Bush = Idiot

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

Is Bush an Idiot? I dunno, but he's not the one campaigning against a sitting president who cannot run for re-election.

In Forrest Gump's Evil Twin (which, in the email I get from Alternet, is billed as "Bush = Idiot"), Stephen Pizzo continues the left's and liberal's interesting process of running against a president who cannot run again, and calling Bush, and folks who voted for him, and anybody who'd consider it or disagree with them about pretty much anything, idiots.

As Spock might say, "Fascinating, captain."

Pizzo writes:

How extraordinary. Something is happening here that has never happened in America's history. A consensus is sweeping the nation. Not that the war in Iraq is wrong, or that oil companies are screwing us blue, or that the climate is going to hell, or that good-paying jobs are being replaced by low-paying jobs, or that our national health care system is a disgrace, or that that the rich are getting a lot richer while the middle class gets poorer.

While all that's true, and more and more folks are getting it, that's not the consensus of which I speak.

Amazing. While I admit our health care system, although much better than it was 50 years ago, and more widely available (if lacking nostalgically pleasing house calls), could be much improved, what sort of alternate reality do these folks live in (oh, I forgot, duh: Alternet!). While opinion polls indicate a downward trend on the wisdom of Iraq, or how the war is going, or how it's being handled, a consense that the war is "wrong" simply isn't there. Except on the left. Maybe it should be there, maybe it would be if everybody understood how bad war is, but it's just not so. And there's no evidence to support such a claim. But perhaps I'm picking nits.

But someone should, because it doesn't stop there. Good-paying jobs (undefined by Pizzo, but let's define them as jobs paying $30k or above, for the sake of argument, although you could make that break just about anywhere) have been growing steadily. There are more now than ever before, and more now than there was last year and the year before that. By any actual measurement of the data. Maybe it has nothing to do with Bush or Repblicans, maybe it is a residual Clinton effect, maybe it's being engineered in secret by Democrats in congress, or maybe it would just be ten times better if we didn't have Bush in the Whitehouse. But that ain't the point. The point is, good-paying jobs are not being replaced by low-paying jobs. In fact, there are more of both.

Picking nits, yes. Okay. It could probably be better. John Kerry would have rocked our world, had we been smart enough to elect him. Certainly, being at War in Iraq, with all that entails, must be restraining the economy from where it would be, if only. But that's not the point. The point is, good paying jobs are not being replaced by low paying jobs by any measurement you can come up with. At least, not in America. I presume the author isn't referring to Europe or Canada and blaming that on Bush.

Ooops! Almost forgot about "oil companies screwing us blue". Yeah, they make a lot of money. Of course, most of that is enabled by politicians who then get to have their cake and eat it too by blaming the oil companies. And, the fact it, it's the price the market will bear. If it gets to be too much, we'll start biking everywhere, telecommuting, using alternative fuels--something. Right now, we aren't, because the high price of gasoline isn't too high for us to pay. And, by "screwing us blue", shouldn't that discourage such voracious consumption, thus protecting the environment? And lessening our dependence on foreign oil? Isn't that a good thing?

Part of the problem is the market. And the market would be much calmer if America allowed drilling in the Gulf and in ANWR. Apparently, the problem isn't bad enough to let us tap our own supplies, so I think "screwing us blue" may be hyperbole. But that truly is picking a nit: they make a lot of money, and we're paying a lot of money, so--admittedly, with our full cooperating--they are kind of screwing us blue. Okay.

Oh, and the rich getting richer while the middle class gets poorer? Well, there are two reasons that they don't say the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The first one is, of course, that the poor are getting richer, too. Just not as fast as the rich are getting richer. But they are getting richer. Which is a good thing, isn't it? The second is, they feel their base in terms of votes and donations will be found in the middle class who feel squeezed in the modern economy, even if the external reality is, in fact, better than it has ever been in every conceivable way. So they want them to feel they are getting poorer, and need to vote for liberals.

But those measurements that show the middle-class getting "poorer" are, in fact, aggregate numbers. The ranks of the lower-middle class have been growing. Why? Upper- and middle-middle class folks falling downwards? No, indeed. It's the upper-lower classes and middle-lower classes breaking into the middle class. So what they are complaining about, in fact, is the poor getting richer. Because that puts more lower-middle class folks in the sample. Huh.

