World AIDS Day: Flashing Back to "When AIDS Was Funny"

AIDS was, of course, never really funny. But for a time, people got titters about it, because it was "gay cancer," and openly gay Americans were rather rare, and the whole subject was treated like a joke. A dirty, truly tasteless joke. The most troubling fact about that, is that it wasn't just 13-year-old boys with pocket "dead baby" joke books treating it that way, but the official stance of the Reagan Administration. How much differently could the AIDS crisis have turned out, had Saint Ronnie treated the subject more seriously at the outset? We'll never know.

[Excerpt]

The Reagan Administration’s Unearthed Response to the AIDS Crisis Is Chilling

One of the most prominent stains on the reputation of the much-mythologized Reagan administration was its response, or lack of response, to the AIDS crisis as it began to ravage American cities in the early and mid-1980s. President Reagan famously (though, not famously enough) didn’t himself publicly mention AIDS until 1985, when more than 5,000 people, most of them gay men, had already been killed by the disease. Filmmaker Scott Calonico’s new documentary short, When AIDS Was Funny, exclusively debuting on VF.com, shows how the Reagan administration reacted to the mounting problem in chilling fashion. Not even Reagan’s appointed mouthpiece, notorious press secretary Larry Speakes, had much to say about the crisis beyond derisive laughter. . .


Read more (with video) at: Vanity Fair

So, Obama's Immigration Executive Action is Unconstitutional? Really?

When people say both parties are the same, I get grouchy, because there are many very clear differences (even if I wish there were more than two options sometimes). But one area where they are alike: when the balance of power shifts, they often develop policy amnesia.

For instance, remember when Democrats were in the minority last time, and Republicans' never-ending mantra was, "up-or-down vote?" Angered by what they saw as obstruction, Republicans aimed to browbeat Democrats by drilling that phrase into voters' psyches, and it was relentless. Then, when Republicans found themselves in the minority, suddenly they were the lord-god-kings of obstruction. Unfortunately, Democrats are very, very bad at phraseology, or speaking with one strong, consistent voice. Republicans are very, very good at it. So there is a difference for you. Another is that Republicans are absolutely unafraid to be disingenuous or dishonest in their wordsmithing. Just repeat, repeat, repeat.

But back to my point: now that Republicans are shifting into power, they seem to have forgotten that presidents have some executive power themselves. And any flexing of it by a Democratic (black) president is obviously unprecedented, obviously lawless and unconstitutional, obviously impeachable! Even though George H.W. Bush did something similar. Even though "Ronaldus Maximus" Ronald Regan did pretty much exactly the same thing. Can you remember any Republican outcry for the impeachment of Saint Ronnie?

[Excerpt]

Remember How St. Reagan Got Impeached For Executive Order On Immigration?

Monday’s Rachel Maddow Show kicked off with one of those “where’s she going?” bits, about the odd technologically outmoded conversations between Pope Francis and his best American bud, Cardinal Seán O’Malley — they fax each other all the time, as a 60 Minutes profile detailed this week. Turns out, one of the things O’Malley is big on is immigration reform, and there’s the hook for the real focus of this segment: The Catholic Church didn’t like several provisions of Ronald Reagan’s 1986 immigration reform act, and when Congress couldn’t get the votes together to fix them, Reagan issued an executive order to change how the immigration laws were enforced. George H.W. Bush also issued executive orders to exempt some categories of people from deportation. In total, the tweaks allowed some 1.5 million people to stay in the country, without any approval from Congress. . .

Read more (with video) at: Wonkette

In Case You Missed It Obama Outperfoms Reagan on Economic Indicators

I didn't catch this from late last week, but then, I'm not sure you did either. So, here you go. . .

[Excerpt]

Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After six consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August. . .

Read more at: Forbes

Image from source, liberal bastion, Forbes.

Deal Reached in Syria Over Chemical Weapons

It would seem war has been averted. While things in the region could always relapse (it's a pattern), for now, we're not going into yet another battle. FOX "News" and the rest of Right Wing World will of course somehow make this a bad thing, since President Barack Obama is the guy occupying the Oval Office. But you know what, 'baggers? If you're going to give St. Ronnie Reagan the credit for single-handedly ending the Cold War, and bringing down the Berlin Wall (even though it happened under Poppy Bush, and even he didn't know it was going to happen), you're going to have to get comfortable with Obama getting credit for this one. Again, barring some other typical Middle-east dustup that throws things cattywompus. History won't care that you have an irrational hatred for the man.

[Excerpt]

U.S., Russia agree to framework on Syria chemical weapons



Russia and the United States announced Saturday that they have reached a groundbreaking deal on a framework to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, after talks in Switzerland. . .

