St. Sleazy McCain Out Does Himself

As I noted in my previous post, St. Sleazy McCain has been calling for a congressional investigation on the Benghazi attack. As all the political talk shows will tell you, Sen. McCain is a very serious person. In fact, he's so serious that when the Senate Homeland Security Committee (on which he sits) received a closed door briefing on Benghazi yesterday, he failed to show up.

If there's anyone in Washington who would benefit from a detailed briefing on what actually transpired in Benghazi in September, it's the senator who's throwing fits over what he thinks happened in Benghazi in September.
As luck would have it, the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which McCain is a member of, received a classified, closed-door briefing for nearly two hours yesterday, receiving up-to-date information. What did McCain learn from the briefing? Nothing -- according to the Republican ranking member on the committee, McCain failed to show up.
But what's unclear is why McCain didn't bother to attend the lengthy briefing on a subject he claims to care so deeply about. McCain had time yesterday to appear in front of cameras to talk about Benghazi, but didn't have time to get more information about Benghazi?
Update: According to a CNN report, McCain hosted his press conference demanding more information during the hearing in which he could have received more information.
Second Update: Josh Rogin also reported, "[A]lthough McCain had time to speak on the Senate floor and on television about the lack of information provided to Congress about the attack, he didn't attend the classified briefing."
"If you want answers, a good first step is to show up and ask a question," an administration official told Rogin. "That's what a senator does."
maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/15/15190778-mccain-doesnt-have-time-for-facts-information?lite

Instead, St. Sleazy was holding his own press conference demanding more information. He was too busy grandstanding to actually hear the information he was requesting. Unless he's actually completely senile, this is flat out rank hypocrisy at its worst.
Added: His staff now says it was a "scheduling error." Alrighty, then...

Second Term Scandal Search Starts

Now that Obama has won a second term, it's time for the rethugs to  try to find a scandal, even if they have to make one up. So far, Benghazi and Petraeus are the early entries.
Benghazi may have been a security miscalculation, but I can't see how this adds up to a "scandal". Yes, it was a tragedy. Yes, the consulate wasn't secure enough given how unstable Libya still is. But you cannot conduct diplomacy by insulating behind walls and marines. A risk was taken, and, sadly, we lost four people. But somehow St. Sleazy McCain and Ms. Lindsay Graham want to make this the new Watergate. They're starting by attacking Susan Rice, although I find it odd that they feel the UN Ambassador is somehow responsible. The investigation will be a carnival sideshow, with plenty of grandstanding, but in the end Benghazi is a tragedy, not a scandal.
(BTW: If you really want to find a diplomatic scandal with a woman named "Rice", I suggest you look into the previous administration.)
Then we have the Petraeus/Kelly/Broadwell/Allen soap opera...I'm not quite sure how they'll blame Obama for this, but I'm sure somehow the right wing will. There is sex involved, so the media loves this story. I'll admit, I'm not comfortable with the CIA director having affairs that become public, but that's because I prefer a chief spy who can keep a secret. I'm old fashioned that way. Expect long hearings in the House on this one, but no real scandal.
Remember the Clinton years? Investigate everything, regardless of the facts. What started with a bad real estate deal (the Clintons lost $30,000 on whitewater) led to the travel office, then the Christmas Card list, before they finally found a blow job. It took years, but they finally found a "scandal".
In reality, Obama, like Clinton, is guilty of being President while a member of the Democratic party. And the repubs are going to do their very best to convict him of it.

Election Day

OK, it's finally election day. Obviously, you should get out and vote (if you haven't already), preferably for the good guys. If nothing else, your vote buys you the right to complain for the next four years.
I'm not much for predictions, but I'm guessing that Obama holds on to a win via the electoral college. Nothing profound there; I tend to trust Nate Silver's math (he was a baseball statistician before moving into politics, which makes me confident) more than the pundit class. Also, I can't believe that a majority of Americans are stupid enough to believe Willard's non-stop lies. At least, I hope not.
If nothing else, today will bring the end of the campaign ad season. Which should be a relief for us all. (1,463 days until election day 2016, BTW.)

