Category Archives: Idiots on Parade

These People Really Believe That We Need To Ban Profits

I was a political ignoramus just 6 years ago.  Certainly I could express my views on the big ones, capital punishment, immigration and abortion.  But the more nuanced perspectives would come later.

What surprises me is that at one time, I may actually have held views that I now hold in disdain.  I’m not sure I was ever this far left, but the views expressed by delegates at the Democrat Convention regarding corporate profits are without defense.

By the way, whats up with Van Jones not shaking hands with Peter Schiff?  I mean, not even shaking hands?

Hilarious

I found this to be very funny:

Lynn Raskin, a Washington D.C. realtor, and her husband, Marcus, a cofounder of the Institute for Policy Studies, have routinely contributed to progressive candidates in tight congressional races during this election cycle. They’ve donated to Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat running for Senate in Massachusetts. They’ve also given money to Sen. Sherrod Brown(D-Ohio).

Late Saturday evening, Raskin typed “Sherrod Brown” into Google to make another campaign contribution. She clicked the first link populating her search results, a Google ad that took her to an innocuous-looking campaign fundraising page. She entered her Visa digits, hit submit, and just like that, she’d forked over $50 to a Republican in one of this season’s most hotly contested Senate races: Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Raskin realized her mistake the next day when she read the automated thank-you email from Scott Brown’s campaign. She says she takes “full responsibility for not paying attention” when she clicked on Scott Brown’s Google ad, but she still feels like she was duped. After all, why should a search for Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, bring up an ad for Scott Brown, Massachusetts Republican?

 

When A Society Wants To Care For Itself

It takes a village.

A theme more or less explored in our politics in general.  And sometimes in specific.  For example, President Obama touched on it during his now famous firehouse stop in Virgina.  There, on the stump, Obama extolled the crowd that successful folks are successful in large part, some part, to those that have come before.  Their success is due, in some measure, to those who’ve built the infrastructure.  Therefore, the logic goes, it is now up to those successful individuals to “give back” and embrace a higher tax burden.

The central idea being that we’re all part of this thing and we all need to contribute.

It takes a village.

Further, this is a concept I resonate with and embrace.  We DO rely on each other.  It’s the volunteer firefighter that makes sure our homes are safe.  It’s the teacher that slaves away tirelessly at 10:00 at night.  There’s the pastor watching over the kids during summer break.  I love the fact that my son’s karate teacher watches him as he walks down the block to the dance studio to wait for his sister.

It DOES take that symbolic village.

Which makes this and this all the more frustrating:

A woman may be fined $600 for each day she provided free food to children in a poor Philadelphia neighborhood for the past few months.

Angela Prattis, 41, of Chester Township has been distributing free healthy lunches in a neighborhood that has a per capita income of $19,000 a year.

Prattis made no money from the meal distribution, and gave out food provided by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The “lunch lady” ran the charity out of her garage, to which about 60 children came, five days a week.

After the city council was alerted of the free lunches, it ruled that she would have to acquire a variance to give away food next summer – or pay a fine of $600 a day. The council considers Prattis’ deed a zoning violation. Three months of distributing food would instigate a fine of more than $50,000.

60 kids, 5 days a week.  Free.

PHOENIX –  The city of Phoenix is facing a possible lawsuit after a woman claimed a city worker told her she could not pass out free water in the Arizona heat without a permit.

Dana Crow-Smith tells ABC 15 she was passing out water bottles in the 112-degree heat along with others in an attempt to share their Christian beliefs with people attending a festival downtown last month, when a city worker ordered them to stop. She said the worker told the group they would be cited if they continued passing out the water because they did not have a permit.

Admittedly, the second case may not involve city officials in real authority, but the point remains that there is this idea that the city has these regulations.

It’s important to remember that the villagers created the village.  Not the other way around.

Romney, Taxes And Cabinet Positions

A certain Mr. Harry Reid has set off a kerfuffle with his statement that Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years:

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid.

After reading the article, I’ve found this claim by Harry Reid to be only the SECOND most amazing thing he mentioned.  I mean, forget that I could say  that my buddy saw Dale Earnhardt Jr. giving Michelle Obama the business while she was here on a campaign stop, “Now, do  I know that that’s true?  Well, I’m not certain.”

The MOST amazing claim from the Majority Leader was this:

In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post from his office on Capitol Hill, Reid saved some of his toughest words for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Romney couldn’t make it through a Senate confirmation process as a mere Cabinet nominee, the majority leader insisted, owing to the opaqueness of his personal finances.

Are you kidding me?  Let’s look:

  • Kathleen Sebelius
  • Tom Daschle
  • Tim Geithner
  • Eric Holder
  • Hillary Clinton

All members or nominees of Obama’s cabinet.  THIS President clearly doesn’t care if members of the Cabinet pay or not pay their taxes.

