bustardblog

What Renaissance??

I know columnists don't tend to indicate the source of their 'facts" but David Brooks continues to just make stuff up. Today's column is no exception. He seems to think that we should be grateful to companies like Bain for "the renaissance that revived American Capitalism."  He compares today's economy to "forty years ago", when "corporate America was bloated, sluggish and losing ground to [foreign] competitors."

Except forty years ago the CEO earned 24 times as much as the production worker. Today he is paid 185 times as much. 

In fact, there has been no renaissance in the U.S. economy over the last forty years. As Wikipedia notes:

The economy since 1973, however, has been characterized by both slower growth (averaging 2.7%), and nearly stagnant living standards, with household incomes increasing by 10%, or only 0.3% annually.^[32]

And David Brooks knows this. On April 5 he was writing about the upcoming "fiscal calamity." In his column of May 7 he wrote that the "recession grew out of and exposed long-term flaws in the economy." 

No renaissance.

 

memo

 

Shapiro Implodes Again

After praising the sincerity of his heartfelt apology for something he says he didn't remember doing, the right has taken a new tact in its dishonest attempt to discredit the Post's story on Mitt's prep school years.  But before we get to Shapiro, we have to look at another part of Mitt's "apology," in which he said, referring to his victim's possible sexual orientation:

Going back to the sixties, that was not something that we all discussed or considered, so that's simply just not accurate.

Sorry Mitt, what you said is "simply just" a lie. Guys in Prep Schools like Cranbrook were totally aware, if not obsessed by, sexual orientationin the 60's. An even worse insult than being called a 'fairy' was being called a "homo." Or a "great Big Mo." By his senior year, the year Mitt led that gang to cut the victim's hair - "cocksucker" was a commonly used epithet. 

Shapiro is even less direct. He clearly thinks that if he throws enough stuff at the fan - he'll make reality unrecognizable.  Of course it's incoherent and dishonest - but in a way that is weirdly wonderful.

He first argues that the Post's having erred in describing the reaction of one of Mitt's classmates somehow muddies the crystal clear memory of five other students. And  no one, not even Mitt, has denied that it happened.

Except of course Shapiro - who states that the victim's sister, at college when the incident took place, had not heard about it. So it never happened. QED for Ben. Because the fact that a boy in high school did not immediately contact his older sister, away at the time, telling her that he had been bullied, proves it never happened.

He goes on to attack a straw man. The WaPo writes of an encounter between one of the perpetrators and the victim years later, when the victim says he had "thought a lot about it since then." Shapiro alters this and writes

"The Post piece implies that the Romney incident was somehow the beginning of the end for Lauber."

Clearly, no such implication was made, but it is still worth watching how Shapiro proves the fullness of Lauber's life. He mentions, among other accomplishments, that Lauber was a mortician in three states, a member of the British Horse Society, and chef at the Russian River Resort.

I don't know why, but Shapiro does not mention that the B.H.S. is dedicated to promoting "the highest standards in all areas of equestianism." He does mention that Mr Lauber was a mortician. He also fails to mention that the Russian River Resort was "long famous as the center of the Russian River L.G.B.T.  (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) vacation scene." Pretty much all the employees at the RRR have been gay. 

Shapiro of course writes for Breitbart, so there's no surprise there. But it is frightening to see how he has changed the frame of the debate, (ABC News) based on nothing.

What is a surprise is that Mitt is getting away with his total bullshit that no one ever even considered 'homos' in the 1960's.

(h/t memo)

Sexy Sen. McConnell

Kind of makes you sick - thinking about Mitch McConnell and sex. So, please, Mr President, do not back down on contraception - every American who is forced by this phony controversy to think of Mitch McConnell and sex is a vote for you.

(h/t meme)

The Steph, Weakly.

George Stephanopoulos continues to suck up to the right - apparently a feeble attempt to cleanse himself for the "sin" of having worked for President Clinton.  