Some Stuff

                                         (picture is unrelated*, but I like it)
As we close in on election day, I find myself again amazed at the only country I've lived in. In the wake of a major disaster, our current president has done a great job of marshaling a federal government response. His rival staged a photo op collecting canned goods (which aren't needed) that now has proven to be mostly faked. Yet the polls are still mostly tied.
New Jersey Governor Kris Krispy Chris Christie (I would usually mock him, but today he's doing the right thing), who gave an anti-Obama keynote speech at the republican convention, is now heaping quite effusive praise on Obama and the federal government response. I disagree with Gov. Christie on most things, but he has proven that he takes his job seriously and is trying to do right by his people.
I sometimes make fun of President Obama, calling him "Sober Panda Time", but the real fact is he's doing a decent job of running the country. Not my 'ideal', but my 'ideal' could never get elected in this country. And he is currently managing the response to this disaster perfectly. He's being "The President" quite well.
Willard, on the other hand, spent $5,000 on stuff to stage a campaign rally that he called a "relief" event. Last time I looked, Willard R-Money was really fornicating rich; maybe he could actually cut a check to the American Red Cross that might actually help. Not gonna happen.
(BTW: if you really want to help, AMERICAN RED CROSS The Red Cross is providing shelter, clothes, supplies, food and blood, as needed, for the victims of Sandy. You can donate blood, but in terms of items, you’ll be doing more for those in need by donating money instead of physical goods.Text message: Text the word REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10 to American Red Cross Disaster Relief. As in the case with other donations via mobile, the donation will show up on your wireless bill, or be deducted from your balance if you have a prepaid phone. You need to be 18 or older, or have parental permission, to donate this way. (If you change your mind, text the word STOP to 90999.)Phone: 800-RED CROSS (1-800-733-2767); for Spanish speakers, 800-257-7575; for TDD,  800-220-4095.To donate blood: Visit this Red Cross Web page. Online: American Red Cross)
This election does truly matter. Instead of "the lesser of two evils" we have a choice between an honest, dedicated, competent, if mediocre, candidate or a corporate greedhead evil candidate. I'll be spending most of election day working a GOTV phone bank, myself.
(*bonus point to anyone who can identify the source of that photo in the comments)

Yeah, about that war

So, yesterday there was a local protest against the war in Afghanistan, which I attended with my friend. Along with about eight other people (although one of them may have only joined to bum smokes). Not sure if there actually was a "march", as my friend and I decided that entering a pub for a cool beverage was a better use of a Sunday.
Afghanistan is certainly no Vietnam, as the lack of a real "anti-war" movement proves, but we've been fighting this stupid thing for eleven years now. Has anybody noticed?
It's a sad commentary when even an old hippie like me finds himself drinking beer and watching football instead of protesting...but at least my beloved 49ers won big.
And, later, we had a really good pizza.

Debate!

                                                 (If watching the debates, you need this)
            So I get out of class early tonight, told to watch the debate. Um, "yay!", maybe? We are assigned to write a paper on "what is said about health care?" instead.
Yeah, that sounds tough.
            And, since I'm posting, my beloved Giants eliminated the hated Dodgers from the playoffs last night. That feels good.
            I'm about to watch this debate between Willard and Sober Panda Time...
More beer, please.

Willard's Latest Stupid Idea

When I first read this, I thought it was some kind of satire. I really didn't believe that Willard could really be stupid enough to actually suggest this (in the wake of his wife being on a flight on Friday that had a minor cabin fire):

When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.

That's right, he really said that you should be able to open the windows on a commercial airplane. Which would allow you to breathe for, oh, maybe three seconds before explosive decompression sucked you and fellow passengers out of the plane.
Well, physics is just another science with a liberal bias, so Willard is against it. Just what we need running the country.