Read more at: CNN.com

Right Wing World: The Latest Faux Outrage is "Umbrella-gate"

At least with a trio of potential scandals, Right Wing World actually had something to squawk about last week. Sure, the big Benghazi memo turned out to be bogus. The IRS thing may end up causing the tea party more damage than if it were left alone. The AP thing. . .well, who knows. But a jump to a new scandal, one about a marine holding an umbrella for the President? Well, this one is just stupid, and smacks of racism.

Freeze frame from Washington Post video.

In fact, if one does a cursory Google image search, one will find several other images like this one. Images of past presidents--Republicans, notably--in nearly identical poses. Apparently, it is something of a traditional thing for the military to do for the president. The only difference I can see in this incident from those of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan is. . .well. . .the color of the guy behind the podium. I know that alleging racism has become identical to racism in Right Wing World. But that is no more true than their commentary about this phony outrage. And this is not without precedent.

One that keeps coming around like a perennial flower is an image of President Barack Obama with his feet propped up on his desk. This was also a case where a simple image search would find examples of other presidents doing the same thing. But it doesn't matter. For some reason, it spreads like wildfire on the internet every few months, usually accompanied by right-wing commentary accusing the President of being arrogant, king-like, haughty, classless, anti-American, and everything right up to the line of "uppity." This is naked racism, nothing else.

And now for a blast from the past, the feet on the desk shots. . .

Meanwhile, on Facebook Gun Control, Right vs. Left

 Submitted without comment. . .

Click to embiggen

LBJ Knew Nixon Sabatoged End of Vietnam War

He was a crook. And a traitor? Image from The Atlantic

There have long been stories about the 1980 presidential election, and how Ronald Reagan engineered the release of the long-held Iranian hostages, but only after the election. The motive was that Jimmy Carter would be much less likely to win the election if the hostages were still held captive and/or that he'd get a boost if they were rescued. As it turned out, the hostages were freed immediately after Reagan was sworn in. I still remember the fuss made about it, though it was probably all kind of a setup.

As bad as that sounds, it would seem to be fairly small potatoes compared to what seems to have happened in 1968. Because preventing the end of a war, just to get elected sounds much worse than the nickname "Tricky Dick" is famous for. The Vietnam War went on for seven more years after that. Richard Nixon claimed to know how to end the war, but in truth seems to have deliberately sabotaged the early end of it when there was a chance. Lyndon Johnson thought Nixon's behavior was treasonous, but was restricted from saying anything due to the way the knowledge was obtained. Here's the big question: will history reflect this new knowledge? Or is it too unpleasant? And if Reagan and Nixon both pulled a fast one in order to get power, who else has?

Image from LibertyRoulette

[Excerpt]

Newly Released Secret Tapes Reveal LBJ Knew but Never Spoke Out About Nixon's 'Treason'Rumors and whispers of Richard Nixon's 'treason' -- sabotaging Vietnam peace talks to help his Presidential campaign -- have floated around for years, but newly released tapes from Lyndon Johnson's Presidency confirm that LBJ knew about Nixon's behaviour and didn't bother to report it.. .

Read more at: The Atlantic

And now, a purely ponderous sidebar: Aside from the lives that would have been saved, and everything else that would have been spared as a result of a much shorter war, consider the following. The sixties were a time of great upheaval, and an amazing amount of cultural and pop cultural change. Though much of that change came from the "British Invasion" in pop culture, and the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Vietnam was a huge motivating factor. If the war had abruptly ended in 1968, what would be different about our history? Without protests, would the counter-culture and hippies have died out? How would the soundtrack of the war, the evolution of music have changed? If Nixon had lost, what would the entire 1970s have looked like? Without the post-Watergate years, and the following Carter malaise, would there have been a need for Reagan's "morning in America?"

I think it would make a great novel, the diverging path of history at that moment in 1968. Especially if it was written by someone who was really knowledgeable of not just the history but of politics at the time, and what really might have been. The only thing I'm sure of is that I'd have seen some of it, since I was born in 1966!

Are We Better Off Than We Were Four Years Ago?

If we're not better off, this guy might be part of the
reason! Image from source, NY Times.

On Sunday, I performed my usual masochistic ritual: I watched some of the Sunday political talk shows, specifically, Meet the Press, FOX "News" Sunday and This Week. On each show--and this is a little suspicious, wouldn't you say?--the host asked a Democratic spokesperson the old Reagan line, "Are we better off than we were four years ago?"

It's a trap question, and also kind of a lazy one. If the answer is "no," it's the immediate talking point, and would be in an instant Romney ad: "Obama strategist declares we're worse off." If the answer is "yes," then they would be just as quick to package the quote as proof that "Obama is out of touch, says America better off despite recession."

