Who Could Possibly Be Surprised at the State of Trump's Presidency?

All of us who intentionally voted otherwise (aka the majority of Americans, thank God) knew.

A lot of those who voted for this deeply unqualified man, they knew too, but they were willing to gamble everything ... everything. Shame, shame.

Many voted to see if he would just gum it all up, turn into a headline fest of outrage. They are likely pleased, but still, not surprised.

What did we know? Trump is way out of his league, and his business practices are ragged secrets on the dark side.

As for me? My post  from Nov. 9, 2016 says it well -

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, puh-leeeze welcome the 45th President of the United States -- you know him as a middling brand name product made from toxic materials, the Kmart of Billionaires, the golden-toned skeezy Gordon Gecko leftover, the C-list TV actor popular in Soviet bloc countries - one Donald Trump -  and here we go on a slippery and rapid descent into political madness.

There has been no mass repudiation of politics-as-usual despite claims to the contrary, since the vast majority of folks already in office were re-elected yesterday. 

Anger, seething for 8 years, directed at all those who dared support a non-white male president, has flowered with poison.

Yes, only the man who was born with solid-gold privileges can save Americans from solid-gold privileged men.

On a personal note, there is not one person in office in the state or nation that I voted for. Whatever is about to happen, it will not be my fault. I'll just be over here complaining and saying I told you so."

And you know what, oh constant readers? I freakin' told you so.

Artists Are All Loser Slackers, Says Lying Media Outlet

I avoid reading the thin drool offered on the PJMedia website but I happened to read the opinion piece recently offered by a failed artist now church employee who demands the National Endowment for the Arts be totally eliminated 

The writer trots out withered, ancient and fake narratives which ignore the reality of what the NEA does and how it does it. The writer wails that crazy commie leftist artists suck up tax dollars to insult you with lousy arty stuff no one needs 'cause art ain't food; another false claim is that all art should be regulated by a free market and therefore insure only good art that everyone likes will survive and crappy art will die; and finally that "all Americans' don't have any creative notions so no creative notion should be supported.

The facts are enormously and utterly at odds with such drivel.

"The NEA’s 2017 budget is $149.8 million. In a nation of 319 million people that amount doesn’t allow the agency to subsidize much of anything. But the endowment has found ways to make the money work with outsized effectiveness and efficiency. It makes thousands of small grants to nonprofit organizations — on average 2,100 a year. Each grant requires the recipient to raise matching local funds — often at a ratio of two or three local dollars for each federal one. So the NEA mostly serves as a catalyst for local groups to raise private and state money to serve their own communities.

On its modest budget, NEA funding now reaches every state, every congressional district, and even most counties — rural and urban — in the United States. Grants fund programs in schools, libraries and military bases. Nearly half the grants go directly to state and regional arts organizations to expand grass-roots efforts. NEA grants never pay overhead or annual expenses. They only fund specific programs of artistic and educational excellence that reach the public."
--
"The arts in America wouldn’t be destroyed if the NEA ceased to exist. But music, dance, theater, literature and visual arts would become less widely available, especially in schools, rural areas and poorer communities. Access to culture should not be a function of family income. That is why citizens should remind their representatives in Washington that the NEA needs to be protected. Believe it or not, most members of Congress will be pleased to get these letters.

Public support for the arts and arts education is neither a partisan nor a divisive issue. Most Americans want to see the arts in their communities and their schools. Most members of Congress agree. So do most governors and state legislatures. A 2016 public opinion poll conducted by the advocacy group Americans for the Arts found that 55% were in favor of doubling the NEA’s budget (from 46 cents per person then to $1 per person)."

Truth - eliminating the tiny amount of the NEA budget resolves no issue and addresses no problem. So why push for it?