"Not Elegantly Stated"

Yeah, Willard, you should have found a more 'elegant' phrase to explain that poor people are losers, unworthy of your attention. Really, the peasants must be made to understand that their role is to serve their betters without question. And Willard would really prefer if the elderly and disabled would have the decency to crawl off and die quietly so he can continue to avoid hearing about them. If they can't be decent servants,who needs them? Willard bravely stands for "Government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich", and if you're not one of the rich, well, that's your own damned fault.
Speaking of people who Willard can't be bothered with, Palestinians. Willard plans to kick their can down the road, and hope for some decent outcome in the future. Preferably one where they can either be used for slave factory labor in an outsourced manufacturing plant, or quietly dead so as to stop inconveniencing the Israelis.
Well, for possibly the first time in his campaign for Oligarch, Willard said something that was actually true: "not elegantly stated" is an honest motto for his platform.

Um, Willard, Just Shut Up.

The Willard Rmoney unit should really avoid talking about anything relating to foreign policy. Given that absolutely nothing that he's said in response to the Libyan protest tragedy has any basis in facts, and that trying to use the death of an American ambassador for political gain is horribly inappropriate, he really should Just Shut Up(!) if he hopes to buy the presidency.
All Willard actually knows about foreign policy is which countries are cheapest to move American jobs to, and where to find the best offshore tax havens for your millions of dollars. He might have some idea which countries he'd like to start a war with (not ones where he keeps his money), but anything more complex is beyond his comprehension.
It scares me to think that there are people who will vote for him. Years ago, I thought I'd never see a president who was worse than Nixon. Shrub came along and proved me wrong. Now we have Willard, who actually looks worse (and even dumber) than Shrub. Words fail....
Added: Romney's Incendiary Response to US Embassy Deaths in Libya Proves Him Incapable of Being Commander in Chief

I'm a Sad Case

"Uh, Hi! My name is Pygalgia, and I'm an addict"
I'm a sad case. It's time to admit it: I'm a political junkie. I'd been trying to stay off of the stuff, but tonight I got home from school (evening classes this semester), and I turned on NPR. Live from the looney bin (R) convention. And, well, I ended up listening to it. Which is not a healthy thing to do. It's one thing to browse political blogs on occasion, but to actually sit and mainline Mrs. Williard and Chris Chrustie, the governor of high fructose corn syrup, in one sitting...sad.
Kids, I really hope you'll stay away from politics. It's a terrible habit, and once you're hooked, it just might ruin your mind.
(since most of my readers aren't exactly "kids", and likely are already heavily abusing politics, you'll understand the advice was purely satirical.)

This Election has Become Surreal

I'm beginning to wonder if someone is putting powerful hallucinogens in the water of this country. It's seems like each day brings campaign news that sounds like something only Lewis Carrol would create. We have rethuglicans saying that they're the ones who will "defend Medicare" from Sober Panda Time, that "mean, angry man running a campaign of hate", who's somehow stealing from Medicare by saving it money over the next decade. See, it's really, really mean of Obama to point out when Willard Rmoney is lying (which is "always"), and also he's an evil Muslim who eats pork chops and brews beer in the White House.
Now Willard and Ayn Rand that spooky Catholic creep are also campaigning against women and sex. Really, they are. Beyond the Todd Akin "gaffe" of actually saying what most rethuglicans actually think, one need only look at their party platform. Full civil rights for all Zygotes, period. No abortion (or many forms of birth control), regardless of the circumstances of conception, including rape.
"I believe and I think that the right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of rape, but nevertheless, in a very broken way, a gift of human life, and accept what God is giving to you." said Rick Santorum (the guy who came in second in the GOP craziness derby). Also, Ryan has repeatedly vowed to put Planned Parenthood "out of business".
Maybe I hang out with a different kind of woman, but the women I know enjoy sex, and are against forced pregnancy. You know; "normal". So it boggles my mind that the mega-millionaire and the mini-millionaire might actually win while campaigning against sex and for forced pregnancy. I'm not surprised that a Mormon and a Catholic would support misogyny; just that they might actually succeed.
I don't think I like whatever this drug is.

