rightwing hysteria

You Wanna Talk About Nazis? Let's Do

Dana Hunter1 Comment

ZOMG, the fearmongering stupidity never ends:

The argument that terrorists represent a graver threat than the Nazis did appears to be gaining traction among current and former Republican officials.

The latest to make the claim: GOP Rep Pete Hoekstra, at a press conference today announcing the GOP’s new “Keep Terrorists Out Of America Act,” which is designed to restrict the housing of Guantanamo detainees on American soil.

Asked by a reporter whether this wasn’t comparable to the detainment of Nazis in prisoner of war camps during World War II, Hoekstra said the two were “night and day” because of the threat of “homegrown terrorism” and because of 9/11…

This is a sign of how desperate these poor fuckwits are. They’re trying to equate a handful of fanatics to a political party that controlled an industrial war machine that devastated Europe, plunged the entire world into full-scale slaughter, and killed nearly 40 million people, including 6,000,000 Jews and other undesirables rounded up and butchered with less care and concern than we show for beef cattle. Al Qaeda’s killed what, maybe 10-20,000 people worldwide? Instead of a Reichstag, they’ve got caves.

But whatever. Let’s play the game. The terrorists are worse than Nazis, the horror, the horror. Obviously must compromise our moral standing, break domestic and international law, and torture the crap out of them in order to protect ourselves, etc. etc.

There’s a flaw in that so-called reasoning, even if we grant the “worse-than-Nazis” argument:

Christopher Hitchens has a column in Slate following up on President Obama’s mentioning of the British during World War II as an example of a nation that faced an overwhelming threat yet resisted the urge to torture those they had captured to get information from them. He adds some detail:

It would be reassuring to think that somebody close to Obama had handed him a copy of a little-known book called Camp 020: MI5 and the Nazi Spies. This was published by the British Public Record Office in 2000 and describes the workings of Latchmere House, an extraordinary British prison on Ham Common in the London suburb of Richmond, which housed as many as 400 of Hitler’s operatives during World War II. Its commanding officer was a man named Col. Robin Stephens, and though he wore a monocle and presented every aspect of a frigid military martinet (and was known and feared by the nickname “Tin-Eye”), he was a dedicated advocate of the nonviolent approach to his long-term guests. To phrase it crisply–as he did–his view was and remained: “Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information.”

[snip]

As Col. Stephens wrote, following the words quoted above about how “violence is taboo” and that it “lowers the standard of information”:

“There is no room for a percentage assessment of reliability. If information is correct, it is accepted and recorded; if it is doubtful, it should be rejected in toto.”

In other words, it is precisely because the situation was so urgent, so desperate, and so grave that no amateurish or stupid methods could be permitted to taint the source. Col. Stephens, who was entirely devoted to breaking his prisoners and destroying the Nazis, eventually persuaded many important detainees to work for him and began to receive interested inquiries “from the FBI and the North West Mounted Police, from the Director of Security in India to the Resistance Movements of de Gaulle, the Belgians and the Dutch.” It would be nice to think that even now, American intelligence might take a leaf from his ruthless and yet humane book.

This is the philosophy of a man who managed to break Nazi prisoners without so much as raising a finger. You can be ruthless without being Jack Bauer. And you tend to get better results by not running around living a Hollywood fantasy.

So, even if the terrorists really were worse than Nazis, we’re left with the fact that torture still isn’t justified. Oh, and as far as the Cons being too shit-scared to house terrorists in American prisons? I’ll leave it to Steve Benen and Jon Stewart to skewer their arguments:

The GOP argument is that the president, by closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, may move as many as 250 detainees to detention facilities in the U.S. Congressional Republicans want to make that next to impossible, arguing that Obama would put American lives at risk by bringing suspected terrorists onto American soil.

This is a very stupid argument.

There are multiple angles to this, but let’s cut to the chase: we already lock up some extraordinarily dangerous people in maximum-security facilities. Al Qaeda suspects may be scary, but they don’t have super powers. Obama isn’t going to just drop off bad guys on Main Street and ask them to play nice.