In this weekend's debate, George appropriately asked Romney about his views on contraception. When Romney replied that it was "silly thing" to raise such questions, since "no state wants to" ban contraception and there is no candidate "that wants to do so", Steph gave him a free pass." This is in spite of  the fact that Mississippi had a referendum in November of 2011 that did try to ban some forms of contraception. Perhaps Romney missed that states are in fact discussing banning contraception, but surely he could not miss the presence on the stage with him of Rick Santorum - he who has said that contraception is "wrong" and  that it is "dangerous" to our country.

The desire of Republicans to dance around the issue notwithstanding, both Romney and Santorum have loudly denounced both Title IX and Planned Parenthood - the two ways that a vast number of Americans get contraceptives.

Stephanopoulos asked a legitimate question. He should never have let Romney off the hook. If he thinks that failing to fulfill his obligation as debate moderator will make the Republicans more forgiving - he is sadly mistaken.

(h/t memeorandum)

The Grimmers, Grimly

While it is undeniably interesting that Rick Perry lacks both the grammar and the knowledge to discuss the Supreme Court, I find it incredible that no one has asked him about the violent death of a woman and her two young children in a Texas 'Food Stamp' office.

Whether or not Perry is able to remember who sits on the Supreme Court, although demonstrative of his profound ignorance and disinterest, is nothing compared to his inability to comment on, or relate to, a mother (we presume he had one himself) who killed herself and her son (he undoubtedly was once one of those as well) as her appication for food stamps was rejected - once again.

To mention the violent death of a mother and her two children  might call into question the way Texas handles food stamps, as well as their delivery of social services and their "gun control" regulations.   The state did find it inappropriate for her to be raising and home-schooling her kids in a makeshift tent on a South Texas beach.  So, she was pushed off the beach, but her "right" to own guns was not to be abridged.

At least Rachelle Grimmer's fight for food stamps is finally resolved. She, and her two kids, are dead now. 

And Rick Perry's State of Texas has again reduced its welfare rolls.

Timothy Grimmer

So what do we think are the odds of any of the Republican candidates, especially Rick Perry, being questioned at any of the "debates" this weekend, about the death of Timothy Grimmer, or of his  sister Ramie.

Their mother shot them, killing them, after once again having her application for food stamps rejected by the State of Texas. She then shot herself.

 "In 2010 the department received a possible neglect report after Rachelle Grimmer and her two children were found living in a tent on a South Texas beach. Investigators found no evidence of neglect and closed the case, spokesman Patrick Crimmins said."

 

R.I.P. Rachelle, Ramie & Timothy Grimmer.

Rot In Hell Rick Perry, and the entire Republican Party.

 

(memo)

 

Cowards!!!

As an infrequent blogger who chooses to remain anonymous, I love the Right's splenetic condemnation of the outrageous cowardice displayed by Paul Krugman in choosing to disallow comments on his post of today! Many thanks to memeorandum for leading me to these brave right-wing bloggers.

Ms. (nameless)  "lonelyconservative" says Krugman's "also a coward." Miss (or is it Mrs?) "ZIP" writes of "his cowardice in closing his comments section."

Mr "Scared Monkey", demonstrates his personal bravery in writing:

What is the sign of a true coward like Krugman? the liberal POS writes a hateful opinion piece and then does not allow any comments.

And MataHarley comes out with the ever popular condemnation: he's "as cowardly as the terrorist (sic) themselves."

I mean how can you argue with a lady like Mata? I certainly consider the terrorists of 9/11 loathsome - but since when is being willing to give ones life for a cause in which one believes an act of cowardice?

Since G.W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Jailbird Kerik became the definition of bravery that's when. Since faceless, nameless bloggers call Paul Krugman (and yes, that is his real name) a coward. His photograph and place of employment are right there - out in the open - unlike the brave Mata's, Scared Monkey's, Lonesome's and ZIP's of the world.

