On Al Gore Being Elected President In 2000 #1

What follows are a pair of comments I submitted to the Contra O'Reilly blog. This was back before the proprietor, Willis Hart, banned me from further comment on 8/30/2012.

These two comments concern the fact that Al Gore was elected president of the United States by the American people following the conclusion of voting in November of 2000. Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes (50,999,897 votes for Gore versus 50,456,002 votes for bush).

And, as it turns out, Gore won the popular vote in Florida as well, which would have given him the state (and its electoral college votes). If only the Conservative Supreme Court justices had not violated the Constitution and circumvented the will of the people by stopping the recount and anointing bush (Justice Stevens: Bush v. Gore Decision Violated Constitution).

See 2nd comment below for info concerning Al Gore winning by carrying FL... when the votes were properly counted.

APRIL 21, 2012 AT 6:57 PM

When a complete recount was done it was found that Gore won. Here's a book on the topic:

The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President by Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.

Bugliosi says, "On December 12th, 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the recounting of presidential votes in Florida, thus assuring that George W. Bush would win the election. This action by the Court's majority ... was a "judicial coup d'tat" that stole the election from U.S. citizens and simply handed the presidency over to the Court's guy, a conservative Republican like themselves. It was also treasonous, asserts Bugliosi... the five justices are "criminals in the very truest sense of the word"...

This description of what occurred is one I agree with completely.

APRIL 21, 2012 AT 7:20 PM

Robert Parry, writing for Consortium News said, "Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes".

SWTD Tags: Al Gore.

DSB #13

On Fox Nooz And MSNBC

I refer to what Fox does as "nooz" because they do opinion on the news while representing themselves as a news channel. It's right there in the name they gave themselves: Fox NEWS.

MSNBC, on the other hand, does not have the word "news" in the name of their channel. MSNBC "was derived from the most common abbreviations for Microsoft and the National Broadcasting Company" (source). None of the letters stand for news.

Also, if you Google "MSNBC" what you'll find is that (according to how they describe themselves) what they do is provide "news coverage and political opinion". So, "news" isn't in the name of the organization, and that they do opinion is clearly stated.

Whereas, if you Google "Fox" what comes up as the first result is "Fox News".

End of discussion. Case closed. It boggles the mind that there are some dumbasses who try to say they're the same. They both do slanted opinion (and sometimes outright lie) while representing themselves as news organizations (the dumbass will argue).

It's the strategy of making false equivalencies the Right specializes in. But there is a reason they have to say that both sides are equally bad. It is because they know that if they defended the Rightwing side people would know immediately they were spouting BS. So they default to an argument that sounds plausible to the cynic (which a LOT of people are when it comes to politics). And that is that both sides are equally bad.

But they aren't. Those who aren't shilling for Fox Nooz (or minimizing how bad they are with the false equivalency strategy) know that, when it comes to viewers of GOP TV (the original name Roger Ailes came up with), "the more they watch Fox News the less they know".

Fair and Balanced? Something else MSNBC does not have... an obviously bogus catchphrase (and one that is quite laughable at that).

Video Description: Bernie Sanders exposes Fox News as a Rightwing propaganda machine. Excerpted from Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism by Brave New Films. Published on Youtube 5/27/2015 (1:59). See here for the full documentary (77:08).

SWTD Tags: Fox Nooz.

DSB #12

"Family Values" Sicko Pervert "Pastor" Mike Huckabee Wants To Shower With Teenage Girls

Former "Pastor" Mike Huckabee thinks Caitlyn Jenner might be pretending to be a woman for reasons of getting into places where he might be able to ogle naked chicks, and Hucky wants in on the action... at least he thinks it's funny to "joke" about such a situation.

Huckabee: [These] ordinances [say] if your 7-year-old daughter - if she goes into the restroom - cannot be offended and you can't be offended if she's greeted there by a 42-year-old man who feels more like a woman than he does a man. Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, "Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today". (Mike Huckabee Says He Would Have Pretended to Be Trans to Shower With Girls in School by Mark Joseph Stern. Slate 6/2/2015).

So, Hucky's "joke" consists of lies concerning transgender men as well as hate. The hate that causes him to joke about an older "man" (Jenner is 65) perving on teenage girls. But note that the "joke" involves - not Jenner doing the perving - but the Huckster himself. Although this fictional perving takes place back when Hucky was back in high school.

Although he didn't think about it until now... what he should have said to his coach, that is. Given the fact that Hucky "missed out", perhaps he would still attempt this? We know, at least, that he has given it some serious consideration.

And he apparently stands by his "joke", given the fact that there was no apology later, as is often the case when Repubs say stupid shit... so I guess he does think sharing his fantasies about raping teenage girls with his eyes is OK. Sicko pervert.