I find it fascinating the writer from PJM is employed by a religious organization, which is exempt from paying taxes - if the writer were truly concerned about fair tax policies, shouldn't he argue that religious organizations should be taxed? So it isn't a tax issue or an economics issue - it's a cultural control issue. It also perpetuates hateful, demeaning, false and ignorant views about anyone who works in the arts - as the article's writer asks, "why should my tax dollars pay for your slacker son to be in a play when if had any talent he would not need any support to reach the heights of success and fame and wealth'.

A few million dollars supporting tens of thousands of arts programs is bad. Billions to subsidize oil companies or banking is good. Only art that is bought is good. The crap you make in your own community is crap, go get a real job, slacker.

The Republican party continues to show it opposes collaboration, open dialog, education, a free press, or anything which provides opportunities for the poor, for rural residents, for schools. Every argument about the arts they offer is debunked but they continue to lie and distort reality - the real problem, they say, is your sin of not being wealthy. Art is for the wealthy and talented - your creative contribution is a laughable pile of crap.

And, as usual, those ideas are held only by a small, angry, petty crowd of deplorable clucks who have a warped view of the world. They simply lust for power for it's own sake while claiming to be your Protectors. 

Congress Holds Hearings on Theology

Why is a House Judiciary Committee holding hearings on theology? Seriously, why? It can't be legal. Just look at the reality here - some Christian faith based attorneys want to warn Congressman their is a war on religion in America. 

The Chair Bob Goodlatte of the committee said:

"Indeed, the founding fathers feared the effect of government on the free exercise of religion.  In a letter dated June 12, 1812 to Benjamin Rush, John Adams stated that ‘[n]othing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion.’

And then he meddles with it.

Here is the video of Congressman Louie Gohmert demanding a pastor accept his view of Christianity. Why is this Congressional business?





That witness has his say afterwards:

"t got even stranger. Soon Gohmert was talking about a “Seinfeld” episode where the character Elaine became upset to learn that her boyfriend was a Christian. This led to the real zinger: “Do you believe in sharing the good news that will keep people from going to hell consistent with the Christian beliefs?”

How can these hearings be legal?

The Empty Slogan Act for 2014 Re-Election Campaigns

My Congressman, Republican Phil Roe, sent an email this morning echoing the party's press release with some words meant to gain attention - like "easing the pain at the pump" - mostly sounding like "gosh these gas prices are high and darn that Obama".

It was to draw attention to some legislation passed this week in Congress, called the "Lowering Gas Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014". Except there was really zero action to push prices down, but to open up more drilling for oil and natural gas. More product might in a few years cause prices to fall ... maybe. 

But really, it's the endless Wall Street speculation on commodities that drives prices. And worries from speculators about what continuing war in the Middle East might do to supplies and/or prices.

It's more of an Act which allows congress folks campaigning for re-election to say "I voted for the Lowering Gas Prices Act, but the Senate and Obama were against it."

Call it the Empty Slogan Act for 2014 Re-Election Campaigns.

Congressional Folks Sway and Sort of Sing

With Congressional approval ratings hitting a low of 16%, the moment yesterday when House and Senate leaders held hands, swayed and sort of sang along to "We Shall Overcome" is quite bizarre.

The moment occurred during a ceremony commemorating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Given the years of hostile refusals to work together, the song perhaps which might have been more akin to Congressional action is "We Shall Not Be Moved".

Rep. Roe Wrong Again

Again my congressman, Dr. Phil Roe, and other congressmen are doing it wrong.

He has joined others in proposing a law that says if Congress does not pass a budget then they will refuse their pay. Here's the deal:

It's the fundamental job of Congress to pass a budget, job one. They've wiggled away from that and instead take a pose of pretension. They are supposed to be paid for doing their job - not vow and legislate to reject pay for failing to do their jobs.

And a simple online search shows the idea came from a blog rant last year.

Do your jobs - don't promise to not do it. Many elected officials have returned or refused pay without making laws about it. Deceptive poses may be pretty but they remain deceptive.

