Tonight's C-SPAN take-aways

So what did we learn about politics today, children?

Today we learned that Republican* politicians are so useless that they are still using the same old tired talking points they were a year ago when they undemocratically blocked the democratically elected representatives of the American people. They've got a couple new ones, but I don't find them as good as the previous ones.

Among the many things said by Steve King of Iowa, Paul Brown of Georgia, John Carter of Texas and other lackeys of the GOP leadership and their puppet masters:

• Republicans are not, as Democrats say, the "party of no". They've got a wonderful slogan now- they're the "party of K-N-O-W". Well at least they can spell n-o-w. But seriously, they know exactly how to solve all our problems. They just didn't feel like doing it during their control of all three arms of the federal government during the Bush administrations.
• Democrats only have one objective: a government takeover of the healthcare system. And a bureaucrat is going to stand between you and your doctor. Which of course is totally different from an insurance company bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor, so different in fact we won't even mention this happens.
• 2000 pages is far too much text for the American people, not that this means the American people are dumb, because they're not, but reading this would make them "jump over a cliff". Just give them simple stuff to read, heavily peppered with pictures, if you don't mind - homeschooling is on the rise.
• Obama is going to cram a bill down our throats at the "so called" healthcare summit except he doesn't have a bill, because the 12 pages he presented have "no legislative language." It's a schrodinger's cat kind of deal- Louie Gohmert is having a fit trying to figure it out which bill Obama is talking about, but he's getting great help from has-been Gingrich on that. Besides- Obama wants to meet with Ahmadinejad and it's a government takeover and it's 2000 PAGES LONG!!! (I shit you not- he actually listed all those things in the same breath- check 9pm on C-SPAN, thankfully he was cut off by a colleague before he provided yet more idiocy thing)
• Democrats think they're so smart, and that they're so elite, and that's stupid. Because... well there's no given reason, just they're so elite, but that's a bad thing, because common sense is better than... Com-? Yeah! Common sense is smarter!
• Democrats' ideas are kind of like horse manure, which stinks... yet is used for fertilizer. So there you go- a winning argument using both a contradiction and an analogy which stinks.
• Obama is a sneaky bastard because C-SPAN doesn't have provide coverage all over the White House. Only our debate here on the floor of congress is open. Please ignore the fact that Louie Gohmert's office isn't rigged with cameras- he's exempted because he's outraged at Mr. Hussein "Socialism" Obama.
• Illegal aliens are our worst enemy. Well, them and abortions. But back to the gentleman from Texas insist there is only one way to make sure we don't care for illegal aliens. This is to require that before you receive emergency treatment you must prove your citizenship. So remember kids: if you happen to suffer a terrible injury, make sure that before you are taken to the hospital you've got three forms of identification, or you'll be sent home. Yes, that includes you little 6 year-old Johnny. We don't care if you cut off your finger at scouts, your mother will have to get here before we look at it. Security is more important- "pro-life" has an asterisk, you know. Besides, the terrorists are trying to kill you and better you die by the hand of government.
• Steve King of Iowa still doesn't understand that the President of the United States cannot pass legislation. Perhaps he should crack open a copy of the constitution and figure out his job description.
• Paul Broun, also of Georgia is pissed off that Obama limited budget cuts to only a 20% area of the budget. Naturally that's a great argument, especially when you consider that this is generally the percentage of discretionary spending available after mandatory items such as defense, social security and medicaid. Talking points are SO much better than truth.
• Paul Broun continues to claim the constitution wasn't written by a bunch of lawyers In actuality it was a bunch of illiterate farmers whom God inspired or something, to craft this perfect document. Except we need to add a clause against those homos, because they're a curse from God because of those liberal Satan-worshiping baby killers. I'd listen to him because he's tight with the founding fathers.
• Democrats have extremist and fundamentalist views, who cannot accept ideas different from their own. Kids: use the following words to build a retort: "black", "pot" "kettle".
• Americans LOVE their cars, especially their American cars, but saving the US auto industry was a socialist takeover over private business, regardless of it saving those companies and jobs, because those jobs are union jobs. Fuck the American people, fuck their cars and fuck those unamerican union members. The only people who care are the investors, who should not get punished for putting their money into a failing company.
• Experts aren't- ever, and "the American people knew better than Wall Street experts." (Steve King, Iowa at 9:35pm). This is why nobody lost their home except those elitist fat-cat brokers. Except for scared and angry Americans.
• Michelle "(God, help us)" Bachmann of Minnesota is infuriated at the idea that healthcare premiums will have price caps. Because whenever governments mess with price-fixing, that leads to scarcity. Except in many places in the world, such as in Israel where I grew up where food staples are fixed so people don't starve. Also, Obama's going to kill grandma, but he's going to keep illegal aliens alive. Yeah, she brought out those old gems again.