A 'Politics and Beer' Post

Haven't posted much lately, I know, especially about politics. I just can't seem to get beyond sputtering "bwa-huh-wha?" at the absolutely surreal outrageous lies that are repeatedly spewed by Willard R-money. I mean, I've been a political junkie for decades, so I'm not surprised when a politician lies. But most of the lies are based on some slant of reality; there's usually some sort of factual connection within the lie. The Willard unit seems to have no connection to reality when he lies, and yet he still has a very good chance of being elected President. I find this extremely confounding.
So I'd rather post about something that makes more sense to me: beer! Did you know that Sober Panda Time  stocks his campaign bus  with his own homebrew? It's true:

In perhaps the most startling revelation so far in Obama’s three-day bus tour across Iowa, it was revealed this morning that the White House brews its own beer, and that the presidential bus is stocked with bottles of that beer.
blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/08/14/revealed-the-president-brews-his-own-beer-and-brings-it-with-him-on-the-road/

So there's your choice, voters: the incumbent is a homebrewer, the challenger is a Mormon. Who would you (this is the most foolish political question to ever become a 'meme', but I'll ask it anyway) rather have a beer with?
(p.s. A brief personal note for those who care: I'm fine, on break from school. Solid 4.0 last semester, and next semester starts in two weeks. The ongoing life in poverty is getting to be a drag, so I really hope this education pays off in the end.)

Republicans being Republicans

I really shouldn't be surprised when the party of greedheads behave like the greedhead bastards that they really are, but I did sort of think that they'd be a little more subtle about it during the election season. Yet, the senate republicans actually came right out and filibustered the "Bring Jobs Home" act:

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the No.1 item on the president's congressional "to-do-list," refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would give tax breaks for companies that "insource" jobs to the U.S. from overseas while eliminating tax deductions for companies that move jobs abroad.

With job creation the top issue this campaign season, and outsourcing being blamed as a big contributor to the high unemployment rate, Democrats saw the bill as an election-year winner. Sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, who is running for reelection, the bill made it to the top of the "to-do list" for Congress President Barack Obama unveiled earlier this year.

The Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the United States and would rescind business expense deductions available to companies that are associated with the cost of moving operations overseas.

www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/senate-bring-jobs-home-bill-blocked/index.html

It would be somewhat amusing to keep a scorecard of how many of these same republican senators campaign on the issue of "jobs", and blame Sober Panda Time for the weak employment numbers. In fact, I'm ready to give a (very small and worthless) prize for the first time McConnell or one of his cohorts says "Jobs, jobs, jobs" during a campaign speech. Because you know they will.

How Do I Get That Kind of Job?

OK, dear readers who keep stopping by, here's a long overdue political post.
If you're paying any attention to today's news, you've heard that Ol' Willard R-Money is catching a bit of flak over whether he stopped running Bain Capital (the bane of the working person) in 1999 or not. My favorite response to this comes from Booman at the Booman Tribune (one of the best on the blogroll), who notes this:

If, as Romney claims, he did no work for Bain Capital between February 1999 and 2003 then he received roughly $400,000 for work he didn't do.   The alternative is that he committed a felony, which even his defenders at FactCheck.org acknowledge. The $400,000 is significant because it was salary or compensation for work, and not interest payments or dividends or some other capital gain. But that doesn't mean that Romney didn't make a fortune on the roughly 6,000 jobs (at a minimum) his company destroyed in the four years in question. Let's be clear about this. Whether or not Mitt Romney was actually making day-to-day decisions for Bain Capital in the 1999-2003 time period, he was the CEO, chairman of the board, lone stockholder, and 100% owner of the firm. Even if he wasn't doing any work, he was being paid for work. Even if he didn't even look at the deals that cost at least 6,000 Americans their jobs, he profited from those transactions.
That's what makes it strange that he would use his absentee ownership as an excuse. If his partners had made bad deals and lost Bain Capital all its money, does anyone think Romney wouldn't have been upset?
Who gets paid nearly a half a million dollars to do nothing? 
www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/7/12/16519/4359

