EFFin’ Unsound

Posted by Carl Ballard

Pudge is upset that we made a move to have popular elections for the presidency.

Washington State Surrenders Right to Vote for President

Not at all. We’re saying that we’d like our vote for president to go to the candidate who gets the most votes nationally. If enough other states will do the same.

Today, Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law a bill passed by the state legislature which gives away the state’s right to vote in the election for President, instead automatically delegating those votes to the “winner” of the national “popular vote.”

Ooh scare quotes.

The law only goes into effect if many other states also give up their right to vote.

If a majority of electoral votes would decide the election this way. And yes, it’s the will of the people that clearly has Pudge scared. If a majority of electors want to go with the will of the popular vote over the anachronistic way of choosing, that’s how their vote will go. It’s not giving up the right, it’s using it in a more democratic manner.

Posted by Robby
Over at NW Republican, i am coyote is pretty concerned about Obama’s use of the English language.  You see, the Republican party is the party of education.  Just look at George W. Bush.  There was a man who knew how to turn a phrase.

When asked if he would close the border to help stop the spread of the swine flu president Obama said “no” that it would be like “closing the barn door after the horses are out.”

Huh? What kind of idiotic statement is that? Is that really the metaphor he wanted to use?

Sounds like a pretty reasonable statement to me.  The fact that the flu is contagious means that it can be contracted from anyone, not just Mexicans.  Now that the flu has affected people north of the border the important thing is to contain it.

First of all for Obama’s idiotic “barn door” metaphor to work, you have to have a finite supply of “horses.” Yet that is not the case with the spread of a disease like the Swine Flu.

There’s actually only one horse, and it’s a big enough horse to be ridden by Paul Bunyan.  Once the flu is here, it’s here.

Now what would farmer Obama do if there was an unlimited supply of horses behind that barn door? What if the barn door were open and he saw all these horses getting out and there were hundreds more still in the barn?

Would he simply give up, throw up his hands and say “let them keep coming?” Because that is what it looks like he has settled into at this point.

First, he would sell all of the horses to China to solve our financial problems.  I mean, that’s a shitload of horses.  Second, I think that Mr. Coyote is confusing the terms “flu” and “Mexican person” here.  Obama was talking about the flu, while i am coyote is busilly worying about Mexicans.

I am not sure if closing the border is the right thing or not. I think it probably is. But I KNOW that Obama’s metaphor is childish and elementary.

I’m not sure if thinking about what someone says before criticising them is the right thing or not.  I think it probably is.  But I KNOW that Coyote’s overly quick effort to criticise a perfectly useful metaphor is childish and elementary.  (See what I did there?)

Perfect for most of the Mainstream Media.

How dare the media not assume that Obama’s an idiot?

Now if only those people coming through the borders were spreading conservatism. THAT would be a reason for the progs to close the border and put everyone on the government watch list.

yip yip

I can’t imagine why the people oming through the borders don’t support conservatism.  Maybe it’s the fact that the party of conservatism seems to always be against people coming through the border.

Faith and Freedom Network commissioned Elway to do a poll about gay marriage. Obviously, they wouldn’t have released it if said Washingtonians were tolerant people who are willing to accept their neighbors’ marriages because seriously, it’s none of their damn business. So, gigantic grain of salt, but even with that, it’s not really that bad news.

Faith and Freedom Network paid The Elway Poll to ask one simple question: “In your opinion, should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry?”

I’m sorry, I took a break writing this to read the latest edition of The Stranger, and holy cow, Gary Randall. This is really going to make me lose the thread here a bit, I fear.

A majority said no.

Well, OK, but 43% support marriage equality, and another 7% don’t have an opinion one way or the other. I mean holy shit, half of respondents don’t oppose gay marriage when you don’t mention domestic partnerships. Tell that to me a few years ago, and I’d have been stunned, but progress is coming no matter how long Gary and his pals try to stand in the way.

I have included the entire report. Demographically, the results were predictable, with Seattle strongly in favor of homosexual marriage, King County favorable, but less so, with the rest of Washington State opposed.

Also, 51% of Washington women in the state support gay marriage. Although, men, we can do a lot better than 34%. That’s a pretty shocking gender gap.