And this guy used to be a pastor? Seriously?

Note: This commentary was adapted from material contained in a 6/5/3915 commentary from my SWTD blog that concerned the Duggar fundy molestation scandal and Mike Huckabee's defense of the guilty son Josh... "If You Ever Find Yourself Deep In A Hole It Might Be A Good Idea To Stop Duggaring".

Video: Caitlyn Jenner's 22-page spread in Vanity Fair inspires Mike Huckabee to make a crude joke about transgender people. Video from Comedy Central's The Nightly Show starring Larry Wilmore posted to YouTube on 6/4/2015 (1:20).

Other Content: Contra O'Reilly Post (7/2/2015) "On Mike Huckabee Purportedly Wishing that it Him Who Had Come Up with this Whole Transgender Thing so He Could Have Showered with Chicks Back in High School".

SWTD Tags: 2016 Election, LGBT, Mike Huckabee.

DSB #11

Comedian Louis CK On White Privilege & Male Privilege (Comedy Bits)

Comedian Louis CK. I think his material is pretty good. He has a TV program that I don't watch, although I've seen the first season of it after it originally aired and liked it OK. He plays a jerk, I guess, basically. I've heard some people say they don't care for him.

While Googling recently using the search term "White Privilege" and "Male Privilege" (ideas that some people I would call misogynist and racially biased reject) I ran across the following two videos that I think offer some truisms in a humorous format, so I thought I'd share them (likely with nobody, given the fact that nobody reads this blog).

Both are fairly short, so they won't take a lot of time to view. So, I think it's worth the short amount of time to do so.

First, some background information that I pulled off Wikipedia (in case you are unfamiliar with Mr. CK).

Louis Székely (born September 12, 1967 and known professionally as Louis C.K.), is an American comedian, actor, writer, producer, director and editor. He is the creator, star, writer, director, executive producer and primary editor of the acclaimed FX comedy series Louie. CK has won a 2012 Peabody Award and five Emmy awards, as well as numerous awards for The Chris Rock Show and Louie, as well as his stand-up specials. CK's stage name is an approximate English pronunciation of his Hungarian surname, Székely. (Link).

The first video is labeled "I enjoy being White". Not because White people are better, but because it is better to be White. This is a statement acknowledging the fact that White privilege is real, despite some people dismissing it. In my opinion. Mr. CK does not use the term white privilege but I think we can absolutely agree that is what he is referring to.

The second video is labeled "there is no greater threat to women than men", which is pretty self explanatory. Is this Mr. CK's statement of belief in the notion that Men are privileged in our society? He does not use the term male privilege in his bit, but, YES, I think that's clearly what he's saying (that he agrees with it).

As do I... with both White Privilege and Male Privilege being REAL and societal problem we need to be addressing... as opposed to pretending they don't exist, as some males who are biased against minorities and women, do.

Video1: I enjoy being White (2:29).

Video2: There is no greater threat to women than men (1:43).

SWTD Tags: Male Privilege, White Privilege.

DSB #10

Conservatives Hate Democracy & Desire Oligarchy (Thom Hartmann Rant #3)

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 5/26/2015, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses how Conservatives (including fiscally conservative Libertarians) hate democracy and desire oligarchy.

Thom: Mitch McConnell, back in 2011, when he said "the Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We've tried persuasion, we've tried negotiations, we've tried elections. Nothing has worked".

Huh? We've tried elections? Nothing has worked? What Mitch McConnell is complaining about is the same stuff Conservative have been complaining about from the founding of our Republic. Which is that they don't believe in small "d" democracy and a small "r" republic. They believe in oligarchy.

Alexander Hamilton, in the Constitutional convention, suggested that the President should be called "his royal highness" and should be appointed for life. That we should basically have a king. He was laughed out of the assembly. He was so offended, so embarrassed and so angry, he went back to New York city the next day and didn't come back for 2 months. But he proposed it.

This has always been the problem that Conservative have. They genuinely believe the Biblical story that we're all born out of a woman and all evil, as it were, because Eve made that deal with the snake. And therefore democracy is a problem.

This is essentially what [Libertarian] Charles Murray is saying. What he's calling for, or what is generally being called for by Conservatives, is rule by the rich.

We're back to Calvinism. How do we know that someone is actually good? That didn't get that original sin when they came through mom's birth canal? How do we know who the people are who God has blessed? How do we know who the statesmen are versus the politicians, the people you can actually trust are going to do the best thing for the country?

The way you know is that they're rich. This is Calvinism's contribution to American democracy. Basically oligarchy's contribution. This has been the justification for hereditary kingdoms for centuries. Now they want to bring it to the United States, and the Koch Brothers are obliging. They're going to spend 800 million dollars and help decide some elections.