I’ll just quote Jon Stewart’s commentary from January, which summed up the problem nicely. In a message to Republicans, the “Daily Show” host explained:

“I know you guys are freaking out, but you know what we in these United States do better than anyone? Imprison people.

“We’ve got 2.3 million people locked up. Per capita, we’re #1… But these detainees are ‘the worst of the worst’; the creme de la crud; they want to kill Americans. Yeah, unlike our current inmate population of jaywalkers, cream puffs and boy scouts who only want to hug Americans [images of Charles Manson, Tim McVeigh, et al, on screen].

“Look, I know you’re Republicans so you don’t watch MSNBC, but check it out on the weekends. They have this 6-10 hour block called ‘Lockup.’ We can’t handle these piddly punks from Guantanamo? I’ll put a good, old fashioned, USA born and raised, brain-eater against any of those motherf***ers. Any of them. USA! USA!

From all of this, I can only conclude that the Cons are a snivelling bunch of morally-bankrupt cowards who believe making other people live out their Jack Bauer fantasies compensates for their lack of testicles. But then, we knew that already.

You Wanna Talk About Nazis? Let's Do
{advertisement}

10% of American States Legalize Same-Sex Marriage; 99.999% of Cons Have Hysterical Fits

Dana Hunter6 Comments

If you’re a lesbian or gay person attempting to avoid a lifetime commitment, it’s time to cross Maine off your list of States That Excuse You From Getting Married. And you shouldn’t make any plans for moving to New Hampshire, either. At this rate, soon no state will be safe, aside from the bastions of bigotry in the deep South and Utah. As Cujo says, it’s starting to look a little avalanchy out there.

The Cons, of course, couldn’t be less happy.

Here’s Michael Steele, who’s all for states’ rights so long as they don’t involve giving gay people rights:

After the RNC said he wouldn’t be issuing a statement on Maine’s decision to legalize gay marriage today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele is in fact condemning the decision, a position that puts him at odds with Maine’s moderate Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of whom said today the decision should be left to the states.

The RNC emails over this statement from Steele:

“Our party platform articulates our opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, positions shared by many Americans. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and strongly disagree with Maine’s decision to legalize gay marriage.”

Earlier today, Collins said on MSNBC that the decision is best “decided at the state level.” And Snowe’s office put out a statement citing her support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which leaves it to individual states to “make their own determinations on this very personal issue.”

Mmm, smell that hypocrisy! The only two people in the party who actually believe the Cons’ rhetoric about states’ rights are the two who get skewered for being too librul. How long before Limbaugh screams for the heads of Collins and Snowe, do you think?

In the meantime, a Con from Utah thinks he’s got the right to tell D.C. how to conduct its affairs:

Yesterday, the DC Council overwhelmingly approved a bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, by a vote of 12 to 1. It is the latest victory for LGBT rights, coming just days after the state legislatures in New Hampshire and Maine approved gay marriage, after Vermont became the fourth state to make gay marriage legal last month.

Marriage equality in the nation’s capitol, however, is too much for freshman Rep. John Chaffetz (R-UT), who is refusing to let the issue “go softly into the night“:

“Some things are worth fighting for, and this is one of them,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), the ranking Republican on a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that oversees the District. “It’s not something I can let go softly into the night. … I recognize the Democrats are in the majority, but I represent the majority of Americans on this issue.”

The City Desk noted Chaffetz’s Twitter explanation for why he would use Congress to intervene: “Why am I involved? Congress is set up to oversee the affairs of D.C. I am one of the Members of the relevant committee.”

Dylan Thomas called. He wants bigoted fucktards to stop quoting his poetry.

As far as representing the majority of Americans… eh. That’s debatable:

I don’t think the majority of Americans are such anti-gay fuckwits that they care passionately whether D.C. recognizes same-sex marriages or not. Quite the opposite, I’d say. And there might be a little bit of irritation at seeing the democratic process subverted by irrational homophobes. Just sayin’.