Sorry but I'm done now. Bachmann tirades and the whining of sore losers really wear me out.

* The segment I watched was a Republicans-only rant-fest. No debate with Democrats, which they so plead for during. I know it's not a politically-smart thing to yield your limited speaking time to the other party, but if you insist on having better arguments, you may seem like a coward by avoiding honest confrontation. I assume the Democrats make equally stupid arguments in their time, assuming they even care about public relations.

Clark on McCain

So it has finally been said.

What I had been whispering to close friends and family for months is finally in the media. I didn't foresee how it would happen, but I am pleasantly surprised by this turn of events.

Retired General Wesley Clark has finally said the thing that he singularly, as a prominent member Democratic party, could say: McCain does not have the experience to be Commander in Chief. Full interview on CNN here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0D1hX9YXtd0 . Note the many admiring words Clark has for McCain, which I agree are well deserved.

The Republican response was textbook. They got an Admiral to say: "If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates." Nice. Bring the Admiral to counter a General. Then ignore content and demote the General to a mere "surrogate", calling on Obama to say what he can only be branded un-American (yet again) for saying. What's wrong with McCain answering this, if surrogates are so unworthy of commenting? Afraid he can't make commanding a squadron at peace time sound experienced enough?

I just thank God that Clark's middle name isn't Mustafa (I can't believe the Hussein thing still gets mentioned constantly on Fox News).


My only criticism of Clark is minor and off topic. Still as a scientist, fighting for better public understanding, I'd like to add the following.

I certainly don't appreciate his comparing statement of developing a strategy for Iraq as being more difficult than "some guy writing on a blackboard E=MC²"*. He'd be right if he meant it's a terrible analogy, since that equation is a well known solution to an well-defined problem. On the other hand Iraq is a complex issue that has never been solved and due to its immensely complex and uncontrolled (read "non-scientific") nature could never have been solved before. Yet if he's referring to the developer of that equation (yes, it was Einstein) there's a gross understatement here of the experience, academic groundwork, dedication and time required, not to mention intellectual brilliance. The way I see it- both jobs require all of the above.

I find it hard to believe that he still uses that equation, especially considering the grief its mention gave him in 2004. True, most people aren't familiar with the form x=vt (which everyone actually knows as miles-travelled = miles-per-hour * hours) or understand what F=ma (Newton's second Law of Motion) means, but he could have omitted the equation itself and said "an equation on a blackboard." While still a poor portrayal of science, I expect the target audience mostly still has such a limited understanding of plugging numbers into equations.

Bush playing poker

I'm watching the YouTube video of the interview Eric Schmidt has with reporter Bob Woodward.

It's 27 minutes into the video and Woodward is explaining that in his view Bush is like a poker player, who is so convinced in his position on Iraq that he is "all in", that is- betting everything. It sounds like a proper comparrison, and I just wanted to add the following:

I wish Bush actually bothered to look at his hand, or at least knew the rules of the game.

Bush press briefing - internal affairs

He naturally brought up his funding request for the Iraq deployment. He's claiming that congress should not be telling the military what to do. The problem is that they are not doing that. The military does not answer to congress- they answer to the president. The president is the one who is constitutionally required to obey congress' demands.

His tired rhetoric about "funding the troops" is bull, not only because it's untruthful, but also because the requested funding is not limited to funding military operations in Iraq, but a myriad of other things. DefenseNews.com reports that the request includes $11.6B of funding for research and development of new weapons, upgrading aircraft fleets. These figures are ignored by the administration's "fact sheet". The administration does mention over $2.25B, marked for various aid programs, such as Darfur and the Palestinian Authority.

What does it mean to you, the tax-payer? Spending $190B this year means the Bush administration is trying to impose a renewal of the existing Iraq War Tax on U.S. taxpayers. Dividing the cost among the current 303 million citizens, means each citizen is being taxed $645.75 this year. Of course when you consider than not everyone pays taxes, this figure goes up slightly. And when multiplied by 3.14 for the average family size, we see that each U.S. family is being taxed $2,027.

In a White House fact sheet on the "generous" 2004 tax refund (sorry- couldn't easily find a more recent one), you find the following: "42 million families with children will receive an average tax cut of $2,067." That's great, except that the U.S. family ends up with an actual refund of $40. I doubt that would really help the economy.