But let's get to the nut. The real argument that liberals have for their ideology and Democrats have against Republicans. And Steve Pizzo writes:

Here it is: The president of the United States is a moron.

Yes, stupid, dumb as common road gravel. And not figuratively, but literally. George W. Bush, president of the world's last remaining superpower, is a moron. Forrest Gump's evil twin.

And, after several other uses of "idiot" and "moron" and "worse President in history", he writes these nuggets:

One of the trademarks of a moron is contempt for facts that challenge the simple but comfortable fictions that rule their daily routines. You can drag a moron to a library, but you can't force him to learn.

In fact morons get downright testy when someone challenges what they think they know. We saw this trait earlier this week when Bush was asked if he thought Don Rumsfeld should resign. The moron lashed out at the questioner, dashed into his imaginary phone booth and emerged as The Decider. "I'm the decider," he pronounced, with Mussolini-like swagger. You see, scratch a moron and beneath that smirking, ignorance-is-bliss exterior, you discover a fundamental truth: Beauty may be only skin deep, but moron goes right to the bone.

And ironic comment from someone who gets all the major assertions in regards to verifiable information wrong.
Ah, well.

You can read it all for yourself. The implicit point Pizzo doesn't quite get to is, however, touched on by a commentor. Everyone who voted for or supported Bush is a moron, too!

The commentor writes:

I've got to a gree that George W is a moron. In fact, it could be said he's the moron's moron. However that's not the problem. The problem is, that when over fifty percent of yanks are morons(he did get reelected) the odds are you're going to end up with a moron as President.
Unkind i know but the truth often is.

Another writes:

Now we know why he is President. This non thinking, totally oblivious idiot is in complete and total denial. Just listen to his words. Its a form of brain washing. NO facts, no links, no information, just the rote repeating of his church leaders. Its amazing to sit back and watch. Its like an experiment and the results are shocking. How really pathetic that he relects millions of Americans.

An interesting complaint, given the author of the article also had no real facts, no links, no documentation for his assertions. But that's not an issue, naturally.

Okay, one more, any more you gotta go check the article out for yourself. There's nearly 300 comments on this, almost all of them of the "Bush is an idiot" type or, as a variation, "Bush is smart but evil". Like this one!

Here is another non-american opinion, for what its worth.
Thinking of Bush as a moron is a great mistake. Read the evaluations made of him by one of his college professors. That he is envious, vengeful, unprincipled, lazy, a liar and emotional illiterate and other beautiful attributes, I have no doubt.

But believing he is a moron and acting accordingly, has given the democrats and the oposition many catastrophic surprises.

His values are not the same as those of most of the people on this blogs, perhaps excfepting the currency trader, who I hope is not holding any dollars. Anybody here believes that he gives a damn about the people of Iraq - or any other of the people under his beloved dictators - whether they have a democracy or not? No, he cares about the revenues of the oil companies and he has done a tremendously good job on this. Not giving a damn for taking the average americans (and his voters) for a ride.

You can think about his other personal priorities and will probably arrive at the same conclusions, he and his friends are doing fabulously.

His goals are personal and short term, and for this he uses the people who still believe in the greatness of USA's values, those who are afraid of everything beyond their borders, those who are afraid of change, those who like him have as main values the number of digits in their bank account - often an offshore account. Those for whom civilization, culture, feelings and empathy don't mean anything.

Sheesh. Who knows? Maybe it'll work for them. Maybe it won't. The only thing I can guarantee you is that the approach isn't objective, factual, honest, or even-handed. And I'm dubious about how well "If you don't agree with us you're stupid" works as an argument for your point of view.

When Life Hands You Lemons, Cry, Scream, Stomp Your Feet and Give Up

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

With the economy rocking-and-rolling and unemployment dropping to (nearly) statistical full employment, what's the left to do? Why, complain about layoffs!

And complain they do. One example being a new book, written by someone who, by his own admission, has never been fired or laid off.

No doubt, French youth rioting has excited the American left. They always appreciate a good protest.