As for the anti-same-sex marriage zealots who were counting on Carrie Prejean to come to traditional marriage’s rescue… well, there’s a slight problem with her purity.

It’s not looking good for the crusaders, is it?

10% of American States Legalize Same-Sex Marriage; 99.999% of Cons Have Hysterical Fits

Oh, Dear. Orson's Off His Meds

Dana Hunter7 Comments

I like Orson Scott Card as a fiction writer. I do. He gave great advice to aspiring SF authors (well, aside from his uptight Mormon insistence that caffeine will make you a drugged-out hack, but that was only a paragraph and easily skipped). But when he babbles about things not pertaining to fiction, he’s an utter ass:

You really must see the absolutely unhinged claims he makes about gay marriage in an article in the Mormon Times, wherein he calls for outright revolution if the government allows gays to get married.

Like this:

Marriage, to be worth preserving, needs to mean not just something, but everything.

Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.

If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

And this:

[snip]

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

I don’t think this is merely an artifact of an uptight Mormon upbringing. It sounds to me like someone’s been hitting the teabags a little too heavily lately. Oh, and lacing them with hallucinogens. What was that about not doing drugs, Orson? Cuz rightwing hysteria’s a pretty potent psychedelic, there, buddy. You might want to wean yourself off before you end up stripped naked and shooting at cops.

That would just be a bad end to an illustrious career.

Oh, Dear. Orson's Off His Meds

The Teabaggers Make a Questionable Hiring Choice

Dana Hunter

OMFG.

The Teabaggers have hired a Media Training Coordinator:

Recognizing that the teabagging movement will never be taken seriously unless they grow beyond their astroturf roots and into a tree of liberty and low taxes for all but mostly rich people, the Tea Party Patriots (not to be confused with the more religious-minded Glory Holier Than Thous) are taking great pains to shape their ragged army of home-schooling moms, Randians, Scientologists, Social Security-collecting seniors who don’t like that damn hippity-hoppy music, Amway distributors who are going to be totally fucking rich, Neo-Nazis, birthers, embittered divorced dads with big dreams that never panned out, social maladroits (aka engineers), law professors from Tennessee, Birchers, Paultards, and Libertarians (see: maladroits, social) into a Lean Mean Message Machine.

[snip]

With this in mind, the Teabagging Patriots have acquired the services of “Media Relations Expert” Andrew Ian Dodge:

In an effort to assist the hundreds (if not thousands) of Tea Party Patriots who are now facing the media for the first time in their lives, we are pleased to announce that Andrew Ian Dodge has agreed to serve as a volunteer Media Training Coordinator for TPP. Andrew has already positively impacted many in the movement with his straight forward, hard hitting approach to media training.

As best I can tell, Mr. Dodge is a blogger (“bloggers who combine a taste for heavy metal music with a taste for heavy metal politics…”), an author (self-published), a rock star (more on that later) and a computer game reviewer.

TBogg has samples of his, ahem, “creative works.” I’m taking a biopsy of the tumor otherwise known as Andrew’s self-published book, and shall allow you to determine whether it’s benign or cancerous:

Andrew, for a change, was reading something entirely unrelated to his work. He was, as it were, reading for total pleasure for the first time in a very long time. He was reading a paperback copy of the latest from Tom Clancy. A book with not even a hint of the supernatural in it. It merely contained all sorts of rouges bent on destroying the United States and its allies.

TBogg has the rest of that passage (which, unbelievably, gets much worse). And a music video. I wish he’d provided complimentary brain bleach.

I’m left with just one question: do the Teabaggers seriously think this guy can help them?

The Teabaggers Make a Questionable Hiring Choice

Swine Flu Swine

Dana Hunter

Way to bring on the stupid, Arizona. Are you proud of electing these assclowns now?

In the wake of the swine flu outbreak, we have the inevitable calls for closing the borders with Mexico (h/t):

“A spokesman for Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Wednesday night that Franks believes the border should be closed right now except in critical cases or situations involving emergency personnel.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said all options should be considered to end the crisis involving swine flu, “including closing the border if it would prevent further transmission of the deadly virus.”

