1 and WW2 ended the army didn’t continue to employ those men as
    soldiers.  and businesses who hired  them didn’t give soldiers jobs out
    of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because they NEEDED people
    to work at their establishments so as to earn money.

    This? Chris?

    Post WW2 especially?

    Happened because the government of the day had been elected and re-elected for years embodying a philosophy about capital and labor that was the direct fucking opposite of yours.

    The government actively INTERVENED to keep the post-war demobilizations and sharp cutbacks in overall spending in 1946 and 1947 from exploding into a full-on inflationary depression. The government encouraged unions. The government even made it official policy, if not law, that employers give first hiring preference to returning veterans if they wanted their old jobs back. They put in place economic policies that focussed on employment instead of on the protection of wealth.

    Society as a whole had rejected the philosophy you espouse, Chris Hadrick.

    And as a result of the very collectivism you and your ilk deride and pooh-pooh, US society pulled together, made the welfare state stronger with each passing year, squeezed economic inequality down, pushing the poor into the middle class and the middle class themselves closer to the rich and did all this so amazingly well that by the 1970s economists were writing in all seriousness that college graduates would end up finding better-paid jobs as auto workers than as members of their chosen profession, because blue-collar jobs paid so well.

    You have NO IDEA how different it was back then and how badly social changes have made that era possibly unrecoverable even with all the best will in the world.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    albaneon- you’re mad at me for wanting to cut military spending. just to clarify

    and again, this argument is systemic, not just during recessions. If we were to suddenly lose all interest in war or even self defense people employed in that field would not be condemned to a life of poverty.

    If you want to have a jobs program have one. the object of the military is to defend the country and should cost as much or as little as that requires.

    neutrino- you’re getting off course. the point is we didn’t need to maintain the army so people would “have jobs”.

  • Lori

    No, Chris he’s mad at you for being either a moron or a liar. Just to clarify.

    You need to catch the clue Chris, we see through you. If you want to be thought of as a morally superior person you need to hang out with dumber people.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    *facedesk*

    Chris Hadrick, people are mad because you treat every policy prescription you toss off as though it were a magic panacea.

    *I* want USian miltary spending cut, and for good reason: it makes the right-wing wannabes here in Canada start panting to ape American military swagger-sticking and our own budgets start getting bloated up with military spending that, frankly, this country does not need. We can afford it, sure, but we don’t need it.

    But I’m not so foolish as to just toss it off without recognizing that cutbacks in military spending need to be paired up with other policies that help make that transition possible. For example, instead of just slashing military spending, transition the R&D budgets to fund civilian research groups that need the money.

    Look, if you want proof that society has changed as much as it has, let’s contrast two Republicans who communicated privately, both of whose communications have been made public:

    Dwight Eisenhower

    and

    Mitt Romney

    The fact that in 60 years, Republican politicians can go from wanting to preserve the institutions of society to blatantly denying even basic concepts of social fairness and good conduct…

    … and people are cheering on that coarsening of social conduct towards the poor in particular – you should be fucking concerned about it, not trying to make the damn thing run in fast forward!

  • Lori

     

    Even if that were true, I’m still defending them.  better someone be
    vaccuous and heartless and anti war than a really nice person who
    feels war is the answer. Certainly better for the ones being killed or
    not.  

    No, you’re not defending them. You’re using them. You don’t actually care about them dying. We can tell because you don’t care about people here dying. And no, your position isn’t better. The fact that you think this is true, and possibly even clever, only proves that your intellectual and moral reasoning as all the depth of a puddle.

  • Lori

     

    If we were to suddenly lose all interest in war or even self defense
    people employed in that field would not be condemned to a life of
    poverty. 

    Available evidence indicates that you are, once again, wrong.

     

    If you want to have a jobs program related to this current crisis have one. 

    We can’t. Because people like you, with your idiotic yap about the almighty market, have made it impossible.

    I hope that one day your precious market turns on you and seriously bites you in the ass.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    If a tacky awful leader doesn’t declare war on a people they live. If a really nice leader declares war on them because they think its somehow in their best interest  they die. The first person is moral, the second is not. It’s how you ACT, not what you say or even think.  

    and way to avoid talking about the elephant in the room  ie the article on the israeli girl.  I guess you can’t be bothered to defend black people from being denigrated if  said people were brought to your attention by a conservative. 

    Neutrino- I saw that Canada took their man out of the embassy in Iran.  I hope you don’t have a neocon infestation up there. You will be utterly destitute and at each others throats ina decade or less. heed our warning

    Obviously I don’t go along with all the New Deal/ Great Society blather.

  • Lori

    The first person is moral, the second is not. It’s how you ACT, not what you say or even think. 

    This is rich coming from a guy who expects people to think he’s a paragon of virtue because he talks about hating war in spite of the fact that he ACTs like an asshole.

    and way to avoid talking about the elephant in the room  ie the article
    on the israeli girl. 

    We’ve been over this before, but I guess we have to go over it again.

    I do not believe that you actually care about refugees in Israel. You have an agenda that you think is served by continuing to raise the issue. I do not care to engage with you on that agenda because you have demonstrated repeatedly that there is no point to doing so and because your continued attempts to use the suffering of others for your own ends is disgusting.

    If we did discuss the situation faced by Sudanese refugees in Israel you would simply bring up some other issue that we weren’t talking about. Because we can;t talk about every bad thing happening in the world and you don’t care about refugees, you care about scoring points.

    I guess you can’t be bothered to defend black
    people from being denigrated if  said people were brought to your
    attention by a conservative.  

    A) The issue was not brought to my attention by a conservative. As I and several other people here have pointed out more than once, we knew about it before you started trying to use it.

    B) The issue is not that you’re a conservative. It’s that you’re a dishonest user.

  • EllieMurasaki

    that person doesn’t exist. If they can carry a gun and shoot it and take
    orders there is some menial task they can do and in many cases they are
    clever enough to do non menial things.

    Which explains why the demographics of enlisted military match the demographics of the country so closely, I’m sure. Oh wait no it doesn’t, because enlisted military disproportionately grew up poor. People who grow up rich tend to sign up as officers.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    democrats furious at a conservative for wanting to cut military spending!

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, you moron, liberals and progressives (’cause I ain’t a Democrat and I can’t remember who all else is talking to you but I don’t think they’re all even USAian) furious at a conservative for wanting to cut jobs without ensuring a corresponding increase in jobs in another industry. Shifting jobs from the military-industrial complex to, I don’t know, green energy would be awesome, but it’s not what you’re proposing. You’re proposing firing a fuckton of soldiers and factory workers and letting them rot.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X