And they would surely like to see a little more protesting here. Yeah, all the illegal immigrants protesting against immigration reform they probably had not read, nor properly understood, was exciting, but most protests--from anti-war protests to protests against the evil behemoth that is Wal-Mart--have been anemic in the U.S. We haven't had a good, solid, multi-racial, cross-generational protest/riot in decades in this country.

So maybe the French have it right. The left needs to be fomenting resentment against employers and business and corporate America in general. Then, finally, we too can have some good, solid, car-burning, rock-throwing, tear-gassing riots in America, too.

I'm just speculating, there. What I can say for sure is that, since the riots, there has been a steady drumbeat from the left against corporate America, specifically focused on how bad corporate America is to its brow-beaten employees. And, frankly, this is the place where I think the American (and, let's be honest, the global) left turns from simply being wrong in their policies and strategies to pernicious. Because the message, implicit and explicit, is that you shouldn't take responsibility for your own life. That it is depressing and disheartening to see yourself as the source of your own achievements an success. That you shouldn't see yourself as the prime-mover in your own life, but rather a victim or beneficiary of forces outside of you that are too large and powerful for you to control or understand.

Oh, you whacky conservative, you might say. That's just more rabid right-wing hyperbole! The left isn't saying that.

Oh no? Well, check out How Secure is Your Job, by Laura Barcella.

This artile is a book review of The Disposable American, a book by Louis Uchitelle that takes the truly insidious view that your self-concept, and self-worth, should be determined by labor laws that prevent a company that no longer wants you working there to actually fire you or lay you off.

If it apparently the author's contention that the "insidious" self-help movement is "insidious" because it has encouraged workers to accept more responsibility for their own job security than necessary! Ack! I've barely started, and already my face is twitching.

As a brief personal aside, the best thing that ever happened to me was getting laid off. It's happened to me twice so far, and, although tough and difficult to get through at the outset--especially the first time it happened--my only regret now is that it didn't happen five years earlier, or that I hadn't just quit five years earlier. Or ten.

I'm not saying it was easy, and I'm not saying it wasn't a shock to the system, but there were much more interesting things to do and much better (or, at least, different) people to work with and interact with, and I've since enjoyed opportunities and personal growth that I can guarantee you never would have happened, had I never lost a job because the government made it too expensive and difficult to fire me.

To pretend that it is, generally, good for people to work in one place for their entire lives is bad enough. To pretend that putting your head down and staying in your cubicle and spending the rest of your life in your well-worn rut is good for your or your self-esteem is nuts. And how does it say anything positive about you that your company can't fire you or lay you off because there is a law against it?

And let's not even get to the negative impact such regulation has on employment. The fact is, our unemployment rate has fallen--again--while the French unemployment rate is rising and the unemployment rate among French youth is around 23%.

But perhaps the book isn't entirely destructive. He does say this:

First of all, there is an oversupply of skilled people relative to the jobs that are available. And secondly, we don't properly measure the damage to the companies themselves and the productivity that comes from job security.

The first, in my opinion, is not a negative. It is a positive. It's good for the economy and society as a whole to have an oversupply of skilled labor, even if it's not a lot of fun to be skilled in certain things that are at a saturation level in the economy. But some of those people will learn new disciplines, and be able to apply their old skills to their new discipline. And others will find a way to apply their skills by starting a new business, becoming a consultant, or doing something else that is adaptive in a way that contributes to the overall economy and improves their own lives.

It's the second part I agree with. The hire-fire cycle isn't great for the companies. And an effort to inform companies that it's not a good business strategy to hire and fire based on this quarter's results is a good idea.

But is the hire/fire cycle really bad for the employees? Only if they let it be. In most cases, it's a positive. Time to finally start that business they've been thinking about. Or to become a writer. Or spend a few solid weeks developing a new skill, and add that to the resume. It's the individuals choice to respond to getting laid off by sitting around in their underwear watching Oprah and feeling sorry for themselves. While they may do it, it's certainly irresponsible and unproductive to encourage it.

Unfortunately, encourage it they do.

To people who are, in effect, told that this is a be-your-own-manager society, when they're laid off, [it's implied] that they don't have value as workers -- and that's a considerable psychological blow and a source of mental illness.