Yeah, that's the kind of job I need: one that pays me $400,000 for doing nothing. Sure would beat being a poor college student. It's for reasons like this that, despite all his flaws, I support Sober Panda Time in 2012.
(also, Happy 100th Birthday to Woody Guthrie on Saturday.)

GOP Agenda: Death to the Poor

OK, I'll admit that I really don't understand republican thinking. After the whole "war on women" series of completely misogynist proposals, I figured they'd try to tone down the crazy. But now they've doubled down with Paul Ryan's latest "budget plan", a dangerous, intentionally vague proposal that goes beyond brutality toward anyone who isn't rich. Just read the analysis from the CBPP's Robert Greenstein:

The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document -- one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse -- on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history).

Every single one of the worst ideas the GOP has ever had are all in the package. Give tax breaks to the richest Americans, while raising taxes on the poor and middle class. Obviously, cuts vital programs while expanding military spending. Privatize Medicare, dismantle Medicaid, virtually eliminate food stamps, and defund every other domestic government program. Heck, it even has a feature to sell off millions of acres of public lands. And, of course, the plan will actually increase the debt.

The Ryan plan isn't going to pass. It's DOA in the senate, so Sober Panda Time won't need to ink up the veto pen. But that doesn't mean that it isn't important. In case you hadn't noticed, this is an election year, and the republicans intend to use the Ryan plan as a campaign focal point. They really believe that they can sell this gilded turd to the voting public. That's the part I just don't get: you're running a campaign that has already attacked people of color, women, anyone who enjoys sex, and educated people, and now your attacking anyone who isn't rich? How do you sell that to voters? "Death to the Poor" isn't a campaign slogan that I thought would ever be a winner. But that is literally what the republicans are running with.

Can We Have An Adult Conversation About Iran?

(Because the American president with a funny name met with the Isaerli prime minister with a funny name to discuss the Iranian president with a funny name)

One current political issue that keeps driving me into episodes of screaming crazies is the whole topic of Iran and nukes. It's like the media and the politicians are going through a bitter divorce with reality, so they deny even the most basic facts about the situation. Both AIPAC and the republican presidential candidates would have you believe that Iran is just about to start WWW3, nuking Tel Aviv sometime next week, regardless of the real facts.

Let's start with a simple reality, as shown in the chart above: The US and Russia have the vast majority of the nuclear weapons on this planet, by such a magnitude that if Israel and France piled all there nukes together it would still be only a tiny fractional threat. Fact number two: Iran is only approaching the capability of low enriched uranium, which is a long way short of weapons grade (damn, I need Sweaterman to give me numbers on this) uranium. And, as North Korea has proven, having weapons grade uranium doesn't mean you have a working nuclear weapon. But the third, greatest, fact to me is: why would Iran want to commit suicide by using a nuke against Israel? Yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used some very provocative rhetoric, but he's not in charge of Iran. Clerical Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is, and a week and a half ago, Khamenei gave a major foreign policy speech in which he said:

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

Now, you don't have to believe him. But let's use some basic logic: what would Iran actually gain by attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon? There is, simply, no profit for Iran in such an attack. Far more likely is that Iran would like to develop the capacity to build a weapon, which would then be a far more valuable bargaining chip toward ending sanctions.

Don't get me wrong; Iran is not our friend. They're hostile (with some justification) to America's and Israel's interests throughout the region. Sanctions have made our relationship even more adversarial, but we're still a long way from any legitimate grounds for war.

