This Week In Review (04/22/2012)
• Senate rejects Buffett Rule. The Senate voted 51-45 on the tax increase, failing to receive the 60 votes needed to move it to the House. The Buffett Rule, named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who claims to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary (a story proven to be bogus), would have imposed a 30 percent minimum effective tax rate on millionaires. Let’s ignore the fact that this tax would have targeted the capital gains of the highest income earners, which WSJ columnist Robert Frank claims is “the most unstable income source of the most unstable income group in America.” While this tax sounds good on paper, in reality, the tax would have only raised $47 billion in ten years—barely enough to dent the $1.5 trillion deficit, let alone the $15 trillion debt. But even if the IRS were to confiscate all of the wealth from the country’s 400 billionaires, it would still be short $300 billion of paying off the deficit. Raising taxes would accomplish jack squat in fixing the deficit, jumpstarting the economy, or even establishing “fairness.” The problem isn’t taxes; it’s the spending, stupid!
• Connecticut Senate approves bill allowing citizens to videotape police. Introduced by Senator Eric Coleman (D), Senate Bill 245 passed with a 29-16 vote. The bill would allow law enforcement to be sued if they arrest citizens for recording them in public. This is the first bill of its kind in this country—and a much needed one at that! For too long, police have been arresting citizens for doing nothing more than videotaping them. One man even faced jail time of 75 years! Police claim they are simply protecting their privacy and preventing interference with their duty, but in many cases, they have been merely covering up evidence of their misbehavior. The police are our public servants. They work for us, and they are accountable to us. And we need to hold them accountable, and that means videotaping them if they abuse their power.
• Obama Administration to continue failed Drug War policies. President Barack Obama released his 2012 Drug Control Strategy report which he claims will “chart a new course in our efforts to reduce illicit drug use and its consequences in the United States”—and by “chart a new course,” he means more of the same failed drug policies such as workplace drug testing, nationwide zero tolerance laws, and school anti-drug campaigns. Hey, remember when Obama campaigned in favor of medical marijuana and promised that he wasn’t “going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws”? Funny how he did a complete 180 with his administration cracking down on California medical marijuana dispensaries. A politician saying one things and doing another? Shocking! (Why do libtarded moonbats love this guy again?)
• CIA refuses to release history of the Bay of Pigs. Upon receiving a FOIA lawsuit from the National Security Archive, the CIA has released the first three volumes of a five volume history of the Bay of Pigs incident but has refused to release the fifth volume, claiming that the information within it “could cause scholars, journalists, and others interested in the subject at hand to reach an erroneous or distorted view of the Agency’s role…or otherwise lead to public confusion.” And how would it cause such confusion? Is it because the missing volume contains “inaccurate or incomplete information” as the CIA claims, or is there a chance that it contains information that may contradict the official government narrative behind the Bay of Pigs incident? I don’t know and I won’t pretend to know. I’m not a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. But I do believe the public have a right to know about the operations of its own government provided it doesn’t risk national security. I can understand the government withholding information about a recent military operation, but one that happened 50 years ago? How much can you trust a government that refuses to be transparent on a 50-year-old incident? Makes you feel like a sucker for believing Obama when he promised “a new era of open government.” (Seriously, why do libtarded moonbats love this guy again?)
• The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has replaced the American Bill of Rights as the constitutional document most emulated by other nations. A study to be published in the New York University Law Review this June reveals that the Canadian Charter has helped influence the constitutions of other countries while the U.S. Bill of Rights has declined internationally as such an exemplar. How sad is it that a 30-year-old document has usurped the original document to guarantee individual rights to its citizens as a role model for representative government? This is only to be expected when our current government has grossly ignored its own Constitution by passing blatantly unconstitutional legislation (warrantless wiretaps, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” indefinite detention, virtual strip searches). By violating basic Constitutional rights, our government makes our Constitution irrelevant not only to itself, but to the rest of the world.
• Catholic League threatens boycott of Daily Show. On The Daily Show April 16, host Jon Stewart mocked how Fox News hyped the War on Christmas while dismissing the War on Women. “What can women do to generate the same sense of outrage from Fox?" Stewart asked. "Maybe women could protect their reproductive organs from unwanted medical intrusions with vagina mangers." He then cut to an image of a nude woman with a nativity scene ornament between her legs. Catholic League president Bill Donahue called the joke an “unprecedented vulgar assault on Christians” and has stated that if Stewart does not apologize for the joke, that the Catholic League would stage a boycott of his show. So in other words, people who don’t watch the Daily Show will continue not watching it? Sounds like an effective strategy! (In other news, not a single F*** was given!)