Aw, jeeze. Getting laid off is a source of mental illness. Great. Assuming there could possibly be something to it, wouldn't working in a crappy job for decade after decade also be a source of mental illness? In which case getting fired might actually be a source of mental health and personal development? Can't it effect your self-worth to in a rut, year after year, somewhere that doesn't appreciate your contributions even if they don't--or can't--get rid of you? Can't spending your time in an insular group of people, often in the same boss/employee relationship year after year, be destructive? Cause the employee to lose perspective? Make them too fearful to look for a better job or strike out on their own?

And, so what? If someone implies that I don't have value as a worker--well, fine, I'm a whole lot more and better than "a worker". I'm not a worker-bee, dudes, I frickin' rock. What kind of crap is that?

If someone is taking a layoff as something more than, "Hey, this ain't workin' out," that's the problem, not that they got laid off. If they were doing a good job and they know it, if they've got skill and they know it, if some corporate flack doesn't get it, whose fault is that? Whose loss is that? It's theirs, not yours. If a layoff is a huge blow to the self-esteem--and it can be, I'm not saying it can't be--then the problem is that the person was too tied up in their job in the first place. And getting laid off will only help them break that bad habit.

But it means that people don't get back into the work force using all their old skills. They don't take risks, and they suffer. It's a memory that undermines them for many years.

When true, then that is the problem--that getting laid off can be a memory than undermines them for years. Not that they got laid off and not that businesses have the discretion to hire and fire at will. And they don't take risks if they get laid off? They were taking risks when they stayed in the same old rut of a job, being the cubicle monkey for their self-centered creep of a boss, working hard at doing the pointless busywork their out-of-touch manager assigned them, while all the time that guy was just going to fire them on a whim, anyway? Come on.

Folks who wait to get fired from the second-rate company they've been working for half their lives are not big risk takers by nature. It's just a fact.

[W]e all have a life narrative, and work is part of that narrative, and the narrative is part of our identity. If you take away the work and the identity that comes with the work, you interrupt the life narrative.

Ugh. You know, maybe the work part of the life narrative sucks and we aren't doing anything about it, and getting fired will be the best thing that could possibly happen to us. Maybe it's time to end that chapter, and start a new one, picking up a new narrative. Maybe labor laws should have nothing to do with "life narratives" and more to do with what makes the best economy for the largest number of people. Maybe.

The author (who is writing this book, and has never been fired or laid off!) also says:

In fact, there's any number of statistics that show that we have skilled people in excess of the demand for them. Thirty-seven percent of all airline attendants have bachelor's degrees. You don't need a bachelor's degree to be an airline attendant. It's nice to have it.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, quoth Samuel Clemens. And, the fact is, you can get a bachelors degree in areas that have nothing to do with being employable or having marketable skills, but have a lot to do with attracting young folks and their parental money to a particular college or university. You can also get bachelors degrees in fields or areas that are obscure, not profitable to work in, or are way over-saturated and have been for decades. And no labor law can change that. Even a law to make all BAs and BFAs be available only in in-demand fields will result in those fields being saturated by the time the second or third generation of graduates came out. And would leave very little room for individuals to find what they are best at, anyway. In the end, it's not the bachelor's degree, or lack thereof, or the lack a government law to make good jobs that makes these folks flight attendants. Those people decide to take and keep those jobs, for a variety of reasons. And that's the beginning and end of it. The rest is just padding.

In addition to never having been laid off, I'm not sure the writer has ever run a business, or has much an idea of how one might be run, given his description of the "taking down of barriers to layoffs" that happened between '77 and '97 (according the author):

As one barrier [to layoffs] after another came down, the layoffs went up. We had a steel company shutting down mills, and there was uproar about it, attempts from the communities and the unions and church groups to buy the mills and keep them open, then that disappeared. We gradually acquiesced to the process.

Why did the efforts to keep the mills open disappear? Because it was too expensive to profitably run the mills? Because the unions made it impossible to produce steel and compete? Maybe they "acquiesced" to the process for the same reason we might "acquiesce" to the weather. Obviously, if there was an uproar, and they had been able to keep the mills open and run them profitably, they would have.

Then, this cryptic bit:

That might require, perhaps, some recognition that the private sector -- by itself, even with the best will in the world -- cannot create enough jobs to keep people fully employed at good wages.