Group Psychosis

So Geraldine Ferraro died. Sad, as she was a courageous woman. Sadder still that so many rightwingers think that Sarah Palin is her next incarnation. Understandably, they are surprised that Ms. Palin was gracious enough to express her condolences on Facebook. Any gracious move by Palin is surprising. But, contrary to some of the commenters on the post, it does not make her Presidential material.

Especially when Palin wrote:

"When I had the honor of working alongside Geraldine on election night last year, we both discussed the role of women in politics and our excited expectation …"

That's correct, they "both" discussed the topic, as they were working alongside each other. The two of them, they both, had a discussion.

Shoot me.

(h/T memeorandum )  

Lies from Bai

To Mr. Matt Bai:

"You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem."

I am notsaying that Bai's reporting is as big an incentive to violence as the words of many right wingers. I am saying that his lazy, despicable, dishonest piece for the N.Y. Times does make him a part of the problem.

In his attempt to equate the vitriol of the right with the anger of the left, he compares the thinly disguised exhortations to violence by so many "conservatives" to a posting on the Daily Kos in which the writer directed the phrase 'she is dead to me' to Congresswoman Giffords.

As Matt Bai undoubtedly knows there is no absolutely no threat implied by that phrase. None.

When Henry Blodget wrote of his disappointment in what he considered the golfer's poor  sportsmanship, he said "But now Tiger Woods is dead to me." Somehow I don't think Tiger hired extra bodyguards.

When Ben Goldacre (M.D.) wanted to write on his blog about bad science he used the phrase, "If you don't link to primary sources, you are dead to me, I do not trust you."

And when Stephen Colbert wanted to clarify his dim view of the Raptor hockey team's mascot, he added the team to his list of those who are "Dead to Me." (The list also included Men with Beards and Bow Tie Pasta.) Yet, they received no extra security.

The phrase is defined as "an Old English saying that was used to announce that the person in question was disowned, or would never be 'seen or heard' again."

This is not an error on the part of Matt Bai. It is dishonesty.

Describing the violent rhetoric of today, he also wrote:

"None of this began last year, or even with Mr. Obama or with the Tea Party; there were constant intimations during George W. Bush’s presidency that he was a modern Hitler or the devious designer of an attack on the World Trade Center, a man whose very existence threatened the most cherished American ideals."

But Bai does not, because he cannot, name the prominent Democratic candidate or public servant who said these things. He notes that Sarah Palin likes to describe the Obama administration as  "tyranny." Somehow he fails to find any quotes by Joe Biden comparing Bush to Hitler. There are none. 

Giffords' Republican opponent in her last campaign was Jesse Kelly. Here's what he was about:

"Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.'"

Matt, show me a similar campaign website from Ms Giffords, or get out of the way. We need solutions.

Note to Mr Bai: When your reporting is  based on the same "evidence" as that garnered by the likes of Michelle Malkin and Pamela Geller, you're not a journalist. You're a problem.

 

(h/t memeorandum)

 

David Brooks: Diminishing America

His op-ed in today's N.Y. Times reveals the accuracy of the tea-baggers' accusation that David Brooks is a Democrat in disguise. At least they got one thing right. But Brooks is still Republican enough to be totally hypocritical about it. He argues that the future of the United States is still rosy because it's "well situated to be the crossroads nation." The future according to Brooks belongs to that country which is the most powerful nexus of networks. He continues: "Building that America means doing everything possible to thicken connections: finance research to attract scientists, improve infrastructure to ease travel, fix immigration to funnel talent..."

All worthy goals. All supported by most Democrats. Each an anathema to the new Republican Controlled Congress.

Condemning evolution as 'just another theory;' denying climate change, opposing increased spending on infrastructure, and with no interest in 'fixing' immigration - the Republicans, including Brooks, seem to want to do all within their power to diminish the United States. Give him two points for knowing it, deduct three for not being honest about it.