Cramer blames the Blues

There's a reason I don't link to Cramer, and this typifies it. (Link is to HBO post, which links to the Cramer drivel.) Cramer says you can tell you've upset an Idaho liberal

When you find that someone has subscribed you to email lists for repulsive gay pornography.


I suppose that this could be just random spam, but it appears that someone signed me up for this--and that sounds like the kind of stunt that I have learned to expect from the degenerates who represent the Idaho Democratic Party in the blogosphere.

So, Cramer admits it might be random spam, but instead just decides it's because we blue bloggers are "degenerates." First, nice name calling, Cramer. Second, yeah, that's right, insult folks even though you're unsure whether they did the act you're insulting them for. Third, does the term "hasty generalization" mean anything to you? All blue bloggers are degenerates, eh?Although there are more blue bloggers than red ones in Idaho, we Idaho blues would fit comfortably in a Chevy Subdivision, meaning that you've called me, Julie, MG, Chris, TVA, and others, degenerates. Please, explain how I am, or any of the others are, a degenerate. Fifth Fourth, any evidence you'd care to share about what caused you to learn to expect such treatment?

Sorry, but this post just seems to be a petulant, thoughtless, drive-by shooting.

I do appreciate him using the correct name for the Democratic Party.

Update: Changed the title that called Cramer a wanker. Since I'm criticizing him for name calling, I shouldn't be doing it. Also, got lost in my numbering, now fixed.

Softball

State of Idaho employees played a softball tournament on Saturday. Quite a few teams took the field, including Team Otter. The Gov missed the first game or two, but showed up later on. He was moving like man of his age, which is to say pretty good, since he had that hip replacement last winter.



The back of his shirt said "Governor." The back of Lori's said "First lady."



Interesting touch that his socks and belt matched his shirt.

Circling the drain

I predicted here a month ago that Sarah Palin had two weeks until she cratered, using McCain's words to Letterman about the economy. Well, obviously that was wrong.

Bubblehead called me on this, and I waffled, and suggested that I hadn't anticipated that Palin would be muzzled, and that if they ever let Palin talk to the media she'd have about two weeks after that until she flamed out. Well, that second prediction is looking pretty good. Palin is now losing conservatives.

Rob Dreher at beliefnet ("Conservative Politics and Religion") writes

Couric's questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero. ... New Palin excerpt up, in which she discusses why having Russia next to Alaska gives her relevant foreign policy experience. I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she's a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck:

Wow. Makes Bush look like Cicero. Ouch. Here's the "train wreck" Dreher refers to:



The gaffes and problems are now coming so fast that the McCain campaign is "surrounded by a swirling mass of Internet-generated rumors so thick that I expected to see Geraldo Rivera courageously standing amidst it in a rain slicker." Dave Berry. If Palin loses apologist Adam, then we know she's officially toast. Stand by.

h/t on the Dreher article to Andrew Sullivan.

Update: The Ticker is reporting

Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

Wall Street Bailout

I've been paying pretty close attention to this current financial crises. Of course, this makes me as knowledgeable and expert on the issue as I am about the cosmos, since I can see it from my house.

But, part of it is more simple than it seems. The "crisis" stems from mortgage backed securities. Supposedly many folks won't pay their mortgages, and the investors who bought clusters of these mortgages are worried about that failure to pay. The businesses who bought the mortgages, clumped them together (securities), and got other businesses to buy the securities are now freaked out that the mortgages won't get paid off, and that the businesses will still owe the payments to the purchasers. And of course the purchasers are worried that they won't get paid.

Anyway, bottom line, the fear is that folks won't pay their mortgages. So, why bail out Wall Street and buy the bad securities? Why not just insure the mortgages, i.e., why not just help out the home owners, and take away the fear that the mortgages won't get repaid.

Classic Republican trickle down economics. Help the rich guys because they'll then help out the poor guys. I guess that's finally been proven to be absolute stupidity. As someone else suggested today, if we're going to turn to socialism by nationalizing financial markets, why set it up to help the rich? Why not help the middle class and the poor. The rich have already done handsomely over the Bush years.

Airport chairs. WTF?

Having flown to Coeur d'Alene yesterday (and boy, are my arms tired! Har!), I noticed yet again airport chairs. I look at them, and I think "What are they thinking?" Here are the chairs in the Boise Airport.



Here are the chairs in the Spokane airport.



Note the similarities. Really exaggerated sway in the seat, and low armrests. Low backs. Realizing that it's fairly common that folks get trapped in an airport for hours, or overnight, and they try to sleep in these chairs, these chairs suck.