Babar Goes To Washington; or Who Ordered The You-Know-What Sandwich?

The Republicans in Washington need an update to their symbol.

The above image captures what I imagine might be the self-image of many a Republican in Washington.(And yes, it pleases me to irritate said group by linking them to French children's literature.)

And let's be honest - the entire Congress under Republican rule for the last few years ranks as the worst-performing and most disappointing since records on performance have been kept. Writer Ezra Klein refers to them as the "rottenest in history" and the "Wile E. Coyote Congress":

"What’s the record of the 112th Congress? Well, it almost shut down the government and almost breached the debt ceiling. It almost went over the fiscal cliff (which it had designed in the first place). It cut a trillion dollars of discretionary spending in the Budget Control Act and scheduled another trillion in spending cuts through an automatic sequester, which everyone agrees is terrible policy. It achieved nothing of note on housing, energy, stimulus, immigration, guns, tax reform, infrastructure, climate change or, really, anything. It’s hard to identify a single significant problem that existed prior to the 112th Congress that was in any way improved by its two years of rule.

"The 112th found legislating so difficult that lawmakers repeatedly created artificial deadlines for consequences and catastrophes intended to spur them to act. But like Wile E. Coyote with his endless supply of Acme products, when the 112th set a trap, the only sure bet was that it would explode in its collective face, forcing leaders to construct yet another hair- trigger legislative contraption."

Ouch!

They invented a fiscal crisis, wailed about it endlessly and barely acted in time to delay the consequences until the last possible moment, which gave most of the Washington representatives from Tennessee time to show off their failings.

My Congressman, Rep. Phil Roe, issued a statement after voting no on the plan approved this week - "Washington cannot continue to tax, borrow and spend."

Um ... isn't that pretty much a major chunk of what government does? Too bad he always says No rather than offering a more positive idea, say, maybe "Government needs to invest in America" - it's education, infrastructure, technology, etc etc.

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker doesn't sound much better as he offers his view on voting for the plan to avoid fiscal meltdown:

"I looked at the policy of where we were going to be if we didn't pass it or where we would be if we did, and while it was like eating a you-know-what sandwich to vote for this, to me it was a right of passage to this quarter." 

(NOTE to the writer of the article cited above - you mean "rite of passage" maybe? Tsk Tsk.)

Best Political Website of the Month

It's really not a website, but a Tumblr account: Floor Charts is an archive photo collection of all the charts brought up to the floor during debates and comments In Congress. They range from awful made-at-the-last-moment monsters to the oddest moments imaginable and of course, lots of colored charts, shapes and lines.

Approval of Congress at 6% - Or Less

"Some lawmakers wonder if members of Congress have even single-digit approval from the public. 'I’d like to meet the 6 percent who approve of Congress,' said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who has often voted in ways that help hold up legislation, because he is seeking deep cuts in spending. 'I just don’t know who they are'.” (via)

Hold Up legislation, that's probably the best description of the witless behavior in Congress.

Light Bulbs and Economic Nightmares

Is it really likely that the political opponents to President Obama (and any Democrat) will embrace economic failure in hopes it would hurt a re-election of Obama (or any Democrat)?

A very strong indication of this took place during a vote Tuesday in Congress - a vote based on emotional madness which rejects facts and instead embraces myths.

As I mentioned yesterday, Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn (and every Republican representative in the state signed on as co-sponsors) wailed that the evil liberal government was poised to outlaw the humble light bulb and eliminate all humble incandescent light bulbs. None of their claims were true. And in a push to get a vote to repeal energy efficiency, they needed a two-thirds majority to pass their bogus bill. The failed - only two TN reps., Cohen and Cooper voted no. Reps. Black, Blackburn, DesJarlais, Duncan, Fincher, Fleischmann, and Roe all voted to support the fake fears of light bulb bans.