And what is the implication? That we can create enough jobs to keep people fully employed at good wages with government intervention? And doesn't that beg the question as to why the only nations in the world at or near statistical full employment (including the US) are the countries where there is the least government intervention and the most leeway is given to the hiring and firing of employees?

The article wraps with Louis Uchitelle complaining about how Who Moved My Cheese? tells people to take responsibility for their own careers, and that if they get laid off, they should go find another job rather than sit on their butts and complain about it. That's a terrible message, according to Louis (who was never been laid off, I remind you) and extremely damaging to the self-esteem. Yikes! It makes them responsible of their own lives, instead of putting the responsibility for their lives on their employers, the government, and unions.

Sorry, Louis, but that's exactly backwards. It's fantasizing that your life is somebody else's responsibility, in any way, shape, or form, that is a destructive and damaging message. To suggest that anybody other than you is responsible for your general happiness, self-esteem, and the success or failure of your career, is damaging. It's an attitude that advocates sitting around and blaming others, ineffectually, for problems and difficulties that are part of a productive and interesting life, instead of advising them to take action, take advantage of the difficulties they face, and use them to grow, change, and create something positive.

But then, that's not the message of the modern American left. The message of the modern American left is, "When life hands you lemons, throw them on the ground, stomp your feet, cry about it, then curl up into the fetal position until someone passes a law saying that life isn't allowed to hand you lemons any more."

Best of luck with legislating that one, guys.

Illegal Immigrants and Democrats Think We're Stupid

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

One day, they show up waving Mexican flags and flying Spanish language banners that claim California for Mexico.

The next day, they are draped in American flag hats, t-shirts, and headbands reciting talking points provided by International ANSWR (the modern form of the American Communist Party, by the way). Talking points that are clearly focus-tested to soothe the savage breast of the hard-hearted and soft-headed American voter.

What happened to all the Mexican flags? The signs proclaiming California, Texas and Arizona as the rightful provinces of Mexico? The Liberal Spin Machine is working the issue for the cameras. And the press cooperates.

So, did you hear anybody in the press noting how all the illegal immigrants were draped in the flag at the recent protests? What happened to the Mexican flags? They were, in fact, collected, where possible, by protest organizers to make a more media-friendly crowd. And where are the Spanish-language signs? Same. The vaguely anti-American rhetoric? The media conveniently missed it, or didn't consider it newsworthy (but they aren't biased, of course, or trying to shape the news).

It stuck out to me. It was obvious. But the mainstream news didn't even notice the difference.

And, literally, the illegals were draped in the flag. American flag arm bands, American flag head bands, American flag capes and bags and shorts and shirts and pants and blankets. Going so far overboard to show their "patriotism" (while they break our immigration laws and move much of their economic output, in the form of their paychecks, to the parasitical Mexican economy) should make any objective observer dubious at the very least.

And we're supposed to believe that these people, who are breaking American laws--and often not just immigration laws but labor laws as well--"love" America? No, they love American money and largess. They love American social services, and they love taking money under the table from American employers who ought to know better. And no amount of American flag T-shirts are going to change that.

But perhaps all is not lost. Recent polling indicates that average Americans on both sides of the political spectrum were turned off by the recent protests. While politicians will probably still look at them as future voters and take no real action to, say, make them obey the law or make any attempt to assimilate, average Americans aren't swayed by angry, sometimes racist, sometimes anti-American, protestors. No matter how many American flag headbands they put on.

Perhaps it's because illegal immigrants should be made to obey the law, and that blanket amnesty is just a bad idea. But it could also be because the protestors, and the folks organizing them, think we're stupid. If anything is turning average Americans off, I think it's probably how stupid, shallow, and gullible the protestors, and the protest organizers, clearly think us "average Americans" are.

Pedophiles and the Department of Homeland Security

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

How can this happen? It's because Republicans are in power! If only Democrats were in power, we'd live in a magical land where the bluebirds sing us awake in the morning and money grows on trees!

In Pedophiles in Our Midst, Christy Hardon Smith tells tales of prosecuting pedophiles, and of the incurability and recitivism of pedophiles, that I’m pretty sure would not find a sympathetic ear with the left, were in not being told about someone they can characterize as being a Bush administration crony. Because the implication is that some people are just bad. And can’t be fixed. And need to be punished, or locked up for life. Which is usually anathema to the left. At least, until they are talking about members of the political right.