You can't lean back and snooze; the backs are too low. If you slide down far enough to rest your head on the back, your rear end is hanging uncomfortably off the seat. It's really tough to stretch out over several chairs because of the armrests. If you find a few chairs without the armrests, the sway back prevents comfort. Here's a pic of a guy who's trying that, but note how the sway-backed seats dig right into the middle of his back. You can't sleep like that.



So, I'm guessing the the clowns who make chair purchase decisions 1) don't get stuck in airports, and 2) have another outdated agenda. And that is, they think that they can't let folks fall asleep in airports because they'll sleep through boarding calls and miss flights.

Back in the day when flights weren't full, and when missing a flight didn't cost you, it cost the airline, it was important to ensure that travelers didn't fall asleep in the airport. Now if you miss the flight, it's either tough s*** on you because the tickets are nonrefundable, or you pay extra for the ability to reschedule.

So, how 'bout giving us some decent chairs? And, for just for the halibut, here's a shot of another traveling horror. That's right, the two seat belt seat mate.

Coeur d'Alene

I'm headed North to HBO country for a coupla days. It's always nice to get out of Boise and visit one of the more senic parts of the state.

Maybe I'll have time to try one of the famous burgers I keep reading about on HBO.

Wanker of the day

I thought Dennis Mansfield was becoming more reasonable. As he puts it, "more wag, less bark." But, he put up a post purporting to show that more troops were killed under Clinton's watch than under George Bush's.  Mansfield says that 14,107 troops died during Clinton's years, and 7,932 deaths under Bush's watch. How a person can even think this might be true, given that under Bush we're fighting TWO WARS, is beyond me.  Either he's dissembling, or he's not serious about accuracy. He says, snarkely

I don't recall any type of anti-war movement developing under President Clinton's admin. The numbers, though, scream off the page.

At least he included the link, so I checked it out.  Here's a screen shot of Mansfield's bogus claim. (Click to enlarge) (Note he dropped off some high-casualty Reagan years)



And here's a shot of the report he linked to.



Remember that a president takes office at the start of an odd numbered year. So, we have deaths under Clinton, 1993 - 2000, 8 years: 7500. Under Bush, 6 years shown on the graph: 8989. Most of Clinton's years were 3 digits, as opposed to the 4 digit death toll under Republicans. Add the 904 in 2007, and the 261 so far in 2008, source here, and the Bush total is 10,154.

Ya know Dennis, these are human lives we're talking about. Don't you care to check it out? Or are you so happy to diss Dems and promote Rs that you don't care. Are you simply trying to help keep Rs in power, military consequences be damned? Is it so important to keep Rs in power that you are willing to lie about Dems?

Here's my bottom line. Dennis is falsely using military deaths to promote Republicans. Please, STOP USING TROOPS TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS!

Wanker.

Update. Mansfield pulled the post, and apologized for posting unchecked info, so I withdraw the wanker. He didn't apologize for trying to score points off the troops, however.

h/t DailyKos

They eat horses, don't they?

I saw a short sidebar article in the Statesman, about 11 horses abandoned in Oregon. The horses were auctioned off at between $5 and $45.

There is a glut of horses right now. Feed prices have shot up (thanks, ethanol). Apparently one of the biggest factors was the closing of the only two remaining horse slaughterhouses in the US. Used to be that the slaughterhouses paid a base price, and sold the meat to Japan and France. Once the slaughterhouses closed, excess horse capacity developed, there was nothing to keep up a base price, and the price plummeted.

Given high fuel, i.e. shipping, it's also too expensive to ship them to Canada or Mexico. So, people are just abandoning the horses, which sometimes starve to death. Talk about unintended consequences.

Given Idaho's proclivity to live and let live when it comes to animals (reference dog and cock fighting), it's a wonder that the state outlaws slaughtering horses for meat.

Arrested for driving while drunk

The Statesman has a story today about Idaho's DUI laws, and it focuses on repeat offenders. There's a bit of discussion about whether Idaho's law is harsh enough.

I normally think that MADD is over zealous on this issue, but the spokesperson they quote had a good idea. Misty Moyse said

We advocate mandatory interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, including first offense," said Moyse, noting that people typically drive drunk close to 90 times before they're caught.

"Interlock" devices require drivers to breathe into them before the car can be started. The devices analyze blood alcohol level.

That makes more sense than stiffening up the penalties. Note her statement that people drive drunk 90 times before getting caught. That means that most drunk driving is victimless, and harmless.

Granted, a drunk driver is at much higher risk of causing an accident or injuring someone, right up there with cell phone users. Still, most of the time when someone drives drunk, nothing bad happens. Some folks who get a DUI lose their job, along with the fines and penalties. It seems that such punishment is too harsh for an instance when no harm occurred.

I'd prefer to make stiffer penalties for a DUI causing an accident or injury, and lower the run of the mill DUI penalty. The deterrent effect will still be there. I'd also favor the interlock being required after getting a DUI, or even before one if we could identify folks who'd benefit from it.