Industry leaders all pointed out before the vote just how the plan to increase energy efficiency actually is driving innovation and job creation:

"Blackburn and others also note that most CFLs – Blackburn in her House floor speech Monday said “all” – are made in China, and that the last major General Electric plant making ordinary incandescent bulbs, in Winchester, Va., closed last September, taking 200 jobs.

Those bulbs, which the Natural Resources Defense Council, a Washington-based think tank, says waste 90 percent of the electricity they consume as heat, cannot meet the energy standards that go into effect in 2012.

But the NRDC notes that the 2007 increased efficiency standards have been embraced by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the trade association for domestic light manufacturers, as well as the leading manufacturers themselves.

The NRDC points out that the standards have “jump-started domestic industry investment in research and development and production of more efficient lighting products.”

It points to a factory in St. Marys, Pa., retooling to make more efficient incandescent bulbs, a new factory for CFLs opening in Ohio this year and “thousands of jobs” being created by companies such as Cree, Lighting Science Group and Phillips Lighting.

The NRDC also released a statement quoting Barry Edison Stone, the great-grandson of the inventor of the incandescent bulb, suggesting proponents of the repeal of the higher standards are “narrow-minded.”

And again, more facts get ignored:

"The law does not ban the use or manufacture of all incandescent bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of compact fluorescent ones. It simply requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work a bit better, meeting a series of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014.

Furthermore, all sorts of exemptions are written into the law, which means that all sorts of bulbs are getting a free pass and can keep their energy-guzzling ways indefinitely, including “specialty bulbs” like the Edison bulbs favored by Mr. Henault, as well as three-way bulbs, silver-bottomed bulbs, chandelier bulbs, refrigerator bulbs, plant lights and many, many others."

So if folks like Blackburn and other Republicans across the nation knowingly distort facts and reality over light bulbs - then how much more distortion are they willing to endorse in a fantasy of economic policy?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bachmann and Blackburn Stir Fear With Fake Light Bulb Ban

"The cost per each new high-efficiency bulb does tend to be a bit higher, Appliance Standards Awareness Project executive director Andrew deLaski said, but the savings achieved through lower energy costs evens that out in an average of six months.

In total, Americans stand to save $12.5 billion a year under the news standards." (via)

Tennessee's Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn is promoting a frenzied warning that your American Freedom is under attack by Evil Liberal Light Bulb laws -- and she is totally wrong.

She's making bogus claims that incandescent light bulbs are about to be illegal, banned, and instead everyone will be forced to buy only compact flourescent (CFL) bulbs -- in her email she hysterically and wrongly says:

"In 2007, Congress passed legislation known as the "Energy Independence and Security Act" which contains a subsection that bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012.

"The banning of incandescent light bulbs is another attack on the basic individual freedom of every American.

And then she pushes a petition for you to sign, which reads:

"I strongly object to the attempts of liberal Democrats to take away yet another or our individual freedoms! I wholeheartedly support Congressman Blackburn in her efforts to repeal that section of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which will ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. I demand the right to continue to purchase incandescent light bulbs - one of Thomas Edison's greatest inventions."

Her claims are false.

Blogger Southern Beale calls her out in this post There Is No Light Bulb Ban.

How about a few facts to counter the lies of folks like Rush Limbaugh and presidential wanna-be Michelle Bachmann?

"There’s a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly,” said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. “There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”

The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting’s Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.

But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.

The line, for now sold exclusively at Home Depot and on Amazon.com, is not as efficient as compact fluorescent light bulbs, which can use 75 percent less energy than old-style bulbs."
---
"Given how costly the new bulbs are, big lighting companies are moving gradually. Osram will introduce a new line of incandescents in September that are 25 percent more efficient. The bulbs will feature a redesigned capsule with higher-quality gas inside and will sell for a starting price of about $3. That is less than the Philips product already on the market, but they will have shorter life spans. G.E. also plans to introduce a line of household incandescents that will comply with the new standards.