The age demographics should be of concern to all who support traditional marriage.

Yeah, shockingly, people who grew up around out gays are less likely to try to keep them from basic rights.

Click here to view a copy of The Elway Poll.

Warning it’s a PDF. Bad form not mentioning that, Gary; almost as bad as not paying your taxes.

– posted by thehim

Man, the Seattle Weekly really scored a major coup in hiring that guy. Goldy posted today about the study that concluded that conservatives don’t get that Colbert is kidding:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism.

Don responds in comments:

Here’s the deal. The reason why some conservatives dig Colbert isn’t because they think he is one of them. It is because conservatives are able to poke fun at themselves. It’s self-deprecatory. Which is the key to any good comedian or person with a sense of humor. You’ve got to be secure enough to laugh at yourself.

Um, no. In fact, let me repost the exact same passage again, this time putting in bold the part that is the exact opposite of what you’re trying to claim:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism.

In other words, conservatives do believe that Colbert is one of them. Of course, what do you expect from someone who hasn’t figured out that he’s a city-wide laughingstock himself?

Yes, these two paragraphs appeared back to back in a column by Bruce Ramsey (2 weeks after anyone stopped giving a fuck).

The “tea party” protests of April 15 were dismissed by progressive columnists as “AstroTurf” — fake grass roots, ginned up by moneyed interests. Paul Krugman said that. So did Joe Conason. Progressives delight in slandering their opponents in this way. It is an excuse not to answer them.

Wow, you’re passionate about that Bruce. Who were those grassroots activists?

The protests had many organizers. The big one in this state, in Olympia, was partly organized by the libertarian Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) and promoted on KVI-AM radio, the Seattle Fox News affiliate. But no radio station or 24-employee foundation has the AstroTurf power to order out 5,000 people on a Wednesday afternoon in Olympia to protest government fiscal policy. Counsel Mike Reitz says EFF has never had a turnout that big. KVI host Kirby Wilbur says the turnout was KVI’s largest in 15 years.

So, um, was a grassroots radio station owned by a big media conglomerate and a grassroots corporate whore think tank. Yes, he goes on to talk about things that are more grassroots, but honestly, what the fuck?

Also, it goes without saying that when Bruce Ramsey was slightly inconvenienced by actual grassroots protest, he wrote an asshole column about it.

- posted by demo kid

Apparently, Arlen Specter will be hanging out with the Democrats. Given that there are some senators in the Democratic caucus that are more conservative than him, I’d say it was just about time. If Snowe, Collins and Voinovich were to follow… well… that truly would be the end of the Republican Party for the next decade.

Still, a party that is so eager to push out its own as “RINOs” does not have a great chance of surviving in the long-run. Kinda puts a damper on their claims of being a “big tent” party.

Cue the cacophony of right-wingnut shrieking? :)

warrenpeterson at Sound Politics compares the current situation with the administration deciding if they should prosecute the previous administration for, you know, all the crimes with Ford pardoning Nixon. I think it’s a fair comparison, but shockingly we come to different conclusions.

Jerry Ford assumed the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon from office. Ford enjoyed public good will for the class he showed in the transition. But the Nixon haters were not satisfied with the indictments and convictions of several top Nixon aides. They wanted “Tricky Dick” humiliated by a trial and a jail cell. President Ford believed it would be a long drawn out extremely divisive political saga that would paralyze his administration’s ability to deal with the post Viet Nam and economic issues facing the United States in the late 1970s. Taking his own counsel, he issued a full pardon for any illegal acts Nixon may have committed while President. It was a politically courageous call and it cost him the 1976 election.

I like how the only possible reason people would want Nixon in prison to humiliate him. It isn’t about punishment for committing crimes. Same with Bush.

Today it is the Bush haters, almost exclusively from the Left, who lust for blood. There are calls for indictments of the attorneys whose legal opinions justifying limited forms of coercion (torture to some) sends the ACLU and their ilk into spasms of outrage. But the real targets are Bush and Cheney.

