This is a personal blog. I talk sense and nonsense.
Install Theme
cartoonpolitics:

“Republicans want smaller government for the same reason crooks want fewer cops: it’s easier to get away with murder” .. (James Carville)

Also: libertarians AKA Republicans who would prefer not to be called Republicans

cartoonpolitics:

Republicans want smaller government for the same reason crooks want fewer cops: it’s easier to get away with murder” .. (James Carville)

Also: libertarians AKA Republicans who would prefer not to be called Republicans

(Source: politico.com, via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

dotgop:

Gotta pay a premium for that one

They knew this one attract a lot of interest from their constituents.

dotgop:

Gotta pay a premium for that one

They knew this one attract a lot of interest from their constituents.

A very reasonable price

A very reasonable price

(Source: dotgop)

Ideological consistency, rational beliefs

Let me get this straight. The war on poverty hasn’t completely eliminated poverty. According to conservatives, this means it’s an abject failure and we should abolish all anti-poverty programs.

Yet the war on terror hasn’t completely eliminated terrorism and is unlikely (like most wars on concepts) to ever do so. According to conservatives, this means we just haven’t thrown enough resources (including human lives) at the problem and we should double down on our anti-terror efforts.

70-Year-Old GOP Candidate In Texas Arrested For Assaulting Man With 'RINO' Signs →

Have we finally reached peak GOP?

The lightbulb moment

So the workers at Volkswagen Chattanooga voted 712-626 against joining the United Auto Workers (UAW) tonight. What was interesting about this case is that Volkswagen was interested in forming a German-style works-council with employees there. One condition of accomplishing that was instituting a union at the plant. 

Republicans heard about what was going on and went berserk, even threatening to cut off subsidies to VW. That’s how anti-labor these shitheads are: they’d rather risk having the plant leave the state than allow workers to form a union.

And yet:

…[M]any of the plant’s workers are themselves conservatives — and have started to wonder why the politicians who represent them oppose their right to organize. John Wright, 43, is a test driver at the plant and identifies as a right-leaning independent. He says he makes between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, and supports a wife and three young daughters. When Corker — who takes more money from the securities and investment industry than any other — came back to Nashville to voice his opposition to the UAW, Wright was puzzled.

It made me really start thinking about my position, when it comes to political parties, because I can’t for the life of me understand why the Republicans and big money are coming against us so bad. To me, they’re attacking the average worker," Wright said, in the hours before the election results were announced. "To have politicians think that there’s nothing more important than coming down and picking on the little guy because he wants a union, there’s a national debt we’ve got to control, we have foreign policy things that we elect them to go up there to do, but you have to fly home for an emergency meeting because I want a union?"

Jindal's selective concern for the poor →

Jindal and his allies want the public to see them as entirely sincere. They’re not trying to crush teachers’ unions, and they’re not on a privatization crusade, intent on destroying public institutions. They just want to help low-income children, even spending public funds to advance their goal.

But their purported concern for the poor is literally unbelievable. When the issue is health care and housing, Jindal and other conservatives say struggling families should rely on the free market and their capacity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. When the issue is education, suddenly the right cares deeply about disadvantaged children and is eager to “help.”

When Jindal and other school voucher advocates are ready to assist “poor and disadvantaged” families in ways that don’t undermine public schools and teachers’ unions, I’ll gladly revisit the debate. Until then, this looks a lot like a scam.

Dear Conservatives: Your Opposition to Family Planning Comes with a Huge Price Tag →

That deep-held distaste for women’s health providers led Texas lawmakers last year to slash $73 million from all of its family planning services and shift the money to other areas of the budget. This blunt instrument hit all of the state’s women’s health providers, but was meant to target Planned Parenthood and deny it taxpayer dollars—even though the clinics that received state subsidies for care never performed abortions.

This may be in line with their staunch opposition to what they see as a baby-killer, but that ideology comes with quite the price tag. News has surfaced that for the two-year period between 2014 and 2015, poor women are expected to deliver nearly 24,000 babies that they wouldn’t otherwise have had if they had access to state-subsidized birth control. Those extra births will cost taxpayers as much as $273 million, with between $103 million to $108 million of that hitting the state’s general revenue budget alone. Much of the cost comes from caring for those infants through Medicaid.

(Source: thenationmagazine)

Violence Against Women Act: Eric Cantor, Joe Biden In Talks Amid Stalled Tribal Provision →

a-more-perfect-union:

From the article:

Leahy explained the provision, probably the least understood of the three additions in the Senate bill: It gives tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal lands. Currently, federal and state law enforcement have jurisdiction over domestic violence on tribal lands, but in many cases, they are hours away and lack the resources to respond to those cases. Tribal courts, meanwhile, are on site and familiar with tribal laws, but lack the jurisdiction to address domestic violence on tribal lands when it is carried out by a non-Native American individual.

That means non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on tribal lands are essentially “immune from the law, and they know it,” Leahy said.

The standoff over including VAWA protections for Native American women comes at a time of appallingly high levels of violence on tribal lands. One in three Native American women have been raped or experienced attempted rape, the New York Times reported in March, and the rate of sexual assault on Native American women is more than twice the national average. President Barack Obama has called violence on tribal lands “an affront to our shared humanity.”

Of the Native American women who are raped, 86 percent of them are raped by non-Native men, according to an Amnesty International report. That statistic is precisely what the Senate’s tribal provision targets.