Mr. Calwell predicts “a lot more flavors” of incandescent bulbs coming out in the future. “It’s hard to be an industry leader in the crowded C.F.L field,” he said. “But a company could truly differentiate itself with a better incandescent.”

(source)

Also, Reps. Blackburn, Bachmann seem to be focused on preventing innovation and facts:

"The hubbub has been deeply irritating to light bulb manufacturers and retailers, which have been explaining the law, over and over again, to whomever will listen. At a Congressional hearing in March, Kyle Pitsor, a representative from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents makers of light bulbs, among others, patiently but clearly disputed claims that the law banned incandescent bulbs. He restated the law’s points and averred light bulb makers’ support for the law. As usual, it seemed as if no one was paying attention.

Last week, for example, in the middle of Lightfair, an annual trade show for the lighting industry, Philips unveiled a winged LED bulb with a promised life span of 25,000 hours and a price tag of $40 to $50. The Associated Press reported its cost as $50, and Fox News ran the story with the headline “As Government Bans Regular Light Bulbs, LED Replacements Will Cost $50 Each.” Mr. Beck, Rush Limbaugh and conservative bloggers around the country gleefully pounced on the story, once again urging the stockpiling of light bulbs.

Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the electrical manufacturers association, offered his take on the situation: “Unfortunately people do not yet understand this lighting transition, and mistakenly think they won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. This misinformation has been promoted by a number of media outlets. Incandescent light bulbs are not being banned, and the new federal energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs do not mandate the use of CFLs. My hope is that the media can help the American people understand the energy-efficient lighting options available, as opposed to furthering misconceptions.”

---

The law does not ban the use or manufacture of all incandescent bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of compact fluorescent ones. It simply requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work a bit better, meeting a series of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014.

Furthermore, all sorts of exemptions are written into the law, which means that all sorts of bulbs are getting a free pass and can keep their energy-guzzling ways indefinitely, including “specialty bulbs” like the Edison bulbs favored by Mr. Henault, as well as three-way bulbs, silver-bottomed bulbs, chandelier bulbs, refrigerator bulbs, plant lights and many, many others."

As was noted in a post at the Frum Forum:

"Major lighting manufacturers helped draft the new standards so that they could avoid a patchwork of state standards. They are fighting the repeal proposal because it threatens to strand the investments they have made to retool and produce lighting products that meet the standards.

In addition to claiming that the incandescent bulb is being banned and that we are all going to be forced to use compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), Barton is also saying that bulbs meeting the new standards are cost prohibitive.

Again, not true. A Philips incandescent bulb that meets the new standards currently sells for $1.49, lasts about 50 percent longer than older incandescent bulbs, and saves consumers more than $3.00 in energy expenditures. For four bucks you can buy an incandescent that lasts 3000 hours and nets you more than $10 in energy savings.

If you want to save even more energy you can buy CFL or LED bulbs. While LEDs cost more, the energy savings are about $150 per bulb and they last so long you might want to bequeath them to your children.

Barton’s irresponsible and embarrassing legislation would accomplish nothing good. It would provide consumers with inferior products that burn out faster and result in higher energy bills. It would threaten the lighting industry’s investment dollars. It would waste energy and result in more pollution.

And for what, a fanciful narrative about how the big bad government is taking away our lighting choices?

Legislation establishing common-sense efficiency standards for energy-using equipment has traditionally enjoyed overwhelming support from conservatives. The first such legislation was signed into law 25 years ago by President Ronald Reagan. Thanks to the legislation enacted by Reagan and similar laws signed by his successors, Americans are saving billions of dollars on their utility bills."

Alexander, Corker Vote No On Punishing Rapists

Tennessee Senators Alexander and Corker decided to vote against a proposal to allow victims of rape to have a day in court - along with 28 other Republican senators this week. I'd bet that vote will not be mentioned in their campaign fliers and stump speeches for re-election. Tennessee voters and Tennessee media outlets should ask them to explain why they oppose allowing rape victims to prosecute their attackers in a court of law.