In a twitter message early Wednesday, McCain wrote “I said to Napolitano, ‘We need to be prepared to close the border with Mexico if the swine flu outbreak escalates further.'””

Regrettably, this idiocy seems to be bipartisan:

“Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) said the border should be closed until the threat is resolved.

“The public needs to be aware of the serious threat of swine flu, and we need to close our borders to Mexico immediately and completely until this is resolved,” Massa said in a statement.”

Hilzoy points out that, aside from the fact the disease is already here and happily spreading, border closures probably won’t do jack diddly shit, for the simple reason we can’t seal the damned border:

Unfortunately, the flu is infectious for about a day before people develop symptoms. That means that any attempt to screen people at the border will not work. (So much for those heat sensors.) You’d have to keep everyone out, period. We can’t do that even without an influenza epidemic; I have no idea why anyone thinks we would suddenly be able to do it now.

Earlier today, Ezra linked to a World Bank review of the literature on containing pandemic flu. It explains the pros and cons of various measures, and estimates of their likely effect, quite well (if a bit wonkily.) The discussion of travel restrictions starts on p. 30, though some of the terminology is defined earlier. The takeaway message is that even very effective border controls, including shutting down almost all air traffic, would have very little effect.

Franks, McCain and Massa’s ability to understand the simple reality of pandemics: epic fail. And unfortunately, they don’t lose their jobs for egregious stupidity.

But there is good news. The swine flu has claimed a deserving victim:

Conservative talker Jay Severin was suspended indefinitely today by Boston’s WTKK-FM after using the current swine flu outbreak to attack Mexicans and immigrants. On his radio show, Severin blamed the swine flu on what he called “some of the world’s lowest of primitives in poor Mexico”…

And that was the least of what he said. Hey, WTKK? Can we stretch that “indefinite” suspension out for, oh, say, the next 30 years?

I do so hope the swine flu continues to bring out the worst in right-wing radio hosts. It would be lovely to see a gaggle of racist gits swell the unemployment lines.

Swine Flu Swine

Swine Flu: The Terrarists Diddit

Dana Hunter

Newest wingnut theory: the swine flu is a terrorist attack:

Larry Klayman and the Worldnutdaily are a perfect match. If Michelle Bachmann is the prom queen at Wingnuttia High School, Klayman is her king. His latest bit of lunacy is in claiming that the outbreak of swine flu is an act of biological warfare. And the Worldnutdaily calls him an “anti-terrorism expert.” No, seriously.

With 40 confirmed cases of swine flu in the U.S., an anti-terrorism expert is questioning whether the outbreak is an act of biological warfare.

Freedom Watch, a public interest watchdog, believes that there is a very good possibility that the precipitous outbreak of the virus in Mexico, which has now spread to the United States and other western countries, is not the result of happenstance – but terrorism.

Anti-terrorism expert? Klayman knows as much about anti-terrorism as I know about the art of Origami. He’s a lawyer. A really bad lawyer who loves filing silly lawsuits. He’s what Larry Fafarman would be if he could get the dosages right. And you’re going to love his “evidence” that swine flu is spreading as an act of terrorism:

“What could be more clever than planting the seed in neighboring Mexico and allowing it to spread to the United States?” Freedom Watch asked.

This is the kind of shit that third-rate hack writers dream up, not terrorists. Guess what the Worldnut Daily’s made up of?

So’s the HuffPo’s “health” section. And the swine flu’s got the woo-meisters swarming like starving cockroaches on a dropped dinner:

Take “Dr” Wegmann at that execrable waste of bytes, the Huffington Post. This guy can’t even write a title without lying: 3 Sure-Fire Strategies to Prevent the Swine Flu.