 

Basic High School Math Fail

Again, I’m reading a bunch of stuff for an upcoming post and I see this:

Lucia Harkenreader’s check landed in her mailbox last week: a rebate of $456.15 from her health insurance company, with a letter dryly explaining that the money came courtesy of the federal health care law.

For Ms. Harkenreader, 53, who is putting a son through college, the rebate helps soothe the frustration she feels toward her insurer, Golden Rule, which is owned by UnitedHealthcare.

“It seems like the health insurance companies really just don’t have any consideration for the cost out here,” said Ms. Harkenreader, who pays about $480 a month for a high-deductible plan, up from $400 last year. “What costs have gone up to justify that rise in premium? I’d love to know. Did you give your people a raise? I guess your light bill went up?”

How is it possible that she can ask “What costs have gone up?” as she clutches a $456.00 check?  How can she ask “What costs have gone up?” as insurance companies are required to “insure” people who knock on the door with a broken arm?

People wonder why this country is in trouble.

The Upside To Obtructionist Congress

The upside to congress getting nothing done?  It’s obvious, the answer is that congress does nothing.  And in this case, I actually can’t fault the democrats for slowing down the republicans:

A second typo is slowing down House work on a bill aimed at limiting federal regulations.

Work stalled after Republicans made a typographical error in a measure that had been quickly developed to replace an earlier measure that included an embarrassing typo.

The bill, H.R. 4078, was intended to prevent new federal rules until the unemployment rate falls to 6 percent, but instead referred to the “employment” rate.

To fix that, the House Rules Committee approved a rule that, once passed by the House, would deem the bill to be corrected to say “unemployment.” But that rule incorrectly refers to the main rule for the bill as H.Res. 783, when it should have said H.Res. 738.

One typo is just that, a typo; fix it.  Two typos on the same bill, where the second one is in response to fixing the first?

Slow down.  Or better yet, stop.

President Obama Is A Liar

It’s telling that the only way Obama’s signature piece  of legislation could pass constitutional muster is to have the Supreme Court call him a liar.

He lied.  Straight up.

He didn’t change his mind, he didn’t adjust to new realities.

The bastard lied straight to your face.

And if you don’t like the way in which I reference the President:

 

#OccupyWallStreet

Have you heard anything about the Occupy Wall Street idiots?

Me either.

Huh.

Media Incompetence: Jon Stewart

To be fair, I don’t think that Jon Stewart, CNN or the reporter are bias in their reporting.  For his sake, Stewart is just running a clip that makes his point and probably just missed it.

But for CNN and the reporter, their mistake is a little bit more egregious.  Again, I don’t think there’s bias, rather, they think they have a story – they might well have- and they are just trying to push the numbers they have to make that story more compelling.

Watch.  Hint, it’s all over by 00:35

The error was in the numbers the CNN reporter was displaying.

Here is the graphic she used:

So the numbers and the graph are:

  • Correct
  • Off High

The graph accurately reflects the White unemployment.  The graph does NOT reflect AfricanAmerican unemployment.  In fact, it shows it lower.  Then again, the graph doesn’t show Hispanic unemployment correctly either, however it too shows the data as lower than the raw numbers.

Which is right?

Let’s listen:

… in the black community 14% compared to whites which is 7%.  Latino community 11% compared to white’s 7%.

In the dialogue we have white unemployment at 7%.  Both the data and the chart show it at 7.4%  She reports that black unemployment is 14% but the data shows 13.6% and the chart shows 13%.  Depending on which you believe, that’s a whole point.  Next she moves to Latinos.  In both comparisons she mentions 11%; consistent with the data but not the graph.

Again, I don’t think there is bias here.  Jon is setting the table for his bit.  But Lordy, how do we trust that these people are saying true things?

Government Regluations: New York Soda

By now we’ve all heard about Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to ban large sizes of drinks that are high in sugar or calories.  This would include soda, energy drinks and sweetened teas.

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

This has to be a clear cut example of what the government CAN do, but what it SHOULDN’T do.  There’s no question that American are getting bigger and becoming obese at alarming rates.  There is no question that eating/drinking less garbage and working out more often would greatly contribute to reducing this problem.

However, at some point, there has to come a time when the government oversteps its bounds.  Are we really ready to accept living in a state where the state can dictate such personal freedoms?  Perhaps we are.  We already accept the fact that we can’t smoke in certain places.  We acknowledge and accept that the government can dictate seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

As much as I’m appalled at the regulation of soda-pop, I am equally sure that most of our citizens will accept it and we can just chalk it up to another example of people eschewing personal liberty in the name of removing any semblance of personal responsibility.