Which they've been doing for the last decade. And it's just not the Koch brothers, of course. As Charles Murray correctly points out, we have a class of billionaires, created as a consequence of the Reagan tax cuts and the Reagan compensation law change, so that CEOs could pay themselves with stock options.

The result of this is the rise of the Billionaire class that now has enough financial power that (to paraphrase Henry Wallace, the vice president of the United States in 1944) can reach out for government power and use the power of the government and the power of the marketplace at the same time to destroy unions and keep the common man in eternal subjection (see "The Danger of American Fascism" Point 11).

[End Thom Hartmann Rant]

Yeah, Libertarians are usually atheist, but they agree with the Religious Right that the rich are a breed apart. This is the basis of Ayn Rand's Objectivism - that wealthy people are superior humans (and conversely poor people are subhuman leeches).

Concerning oligarchy, this is what Conservative and Libertarians desire, but Libertarians foolishly believe that the rich can be prevented from reaching out to control government. Or they believe that they can fool Libertarian adherents into thinking this is possible. Which it is not.

Which is why Libertarianism is such utter bullcrap. The wealthy will ALWAYS attempt to control government. The only way to limit the power of the wealthy is to limit their wealth. This is why democracy degrades when inequality increases.

If we wish to preserve democracy we need to prevent people from becoming uber-wealthy (via economic policy, including high taxation). Frankly I don't buy it that these Libertarians can be so naive as to believe that people can be allowed to siphon unlimited amounts of money out of our economy and the result will not be the corruption of democracy.

Some are that stupid, but I honestly do not believe they all are. The non-stupid know the endgame is a takeover of the State by the oligarchs... and that is exactly what they want.

SWTD Tags: Class Warefare, Libertarianism, Thom Hartmann, Wealthy Worship.

DSB #9

The Virtuous Cycle Created By Raising The Minimum Wage (Thom Hartmann Rant #2)

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 5/26/2015, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom discusses how raising the minimum wage creates a virtuous cycle.

Thom: If you go back and look at the history of the minimum wage, every time the minimum wage is increased, over the next three years... which is about how long it takes for something like that to work it's way through the economy... what you see are, two things... number one, you see consequential significant economic stimulation. Typically the economy will grow at least 2 or 3 percent, after every minimum wage hike.

Because people with minimum wage have more money in their pocket now to spend. That money then goes into the marketplace and creates demand. And the consequence of creating that demand is that it creates more demand for jobs as well. As there is demand for more jobs, because the economy has been stimulated, the competition [between companies for workers] goes up, which means all wages go up.

Whenever the minimum wage goes up... all the midrange wages all increase by roughly the same amount. There is a very simple economic reason for that which I just laid out.

If minimum wage had kept pace with productivity it would be at $17 an hour right now. If it had just kept up with inflation it would be at $12.60 an hour.

[End Thom Hartmann Rant]

Increasing the minimum wage creates a virtuous cycle that reverberates through the economy, which is why we need a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation.

On the other hand, not raising the minimum wage creates a vicious cycle.

The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage: The fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers. That's why the extreme, and widening, wealth gap in our economy presents not just a moral challenge, but an economic one, too. In a capitalist system, rising inequality creates a death spiral of falling demand that ultimately takes everyone down. Low-wage jobs are fast replacing middle-class ones in the U.S. economy. Sixty percent of the jobs lost in the last recession were middle-income, while 59 percent of the new positions during the past two years of recovery were in low-wage industries... By 2020, 48 percent of jobs will be in those service sectors. Policy makers debate incremental changes for arresting this vicious cycle. But perhaps the most powerful and elegant antidote is sitting right before us: a spike in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. (The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage by Nicolas J Hanauer. Bloomberg Business 6/19/2013).

The plutocrats at the top of the foodchain don't care that they're destroying the American economy. Wealthy people can move anywhere in the world, and there are other markets to exploit. The rest of us, however, are suffering the consequences of their unbridled greed. It is time for us Americans to say NO to the world's oligarchy and do what's necessary to save our economy before it's too late.

Which would be to index the minimum wage to inflation and, more importantly (although these are two very important steps in saving America)... raise tariffs and bring our jobs home. If not we're screwed. America is done.

SWTD Tags: Minimum Wage, Thom Hartmann.

DSB #8

Proselytizing Lester

This absurd and utterly off base comment from the blogger Dennis Marks in response to a comment from me directed at Lester Nation in which I suggest Lester might consider voting Bernie Sanders for POTUS.