The case has been lightly covered by the national media, despite congressional hearings which examined the sexual assault of a 19 year old American woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, who was working in Iraq with Defense contractor Halliburton/KBR. Jones was drugged by male co-workers and gang raped in 2005, she was sodomized and her breast implants were ruptured during the attack. When she complained to her bosses, they locked her into a shipping container with no food or water for 24 hours under armed guard. She was able to get a cell phone thanks to a sympathetic guard and contacted her parents, who then contacted Congressman Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, who helped encourage the State Department to remove her from KBR custody.

A long battle then began - KBR argued that Jones signed an agreement that disputes with her employer would be handled via arbitration only - no public court hearing allowed. They added a new policy for employees, too, banning the use of cell phones for personal calls. In September of this year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that she does have a right to bring her case to court, that being gang-raped, drugged and held prisoner are not actions to be regarded as "work-related".

Sen. Al Franken introduced and passed legislation to withhold tax payer dollars and contracts to Defense companies if they restrict employees from taking cases of sexual assault and battery to court. And 30 Republican senators - including Alexander and Corker - voted against the legislation. Even America's Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the legislation.

Senators who voted No include Sen, John McCain and others:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html

Since Jones first brought her case forward, many more other women working with the contractor have told how they too were sexually assaulted by Halliburton/KBR employees.

It's a shame the Senators Alexander and Corker support lawless and brutal crimes, hold Defense contractors above the law and consider rape and assault worthy of secrecy.

The War of Words on Iraq

Intense debate today in Congress about the status of the war in Iraq and what the next steps should be or could be, all airing on CSPAN for the next few hours.

Lots of clips and snippets and rhetoric will filter through the news services from this debate, some will moan and wail that the Democrats are evil whiny quitters, and some will find members of the GOP as the only true patriots in America.

Boiling down the vast complex issues regarding Iraq to li'l quotes is a fool's errand.

James Joyner of Outside the Beltway has some thoughts worth pondering on the interim report regarding the status of the "18 benchmarks" necessary for progress in Iraq (didn't we already claim an accomplished mission?):

"Essentially, despite AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) comprising something like five percent of the insurgency, we have diverted most of our resources to combating it. And we’re failing. Not only is AQI stronger but, as another report being released today suggests, al Qaeda in general is enjoying a resurgence.

Meanwhile, the ISF (Iraq Security Force) continues to be an undependable, lackluster fighting force four years into the game. That, despite their training having been headed up by the counterinsurgency guru who’s now in charge of the whole shebang.

To be fair, the full complement of troops that made up the Surge are just now coming into place. When this was announced, President Bush warned that we would not see immediate results ...

"At the same time, the Iraqi government is, by the White House’s own admission, making essentially no progress on any of the meaningful milestones. It has long been an article of faith among both supporters and critics of the war that it would not be won militarily but politically. There’s not much sign that either are happening."

One item of note -- it is astonishing to me to hear numerous congressmen dismiss as 'irrelevant' that the U.S. was given false information to justify the invasion, or that the strategies of the last 4 years have yielded little success. We are where we are, they say. And yet somehow, for Congress to urge and support a whole new strategy is the most dangerous act imaginable.

I have often wondered what the status of unrest and warfare might be in the mideast today has our strategy been to establish a thriving, successful non-terrorist-ridden nation in Afghanistan first before diverting attention to the nation of Iraq.

I likewise wonder if a society such as ours, who stand irritated in front of a microwave oven fuming mad over how long it takes to cook food, is taking time to think rationally about this war. I also remain befuddled that the nefarious goals of a few hundred or few thousand of radical terrorists are enough to confound politicians and elicit emotional squeals of fear from so many.

In a few months when new elections for office in Washington are held, I'd wager American voters will have the final say and the plans of the current administration will be abandoned.