Hey, fuck face: we don’t know enough about this thing yet to use the hack phrase “sure-fire”. Of course, that doesn’t really matter to you, you lying sack of excrement-filled kishkes. The lies pour out of you like pus from a diabetic foot wound (but less bonum et laudum). You actually go on to recommend fucking glorified massage therapy to prevent the fucking flu! That’s not even wrong! You reason that since chiropractic enhances the immune system (according to some dude–what, did you hear that at the bar?), that it is a “sure-fire” way to prevent the flu.

Now, ignoring (if that is humanly possible) the fact that rubbing someone’s back cannot prevent an infectious disease, and ignoring the vacuously meaningless statement of “boosting immunity”, even if we could “boost immunity”, who’s to say that’s a good thing? One theory for why the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 killed so many young people and spared the very young and elderly (unlike the usual flu) is that their relatively more robust immune systems killed them by over-reacting.

I love watching PalMD beat the woo-meisters to death. It’s awesome. And I’m sure plenty of beatings will follow.

Terrorist plots. Massage for swine flu. I can hardly wait to see what they come up with next.

Swine Flu: The Terrarists Diddit

Haters Freak Over Hate Crimes Legislation

Dana Hunter1 Comment

Hate crimes legislation is on the way to becoming a reality, and the right-wing haters are livid:

We’re finally making progress on passing a federal hate-crimes bill: On Thursday, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act passed out of the House Judiciary Committee.

Sure enough, as Kyle at RightWingWatch predicted, the right-wing freakout has begun. Unsurprisingly, Glenn Beck is already leading the way.

He invited on wingnut talk-show host Sandi Rios, who promptly declared hate crimes “thought crimes” (uh-huh, right). She also attacked Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, who was defending the bill from Republican attempts to nullify it by adding categories or victims by claiming:

Rios: Well, she’s saying that anybody that’s killed or harmed is not a real victim — unless they’re homosexual or gay or Jewish. Then they’re real victims. So you can murder more severely if they happen to homosexual or Jewish. It makes no sense.

Beck: Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? If you kill someone, you should go to jail!

Well, Glenn, that’s true. And people do in fact go to jail for killing people – unless of course they’re rich, powerful, and killing folks under the aegis of “national security” or poisonous corporations. What you fucktards don’t seem to get is that under law, there are aggravating factors to a crime. Kill someone in legitimate self-defense, and you don’t get treated the same way as someone who kills for monetary gain. Kill someone in a particularly heinous way, and you’re likely to get a harsher sentence. What this legislation says is that there’s another aggravating factor when you kill someone because you don’t like their religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The majority of us think that people who kill other people for those reasons are dangerous enough to be treated a little bit more harshly under the law. Society’s also sending the message that certain crimes are more serious when they’re used to terrorize people for those factors.

Not that you Cons are sane enough to understand this.

Haters Freak Over Hate Crimes Legislation

Don't Know Much About History

Dana Hunter

You’d think that people who yawp on and on about how they love this country soooo much more than the icky people on the left would know more about it. But when it comes to American History, they’re all epic fail.

Allow us to consider American Idiots: a Comedy in Three Acts.

Act I begins with a typical exemplar of Americanus ignoramus:

Susan Roesgen of CNN reports from the Chicago Tea Party:

[snip]

Ok, you’re here with your two year old and “you’re already in debt” (referring to sign he’s holding) Why do you say that?

Ditto head freak 2: Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln’s primary thing was that he believed that people had the right to liberty.

Roesgen: Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?

DF2: Let me finish speaking!

Roesgen: Do you realize that you are eligible for a 400 dollar …

DF2: Let me finish my point. (Crowd getting surly, yelling at Rojan to shut up) Lincoln believed that people had ther right to share in the fruits of their own labor and that government should not take it. And we have clearly gotten to that point.

One slight problem with that hero worship there:

Perhaps now would be a good time to note that Tea Baggers should probably stop looking to Lincoln as a role model. Not only did Lincoln vastly expand the power of the federal government — up to and including suspending habeas — he also was the first president to impose an income tax. Worse, it was a progressive income tax, that charged wealthier taxpayers more.

Oops.