So let's consider what would actually happen if, worst case scenario, Iran actually did develop a nuclear weapon: regional escalation. Saudi Arabia (Sunni) would most certainly want a nuclear deterrent to (Shia) Iran, as would most likely Turkey. The risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists or extremists would increase (although the greatest risk would still be from Pakistan and the unsecured remnants from the former Soviet Union) slightly.

Then, let's compare the risks of military action against Iran by either Israel or the US...(think about it for a while. I'll save that for another post.)

(BTW: Thanks to those who've hit the Paypal button. Any additional help is greatly appreciated)

Party Platform - Cliff Notes Version

The republican presidential candidates in two sentences:

"Don't regulate corporations.
Do regulate Women."

Republican Valentine, 2012

Last week, I posted about the republican attack on contraceptives, calling them The Forced Chastity Party . They really want to stake their position as the "anti-sex" party, I guess. Now the top republican presidential candidates are all vowing to attack...porn:

The conservative group Morality In Media is head over heels today after all three top Republican candidates promised to go war against the distribution of porn. In a written statement, Rick Santorum said, “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney gave a statement to the group that said, “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”

That's right, folks: just in time for Valentine's Day, 2012, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich All Promise To Ban Porn. I'm quite certain that they actually believe this will be a winning issue for them, but here in modern reality lots of regular folk enjoy porn (if you believe the Internet, anyway). As an election issue...well, it could make the debates more entertaining.

Sober Panda Time

Attention America: There's an election in 2012, and you have to make a choice.

I've taken to referring to President Obama as "sober panda time" (for an explanation see: Anagram Fun ), but the reality is he's still our best choice. Not great, but, I mean, consider the alternatives:

Mitt RoMoney...he reminds me of Kryten from Red Dwarf, but he's a simple rich corporate bastard who will promote the corporate interests and pander to a theocracy. And go to war with Iran for no good reason.

Newt "the newt" Gingrich...a thieving hypocritical bastard who will promote the corporate interests and pander to the theocracy. And go to war with Iran for no good reason.

"Santorum" (yeah, go ahead and google it)...a straight ahead theocrat, with a side of pork barrel corporate interests. And would start a war with Iran for no good reason.

Ron Paul...will never win. A racist who would legalize pot, but ban abortion. Although, he probably wouldn't go to war with Iran.

And that's it. That's all that is on the menu. Your choice is between sober panda time, who's been decidedly mediocre, but is sane, or a bunch of loonies. I (as an extreme liberal) am not thrilled with sober panda time, but he's been reasonably competent. The alternatives are flat out insane. So this is my political position for the rest of the election cycle: Vote for Sober Panda Time! Re-elect Sober Panda Time! At least he's not insane, greedy, or likely to start a war with Iran.

The Forced Chastity Party

Hard to believe, but somehow there's a roaring political battle about insurance coverage of contraceptives. In 2012. The republicans are couching the debate in terms of religion, but their real goal is banning contraception coverage in ALL insurance plans for ALL women. Because, in their world, women shouldn't be having non-procreative sex.

This may come as a shock to the right wing prudes, but women enjoy sex (at least, in my experience), too. Human beings enjoy sex. Regardless of what your sky god tells you. And we're just not realistically going to limit our sex to making more human beings, regardless of someones religion. Buddy badtux the snarky penguin says it well in his header "Religious fundamentalists are motivated by the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun -- and that this must be stopped."

See, it's one thing to debate abortion (though I'm sure you can guess where I stand): nobody "enjoys" an abortion. Abortion is "yucky" (in reality, all internal medicine is "yucky". The insides of a human being are not aesthetically pleasing). But now the anti-abortion people are taking their anti-sex crusade to the thing most likely to prevent abortion. Because they really are opposed to sex.

(It should be noted that these same fundies are also anti-homosexuality, which rarely leads to abortion.)

I just can't see how this is a 'winning' issue for them. Maybe it's because I'm an old 'free love' hippie from the sixties, but I just don't see the opposition to sex as popular. Most of us want our fucking contraceptives.