What I find most interesting about the difference between then and now is that Ford had to pardon Nixon. He couldn’t just say - as Obama seems to be doing - that we’re just no going to prosecute the people who broke the law. If Obama doesn’t want Bush or his cronies punished, he should probably pardon them. Until then, what we know warrants a proper investigation, and he should stay out of the Justice Department’s way.

President Obama gives a mixed message on the issue. One day he wants to move forward and not look back and the next he’s open to investigating the alleged sins of the Bush administration. Obama has a very ambitious agenda and he cannot afford major distractions on his way to the 2012 elections. He has a decision to make. If he does not control the baying from the vengeance crowd, he will face his Jerry Ford moment.

Um, the point of being in office is not to win office. I certainly hope those investigations don’t cost him the presidency, but it’s really not his decision. If anything, the political nature of it calls for a special prosecutor to keep it as apolitical as possible. Also, your concern for Obama’s reelection is truly touching.

The SP Public Blog is leading the 2 minute hate:

* Shorter LeCerveau: Did Barney Frank kill the head of Freddy Mac?

* Shorter 6p010536f1146a970b: Janet Napalitano hates Vets. And the FBI is spying on me and mentioning that some terrorists have crossed the border is blaming Canada for 9/11.

- posted by demo kid

So now that Whacky Nation is defunct, what kinds of posts are Lou writing? Well… let’s just say that the “Daily Voice of Reason” is certainly still cranking out the hits, with titles like:

“TV Was More Entertaining in Its Early Black-and-White Days” (Damn that Technicolor! Stupid Communist plot!)

“Millions of Bibles Being Produced in China, of All Places!” (It’s not as if you have time to stop and read them when they’re shooting by on the assembly line.)

“We Must Crack Down on Pork-Wielding Politicians Everywhere” (Steny Hoyer does threaten folks on the floor of the House with a piece of sharpened bacon. That simply must be stopped.)

“Is There Anything Sillier Than Bird Counting in the Forest?” (I know enough underpaid ornithologists that get up at 3 in the morning for field work that may agree with Lou with that.)

“Rock-n-Roll Has Derailed Cause of Good Music in U.S.” (He’s still trying to make the case that Elvis ruined music forever.)

But as much as Lou may be amusing at times, his post entitled “Catholic Church Has Erred in Not Challenging Abuse ‘Victims’” is just plain despicable:

I was serving on a jury hearing a distasteful child-molestation case a few years ago when a doctor who is a noted authority in the field of psychology took the stand to utter these words, which affected me greatly and have stayed in my mind, particularly because they apply with so much logic to the Catholic Church’s monumental problem of abuse by priests:

“Unfortunately, children can be easily influenced by parents, teachers, clergymen, and even psychologists simply by the hard questions and other words they pound into the children’s ears, thereby causing the children to reflect the questions and admit to things that never happened. This can happen to young people and adults, too.”

While the doctor’s words had a telling effect on the court and the jurors who served with me, they were even more telling to me on the issue of so-called abuse by Catholic priests. I say that because I am deeply disappointed with the church’s decision across America to refuse to challenge the accusers and take them to court.

You know, I can take the doddering old fool that yells at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn, but I draw the line when someone blames the VICTIMS of sexual abuse. This is not simply a case where one kid decided to lie, and other kids jumped in on the bandwagon. This is a situation where the church hierarchy knew of problems going on with specific priests in specific parishes, and decided to deal with the problem not by handing these priests over to the local authorities to be punished, but by transferring these priests to other parishes, concealing evidence, paying off the victims when necessary (even before civil cases were suggested as an option), and even resorting to outright lies to the flock when needed. Heck, even the Pope himself has expressed regret about the whole situation!

Sheesh. I think that dealing with the peanut gallery on (u)SP doesn’t nearly raise my blood pressure as much as this fellow does.

Posted by Robby

Jonathan on the tea bagging:

The Democrats are certainly scared now. They’re scared that you, the hard-working American taxpayer, will stop working, or stop paying taxes, or both.

Yeah, I’m scared beyond belief.  You know what really put the fear of God into me?  Those two elections that we won pretty handily.  If the 2006 and 2008 cycles showed me anything, it’s that Americans just aren’t buying what the Democratic party is selling, except for the part where the vote for us, I guess.