Dennis Marks: There are some who seek validation and satisfaction by completely converting others to the entirety of their views, and do not accept any partial agreement or even a consensus. And watching such, it is less like a rational conversation and more like a proselytization attempt. With one-sided zeal like with a religion. (5/19/2015 AT 10:25:00 AM EDT. Comment from the blog "rAtional nAtion uSA").

Lester agreed, adding a comment that (once again) plays off the lie from Dennis that I "worship Stalin" (follow the link for more info concerning this Dennis idiocy).

Lester Nation: PRECISELY! Those with such mindsets are the type who often, although not always, would be totalitarian if ever in a posistion of authority or power. (5/19/2015 AT 10:39:00am EDT. Comment from the blog "rAtional nAtion uSA").

I say "once again" because Lester keeps making similar comments.

Lester Nation: We respect your right to be a proud totalitarian communist in the vein of Joseph Stalin. We simply exercise our right to think you a bit nuts for doing so. (5/09/2015 AT 9:07pm. Comment from the blog "Sleeping with The Devil").

I consider myself a Democratic Socialist. I believe the United States needs to move in a much more Socialist direction, but we need to do it democratically. So Lester suggesting I "would be totalitarian" is total bullshit. Which I told him the last time he spun this fable. He keeps doing it anyway.

But I have no problem with Lester believing in any ideology he cares to believe in, even one as evil as "Objectivism". I would NEVER try to "proselytize" him. To begin with, it would be a complete waste of time. I know damn well he is not going to change his mind in regards to his admiration of the sociopathic Ayn Rand.

The reason for the remark was because of a number of extremely odd comments I've noticed from him lately. Odd, in that they are completely antithetical to the evil of Objectivism.

First this one from 12/6/2013.

Lester Nation: Medicare as a model for universal healthcare, with some modificartions (improvements to insure long term fiscal viability) may not be such a terribly bad idea. (12/6/2013 11:43:00 AM EST. Comment from the blog "rAtional nAtion uSA").

Then this one from 4/26/2015.

Lester Nation: Many democratic socialist countries have done and are doing just fine. In fact much, as in majority, of their population are quite happy. You really need to seperate totalitarian socialism and democratic socialism fot any meaningful discussion to occur. (4/26/2015 at 2:51 AM. Comment from the blog "Contra O'Reilly").

Lastly, this one from 5/1/2015.

Lester Nation: I am a capitalist. Call me a benevolent capitalist if you like. Something along the lines of a Thomas Paine style capitalist, one who grasps what "the common welfare" (or good) actually meant. Democratic socialism while better than 20th century communism or fascism loses out to benevolent capitalism hands down. Period. (5/1/2015 AT 07:33:00 PM EDT. Comment from the blog "rAtional nAtion uSA").

So, I copied these comments and later asked him (on his blog) why he (as an Ayn Rand admiring Objectivist) was talking positively about things that Ayn Rand would have rejected as encouraging the parasites.

His response to me quoting him?

Lester Nation: ...you make a huge stretch in quoting something I did mot say. But I realize that is just you. Disingenuous, but as long as you are comfortable with it that is fie by me. Frankly I couldn't give a sh*t less. But it is likely why you have been banned from several sites. (5/01/2015 AT 07:33:00 PM EDT. Comment from the blog "rAtional nAtion uSA").

I guess I "misquoted" him by copying and pasting what he wrote (and linking to it in order so anyone could check that it was 100 percent accurate). Yet he did "mot" say it. And yet he did say it. And if he did not remember saying it he could have clicked the link and refreshed his memory.

And I've been banned from several sites (apparently) for this kind of dishonesty... quoting someone and asking what they meant (attempting to engage people in conversation... a ban-able offense in Lester's mind).

Yeah, this guy strikes me as someone who could be proselytized, which is why I made the effort to convert Lester to Socialism. No wait, despite his comments I was (and remain) positive he would not consider for even one second switching ideologies. I asked because I found his statements confusing given his Objectivism.

Me suggesting he should vote for Bernie Sanders was (partially) a joke (and based on the comments I quoted above, which I found odd, given my positivity that he has NOT abandoned Objectivism/Libertarianism). I was, however, also partially serious, in that his choice (Gary Johnson or some moderate democrat) either has no chance or is not running.

But he got extremely offended by my suggestion for some reason that made absolutely no sense. And then he tossed out a non-sequitur suggesting that I'd go all totalitarian if ever in a position of authority or power.

I think I'm going to exercise *my right* to think Lester is more than a bit nuts.

SWTD Tags: Ayn Rand, dmarks delusions, Rational Nation.

7/6/2015 Update: If Lester did abandon Objectivism/Libertarianism/Fiscal Conservatism for Democratic Socialism, this would cause his (former?) buddy Willis Hart (who de-friended Lester on Facebook) to not trust him.

DSB #7