(via talesofthestarshipregeneration)

Republican hypocrisy in one chart

The outrage expressed by Republican lawmakers—spurred by the ambassador reciting intelligence-community-generated talking points that turned out to be partially inaccurate—is very different from their response to another administration official named Rice who was accused of misleading the American public on a matter of national security….When George W. Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, some of the same Senate Republicans who are currently attacking Susan Rice supported Condi wholeheartedly, despite her role in helping to make the case for war in Iraq based on bogus intelligence. Back then, Republicans were much more willing to chalk up Condoleezza Rice’s parroting of flawed intel to well-intentioned mistakes as opposed to outright deception, even when the evidence said otherwise. Here’s how some of Susan Rice’s most vocal critics responded to the Bush administration’s disastrous handling of pre-war Iraq intelligence and the nomination of Condoleezza Rice.

Republican hypocrisy in one chart

The outrage expressed by Republican lawmakers—spurred by the ambassador reciting intelligence-community-generated talking points that turned out to be partially inaccurate—is very different from their response to another administration official named Rice who was accused of misleading the American public on a matter of national security….When George W. Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, some of the same Senate Republicans who are currently attacking Susan Rice supported Condi wholeheartedly, despite her role in helping to make the case for war in Iraq based on bogus intelligence. Back then, Republicans were much more willing to chalk up Condoleezza Rice’s parroting of flawed intel to well-intentioned mistakes as opposed to outright deception, even when the evidence said otherwise. Here’s how some of Susan Rice’s most vocal critics responded to the Bush administration’s disastrous handling of pre-war Iraq intelligence and the nomination of Condoleezza Rice.

There’s an unhealthy habit in American politics to lay blame on perceived or actual “extremists” — libertarians and Randians are attacked today in sort of the same way anti-war protesters and “the angry left” were attacked during the Bush Administration — even though they’ve literally never wielded power. Meanwhile, moderates and centrists brought us the policies responsible for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the financial crisis, every giveaway to lobbyists ever passed, and most recently a multi-country spree of extrajudicial assassinations carried out in secret with hundreds of civilian casualties. It’s lucky for the centrists and moderates that they have oh-so-frightening “extremists” to distract us from their sometimes criminal misgovernance.

Half of GOP voters think a non-existent group stole the election for Obama

theweekmagazine:

According to PPP — the pollster clearly having the most fun after the election — “49 percent of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama,” compared with 52 percent who said the same in 2008. The problem? ACORN no longer exists. The community organizing group went bankrupt and disbanded in 2010. I think there’s a fairly “charitable explanation” for this, says Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect. It’s clear “a large number of Republicans don’t like President Obama, and when offered a chance to endorse something that signals that dislike, they did it, even if the ‘something’ is absolutely insane.” That’s too charitable, says Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog. After all, “Fox News keeps telling its viewers that ACORN still does exist — at least in altered form” — and its former employees are responsible for a “massive subversion of the American way of life.” 

This week’s 4 most ridiculous, head-scratching poll results

The takeaway here is not just that Republicans are delusional, but that their delusions mean they aren’t going to learn anything from losing the 2012 election. So despite all the apparent soul-searching done by Republicans in the wake of the election, the chances of the GOP finally cleansing itself of the crackpots, bigots, misogynists, xenophobes, and zombie Reaganites are low.

(Source: theweek.com)

Why the poor favor the Democrats →

The title seems to be a bit misleading. I haven’t seen the study this piece is based on, but given what they say here, it looks like everyone does better under a Democratic administration, not just minorities or the poor. But Republican presidencies tend to be especially bad for minorities and the poor:

Under Democratic presidents, the incomes of black families grew by an average of $895 a year, but only by $142 a year under Republicans. Across 26 years of Democratic leadership, unemployment among blacks declined by 7.9%; under 28 years of Republican presidencies, the rate increased by a net of 13.7%. Similarly, the black poverty rate fell by 23.6% under Democratic presidents and rose by 3% under Republicans.

The results for Latinos and Asians, though based on fewer years of data, show the same pattern. For example, Latino incomes grew an average of $627 a year under Democrats and fell by $197 a year under Republicans. The data similarly show that the living standards of Asian Americans have improved under Democrats and stagnated under Republicans.

More important, these gains do not come at the expense of whites. On average, white incomes have similarly grown, and white joblessness and poverty have likewise declined, under Democratic administrations. These numbers show that economic condition need not be a zero-sum game pitting races and ethnicities against one another.

[…]

First, even accounting for the overall state of the economy and other longer-term trends in well-being, partisan differences persist. When controlling for inflation and changes in the gross national product, and accounting for other factors such as oil prices and the proportion of adults in the workforce, we find similarly large gains for minorities under Democrats and equally sharp losses under Republicans.

Second, these partisan trends are remarkably consistent. Black incomes grew in 77% of the years under Democratic control, while black poverty and unemployment declined 88% and 71%, respectively. In sharp contrast, blacks lost more often than not under Republican administrations.

Finally, the longer Democratic administrations are in office, the more they appear to help blacks and other minorities experience economic gains. As Republican presidents stay in office longer, however, the fortunes of minority groups increasingly suffer.

think-progress:

Notice a difference?
GOP’s new House Committee Chairs vs. Democrats
aka
19 white men vs. diversity

think-progress:

Notice a difference?

GOP’s new House Committee Chairs vs. Democrats

aka

19 white men vs. diversity