Act II opens on Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who may govern Texas to some degree, but has an extremely weak grasp of its past:

Listen to Texas Gov. Rick Perry say:

Perry: Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.

We got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it, but if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that.

[snip]

Jon writes:

Just FYI, on Perry’s 1845 statement, Texas came into the union with the ability to divide into five states, not withdraw. After seceding during the Civil War, Texas was allowed to re-enter the union after ratifying the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment banned slavery in the United States and any territory subject to its jurisdiction

Putz.

And for our third act, Faux News’s premier assclown:

It’s always entertaining when the “patriotic” ones start talking up the notion of splitting up the United States again. Take, for example, Glenn Beck, yesterday.

[snip]

“I believe it was Davy Crockett, that as he was standing there in the well of the Senate and they were all yelling and screaming at him, he said — he looked them right square in the eye and said, ‘Hey, you know what? You can all go to hell. I’m going to Texas.’ About time somebody says that again.

“You’re telling me that states can’t say ‘Washington, we’re not going to commit suicide with you'”?

Now, the part about Davy Crockett is completely wrong. When he said, “You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas,” it was because he’d been rejected by his constituents in Tennessee after one term in the U.S. House, not because he was outraged by federal policies he disagreed with. He went to Texas to fight for secession — not from the U.S., but from Mexico.

Whelp. Add remedial U.S. History to the list of classes the Cons need to take. I think they’ve just earned themselves summer school.

Don't Know Much About History

Fun with Polls

Dana Hunter

No, I’m not trying to follow in PZ’s footsteps. I have nowhere near that kind of clout. Besides, these are numbers we don’t need to rig. And they’re all professional.

I’ve been noticing a trend lately. The Cons throw a screaming, hysterical fit, claiming they’re wailing on behalf of the people. Shortly thereafter, a poll comes out that shows the people firmly in the opposite camp. It’s entertaining.

Allow me to serve you up a selection.

Here’s two-in-one: the Cons claim Obama’s a polarizing figure who’s destroying our economy. Egads! Poll sez:

So 68% of Independents — more than two thirds — have confidence in Obama to do the right thing on the economy. That’s only three points less than the 71% overall who feel this way. Meanwhile, the same can be said of only 38% of Republicans — thirty points less than the percentage of independents who feel this way.

Two points on this. First, it illustrates a trend we’ve been seeing since 2008, and even 2006: A merging of the attitudes of independents and Democrats. And second, it illustrates that the American people’s starkly polarized attitude towards Obama — something that was a big topic last week — continues to be driven largely by increasing Republican isolation.

If by “polarizing” they mean “liked by everyone except batshit fucking insane wingnuts and their dupes,” then Obama is indeed polarizing.

But what about all the horrible Europeanizing of America? Americans hate Europe – right?

Research 2000 conducted a poll for Daily Kos gauging public attitudes about San Francisco, New York City, France, and Europe in general. Both San Francisco and New York both enjoy broad favorable numbers, but I was especially interested in the other parts of the poll.

* “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the country of France?”

Overall, 61% of Americans have a favorable impression of the U.S. ally, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. The favorable impression was strong in the Northeast, West, and Midwest, and the only constituency with an unfavorable opinion of France was Southerners.

* “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the continent of Europe?”

Similarly, 63% have a favorable impression of Europe, which also spanned every party. Again, the only group who doesn’t have a favorable opinion of the continent is Southerners.

Question: is it too late to let the South secede from the Union?

Okay. So Cons have struck out on polarizing, bad for the economy and Europe is icky, but surely we can all agree with Dick Cheney that America is totally less safe with a dirty yellow Dem in office:

Last month, former Vice President Dick Cheney complained that President Obama’s policies “raise the risk…of another attack” in the U.S. Since then, numerous government officials — including Gen. David Petraeus and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — have spoken out against Cheney’s remarks. Now, a new CNN poll shows that the American public also view Cheney’s claim with disregard. According to the poll, 72 percent “disagree with Cheney’s view that some of Obama’s actions have put the country at greater risk with 26 percent agreeing with the former vice president.”