Sigh.

BTW, this is not supposed to be factually accurate. It just looks like what we seem to see and experience. It "feels" right.

10 voters

The Statesman reports that Rex Rammell gets to stay on the ballott saying 

The Idaho high court rejects an attempt by 10 voters and the GOP to disqualify the independent Senate candidate.

What the story doesn't do is identfy the 10 voters. Well, here ya go:

Doug Bunch, Vince E Carlson, Royce Neil Fifer, Chris L Henry, Patrick Brian Henry, Al Holl, Cole Shane Odom, David Parrie, Bob Prigge, and Eugene L Rice.

RNC Convention, part deux

Love the Frenchification.

I don't agree with a lot of what Gov. Mike Huckabee is saying, but, man, he says it well. He's a phenomenal speaker. Why didn't the R's nominate this guy? Or at least make him the VP. Romney was kind of a jerk, but Mike came across as likable.

Not to say that he's making sense, or sticking to facts, but he's fun to listen to. And, jeez, do we have to listen to the John McCain POW story again? I respect McCain's suffering, but that alone doesn't qualify him for Pres. And the treacly "earn the desk" story; please. Talk about an appeal to emotion. How does that relate to McCain/Palin being qualified for Pres?

Subliminal sabotoge

I guess MSNBC doesn't like Republicans. Here, for all you wingers, is proof. This first screen shot is of the graphics when the talking heads are, well, talking. It says "The Republican National Convention" at the top, and has an elephant logo at the bottom.



Here's a closer look at the elephant logo.



Here's the subliminal message. What is this?

Aren't mothers supposed to stay at home?

I really don't see how Idaho's most conservative Republicans can support Sarah Palin for VP. She has children still in her home, including a special needs baby.

You'll recall that Steve Thayn and his ilk killed stricter day care licensing and kindergarten legislation (all day kindergarten?) because they think that such things encourage mothers not to stay at home with the kids. They believe that mothers should be at home raising kids, not in the work force. How can they believe this and support Sarah Palin?

RNC Convention

Laura Bush came out to intro her husband's 8 minute satellite feed speech (boy, the Republicans are proud of that guy, eh?) wearing Nancy Reagan red. Really, that reference cannot be denied. I've never seen Laura wearing a full red ensemble, but Nancy frequently did at various R functions.

Also, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." No, not Laura, just Rs in general trying desperately to spin Sarah Palin into a reasonable VP pick, protesting pretty much ANY criticism of her and tossing out every possible justification of her, hoping it will stick.

Laura just claimed that "President Bush has kept the American people safe." Well, I didn't feel so safe when I was there at his behest, and I'm an American person. Also, to give him credit for preventing another attack requires that we also credit every president under whose watch we did not suffer a terrorist attack. and, since apparently he's directly responsible for a President's actions as related to terrorist activity, he also has to take responsibility for the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Palin, her daughter, and republicans

Yesterday the big political news was that Gov. Sarah Palin's 17 YO daughter is pregnant. Lots of too-ing and fro-ing. Reporters were asking about it, Dems were following Obama's lead by putting it off limits, and Republicans were furiously defending it.

Yep. I agree, it's a private family matter that the junior Ms. Palin is pregnant. Leave her alone.

This newly disclosed fact does raise a few issues. First, did McCain and Palin anticipate that this pregnancy would be an issue? Given Palin's staunch pro-life and fundamental religious values, you'd think that her daughter's failure to live up to those value woulds AT LEAST merit some note. So, either McCain and Palin failed to anticipate the reaction, or they anticipated it and proceeded ahead anyway.

If they didn't see it coming, is that the type of foresight we want from these leaders? If they did see it coming, they consciously tossed the 17 year old into the national spotlight.

Ms. Palin preaches abstinence and disfavors sex education in schools. Well, given her abilities and her strong support for these views, I have no doubt that her daughter was raised accordingly. Nevertheless, the girl got pregnant. So if a woman with Sarah Palins abilities can't get her daughter to abstain, why would she think that this is good policy for society in general? Why would she think this would be effective? I say, if it doesn't work in her household, it's not likely to work well anywhere.

The Republican commentators are saying, well, the girl made a mistake, all families have issues, the important thing is that the girl is loved, she's going to have the baby, get married, she's going to do the right thing. Essentially they're saying, there's nothing to look at here, move along. Okay. But if when a 17 year old unmarried girl gets pregnant it's not a big deal, then why do Republican social conservatives deplore sex before marriage and unwed mothers?

All in all, I believe this is the first of revelations to come. Sarah Palin is unknown to most of us, so anything we learn is new. If the new is notable, it will seem to be another revelation. More to come, I'm sure.