• Kim Kardashian Running For Mayor of Glendale, CA. I could easily laugh at how ridiculous it is for a celebrity to run for public office, but considering that the state’s governor is Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps it’s not that farfetched. The presidential race alone featured celebrities such as Donald Trump and Rosanne Barr. At this point, our elections are nothing more that popularity contests with politicians carrying a cult of personality. All to give the citizens the illusion that their votes matter. Bread and circuses FTW!
Dumbasses of the Week
Runner-Up: Michele Bachmann: In an interview with blog The Shark Tank, Bachmann referred to Obama’s proposal to lower gas prices through curbing oil speculation as “waving a tar baby in the air and saying that something else is a problem.” I’ll give Michele the benefit of a doubt and accept that her comment wasn’t racially-motivated. Clearly she was trying to say that Obama was using oil speculation as a distraction from the real source of high gas prices; in which case, she wasn’t being racist, she was just being stupid! Because that’s not what a “tar baby” is! A “tar baby” is “a situation, problem, or the like, that is almost impossible to solve or to break away from.” The real term Michele should have used was “red herring,” which is “something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand.” But even if “tar baby” was synonymous with “red herring,” why—oh God why—would she use such a racially-charged term? Why would she give the libtarded moonbats ample ammunition to paint Republicans as racists? Michele isn’t racist, she’s just dumb, and nobody should take her seriously.
Third Place: Unknown Tea Party Speaker: Remember when the Tea Party was relevant? Remember when the movement actually protested crap that mattered like the economic stimulus and bank bailouts? What the hell happened to it? Oh, that’s right: after it was hijacked by Republican neocon interests, it began focusing on menial social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. How else can you explain that one of the speakers at a recent Boston event was Scott Lively—an anti-gay bigot (excuse me, “activist”) who supports the Uganda “Kill The Gays” Bill? (Because nothing says limited government like capital punishment for queers!) Because of this controversial speaker, there was a counter-protest by LGBT activists, and the clash between them and the Tea Party protesters became so heated that one of the speakers announced over the microphone “We will not be silenced by faggots!” Yeah, how dare a marginalized minority speak out against a bigot who supports genocide in a foreign country! How very oppressive of them. And this is why I hardly take the Tea Party seriously anymore.
Second Place: Ted Nugent: If Rush Limbaugh underwent massive liposuction and was more hyped-up on Oxycotin, dialing up the crazy levels of his insanity and racism, you’d end up with Ted Nugent—the gun-toting, guitar-playing, teenage-girl chasing, draft-dodging piece of white trash who wants Obama to “suck on my machine gun.” Oh, you thought that quote of his was bad? You ain’t heard nothing yet! Just recently at an NRA convention, Ted claimed that if Obama were re-elected, “I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Now that’s the quote most people in the blogosphere have been focused on, but believe it or not, he actually said something more violent moments before. Earlier, he had compared Obama and other Democrats to a coyote that needed to be shot: “It isn’t the enemy that ruined America. It’s good people who bent over and let the enemy in. If the coyote’s in your living room pissing on your couch, it’s not the coyote’s fault. It’s your fault for not shooting him.” You heard him right folks, we need to shoot us some Democrats! (rolls eyes). And don’t just shirk this off as being rhetoric. The Secret Service is currently investigating Nugent for his comments. Look, I’m all for being outspoken, and I’m not usually up in arms against “violent rhetoric,” but there comes a time when political discourse crosses the line.
First Place: Kevin Forts: What’s worse than a mass-murdering white nationalist like Anders Behring Breivik? How about an apologist for said mass-murdering white nationalist? Now I know what you’re thinking: who the hell could possibly defend Breivik—the crazed Norwegian who shot down 77 people in Oslo (mostly teenagers at a summer camp) because he feared the Muslims were taking over his country? Well, turns out Andy has a pen pal here in the States, Kevin Forts, who’s sticking up for his neo-Nazi BFF. In an interview with a Norwegian news network, Forts claimed that the terrorist attack “demonstrates a sense of nationalism and a moral conscience. He's fighting against cultural Marxism and the Islamization of Norway and he found that the most rational way to accomplish that was through terrorist actions on Utoya and in Oslo.” And what about the defenseless teenagers shot at the summer camp? No biggie! To Forts, “It was a necessary political sacrifice.” Do I even need to explain why this is so wrong?!