Nope. But we’re in accord on “Dick Cheney is a dick.”

But, y’know, socialism, now, that’ll surely be different. No way Americans can like socialism!

Maybe the smears didn’t connect because people don’t think “socialism” is all that bad.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Specifically, Rasmussen asked respondents, “Which is a better system — capitalism or socialism?” A narrow majority (53%) supported capitalism as the superior system. One in five backed socialism, and a surprisingly high 27% weren’t sure.

You just can’t have an effective red scare with numbers like these.

D’oh!

Wait… taxes! Of course Americans don’t like taxes!

But these are the numbers I was especially interested in.

Almost three-quarters of Americans think it is a good idea to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year. In fact, two-thirds of Americans think the tax code should be changed so that middle-class Americans pay less than they do now and “upper inco
me” people pay more. […]

Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide all Americans with health care coverage…. Asked which domestic policy area the president and the Congress should focus on other than the economy, thirty-five percent said health care, the top choice.

Something for lawmakers to keep in mind. Fox News, Limbaugh, and far-right bloggers may be outraged by a progressive agenda, but the public in general seems to think it’s a good idea.

Noooooo! It can’t be! Americans hate taxes – this country was founded because people got pissed off about taxes! Surely it’s not just the tea baggers who’re angry!

In its annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, Gallup has found that Americans view of income taxes are the second most positive they’ve been since 1956, with 48 percent saying that the amount of federal taxes they pay is “about right.” Forty-six percent say they’re “too high.” According to Gallup, the more positive sentiment — which increased among both lower- and middle-income Americans, but not upper-income Americans — is likely due President Obama’s stimulus and budget plans:

The slightly more positive view this year may reflect a public response to President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus and budget plans. He has promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, while cutting taxes for lower- and middle-income Americans. The latter has already begun, as the government has reduced the withholding amount for federal income taxes from middle- and lower-income American workers’ paychecks.

The poll also found that 61 percent of Americans “regard the income taxes they have to pay this year as fair,” a view that has not changed much in the past six years.

I think we can stop right there. The evidence is clear: whatever the Con talking point is, you can bet the clear majority of Americans think exactly the opposite. It would be sad if it wasn’t so damned funny.

Fun with Polls

Get That Man A Straitjacket, Stat

Dana Hunter

When, oh when will the kind people in white coats come and take poor Glenn Beck away for some much-needed rest?

I hope they get around to it before he manages to strike a match:

First he pours “gasoline”on top of some guy, using his patented snotty whimper to run down all the alleged atrocities. Then he actually says this:

President Obama, why don’t you set us on fire? Do you not hear? Do you not hear the cries of people who are saying STOP! We would like some SANITY in our country for a SECOND.

We didn’t vote to lose the republic. We didn’t VOTE for any of this stuff. We voted for CHANGE. You know what that change was? The change we wanted was an end to the GAMES! We wanted the games to be ended. We want people to say what they mean and mean what they say. We want people just to be honest. We want the parties to actually STAND for something. We want the SPENDING that is out of control, you’re building bridges that lead to nowhere, you’re spending MONEY that leads only to slavery! We just want some common sense. That’s all we want.

We can disagree with each other on policies. But good lord almighty man, some of us don’t agree with all of the policies. We’d like to have a country left at the end of four years. No need to set us on fire.

That’s just one little excerpt.

It’s kind of like listening to a five year old in the backseat sing a stream of consciousness story about monsters. Except for the psychotic parts.

You can’t even unpack something coherent from this rant. He contradicts himself, babbles endless nonsense, and throws about flammable liquids with the abandon of the terminally psychotic. There’s only one thing he’s right about: we would like some sanity for a second. This is why I’d like to see Glenn Beck hauled off the air and stuffed in a padded room with a double-dose of Thorazine.

I swear if we could get this man off the teevee, the sanity quotient of our national discourse would go up by about 38 points.

Get That Man A Straitjacket, Stat