So, a fairly conservative point of view on the issue finding a home on Alternet. Interesting.

But the most notable thing about the article, to me, is the blurb, which I feel fairly certain was crafted by whoever edited the article for Alternet rather than Christy Hardin Smith:

Why is our government doing background checks on activists but not on its own staff?

Although, never having been convicted of any crime, no background check on Brian Doyle would have fingered him for anything. If only the government had been, say, listening in on all his phone calls . . .

But I digress. The point is, the government does do background checks on employees of all agencies associated with national security, including the DHS. There was just nothing, yet, on Brian. Now there will be.

But what I find most fascinating is the take of the rank and file Alternet readers commenting on the story. Take a look at the sort of thing your friendly neighborhood liberal has to say about the situation:

This is just more evidence that institutions that foster sexual repression (a la the Catholic church and the abstinence only Republican party) also seem to breed an excessive number of sexual deviants.

---

Isn't it interesting that some of the worst perverts are employed by the Cheney/Bush regime? IMPEACH ALL OF THE CHENEY/BUSH PERVERTS!

---

REAL NAZIS! Wake-up folks! These extremist republicans who are running the government are not interested in America for its people. They are hypocrites, liars , authoritarians, criminal scum, racists, extreme nationalists, just like the Nazi Party in Germany and the Fascist Party in Italy. We see them subverting all branches of the government. They believe they are above the law and morality and that they should rule the world for profit and glory, mostly for rich white Americans. Call them what you will, this is the reality. If Americans do not take back government from them, there will be a world conflagration just as in WWII. Most of the world has come to hate America just as it came to hate the Nazis and the Fascists. Sooner or later, they will do something about it, just as in the past.

---

Truly, amoral criminals are in charge of this government.

---

It is comforting to know that within the Bush administration at least there is one crime that you can commit that will have consequences, namely a sex related crime.

This is something, although I wish that the administration would also focus on other criminal acts, such as making up a phony case for war in Iraq, for example. Did I mention illegal wiretapping?

While I totally agree that Brian Doyle should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it seems to me that his immediate suspension without pay illustrates the administration’s obsession with sex, and their unrelenting focus on abstinence, contraceptives, gay marriage, pornography, and so on.

Should not some other administration officials, the list too long to include here, not also be immediately suspended?

---

Sadly, there is a correlation between a sexual predator who wants to dominate his victims and an administration that wants to dominate everyone, that defends torture.

Frankly, I'm surprised this wasn't Cheney.

---

And check this out. Oh. My. God. Here’s the real reason Alito’s wife ran from the room during the middle of Alito’s confirmation . . . George Bush is a closet pedophile (and still an alcoholic):

‘It seems that Judge Alito has a good-looking son, Philip, and when the family was at the White House recently to meet with Bush and his wife, the President somehow got the son alone and tried to kiss him!

The boy was outraged and told his father that Bush smelled like booze. The father said nothing, wanting the Supreme Court job, but the mother complained to Laura Bush."

Laura told her that ..."George is under so much stress these days, trying to protect America from terrorists that he 'slips' once in a while...."
...

I immediately passed this to a British newspaperman (Guardian) who shot back that a similar incident had transpired when Bush was visiting in England and it was a subject Not to be Discussed!

...

Right in the middle of the hearing on her husband's suitability for the Supreme Court, Ms Alito suddenly fled from the room, weeping. There was nothing going on at the moment that justified it. My source tells me she is furious because Bush is a pedophile and she is afraid that her son will get nailed by the sick creep. Her husband wants his new job and will do nothing to prevent him from getting into a position where he can destroy Roe v. Wade.

Also, apparently Bush is a repressed homosexual. Wow!

And it's amazing how often the left brings up barely repressed homosexuality as a precursor to pedophilia. I thought they were more sensitive about that stuff. Apparently not. But, again, I digress.

Anyhoo, please refer back to any of my previous posts of the left’s future problems regarding winning the hearts and minds of the American heartland. Or on the foolish choices they make. This is a prime example.

The big problem for the left, and Democrats, to be found here? These are the folks who end up picking the candidate during the nomination process. And these are the folks that need to be pandered to, and there’s no way to hide that pandering when it comes time to run in the general election.