It's lazy, because it lacks context, much like the assertion that gasoline was so cheap four years ago (when in truth, the price had cratered temporarily after historic highs). Four years ago right this minute, we hadn't fallen off the financial cliff yet. So any comparison to early September 2008* is very, very dicy. Obviously, if we were about to go off the cliff, we were in terrible shape. But, we didn't know it yet. If you start the clock at November 6 (election day), then yes, absolutely we're better off. As I've seen elsewhere, you're better off after the house fire is put out than you were when it was on fire. But the house is still a burnt mess.

Don't be surprised if the answer to this question becomes
a theme at the DNC this week. Image from The Guardian.

It would be one thing if the arguments being made by the Romney camp were based on concrete facts. There is still an argument you could make to advocate "changing horses" in the presidential race. But they're not using facts. The use the gas prices thing, and the are you better off thing, both devoid of context. They point to debt racked up in the last four years without mentioning the wars being put on the books, or Congressional obstruction. They claim the stimulus failed (which is debatable) without mentioning that it was not the stimulus the President wanted, having been watered down and larded with tax cuts by Congress. They misrepresent the facts on Obama's welfare and Medicare policies. They blame the President for things that didn't even happen within his term.

Don't believe me that they're hanging the whole Romney/Ryan campaign on dishonesty and lies? How about the "We Built That" theme of the whole damned convention? That was based on a blatant, willful disregard for the context of a quote. If the entire Democratic National Convention is based on the theme of "I Like Firing People" and Joe Biden and President Obama seed their speeches with big whopping lies, maybe I'll concern myself with the Obama campaign's lack of coordination on the "are we better off" question. Until then, I just don't care.

Finally, as for the personal answer to the question, "am I better off than I was four years ago?" In some ways, yes. It put the fear of financial security into me. We've put a lot more effort as a household to shore up our reserves, and on that front, we are much better off. We replaced both of our aging vehicles in the last two years. We've made home improvements, and are less stressed than we were in the waning days of 2008, early 2009. Except for the housing market--which I do not see as Obama's fault--we (my household) are better off.

[Excerpt]

G.O.P. Seizes on a Question: Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?

Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, slammed President Obama’s handling of the economy on Monday, seizing on hesitant responses by Mr. Obama’s top strategists when asked whether the country was better off than it was four years ago. . . 

Read more at: New York Times

* I'd also like to note that my full-time job was reduced in hours beginning in September 2008. We cut back hours and staffing, and are still at 2008 levels. In that we're not better we're the same. But it is worth noting that we got here under the Republicans, and that their promised policies seem to echo those that got us here.  And even though things have gotten better, businesses have learned to do more with less staff, and less time. It's dubious that they're going to give up this new-found "efficiency" quickly or easily.

Ron Reagan Calls for Sensible Gun Control in Wake of Dark Knight Shootings

Image from Denver Post

Whenever there is a mass shooting in America (and it is far too often), gun fetishists immediately launch into a pre-emptive defense, knowing full well that some people are going to call for something to be done regarding gun laws. They often seem more concerned with that, then about the victims of yet another tragedy. And always, people say "now is not the time" to discuss such things.

Nonsense. Now is the best time to discuss such things. When it is fresh in peoples' minds. When it is not a hypothetical, but a reality. I've said here many times that I'm basically agnostic about guns and gun laws. But I am swayed by calls for sensible gun control laws. Things like competency tests and training. Things like making sure a buyer is not batshit crazy. Things like restricting the availability of guns with the capability of inflicting massive casualties in short periods of time. This guy shot 70 people! It's not crazy to want to make it harder for a madman to kill a bunch of people in a few minutes. What do gun nuts think is coming a zombie apocalypse?

Ron Reagan was filling in for Chris Matthews on Hardball on Friday, and in the "Let Me Finish. . ." segment, gave a brilliant essay on the subject. I was glad to see him use the same phrase I do (gun fetish), and that he also considers himself gun agnostic for the most part. And that he likes tweaking the NRA. I don't know why the right dislikes Ron Reagan so much either. I mean to them, he's practically the son of God, right?

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

Ronald Reagan's Blood for Sale!

I remember the real Reagan. The GOP demigod is
a different guy.

Ermahgerd. . . You've really gotta be freakin' kidding me. I'll bet you the winner will be sorry that Republicans are against human cloning.

[Excerpt]


Anger over 'Ronald Reagan blood' auction

"UK-based PFC Auctions says the blood was taken from Reagan after the failed 1981 assassination attempt against him.  The PFC website put the latest bid at £7,587 ($12,000) on Tuesday. . ."

Read more at: BBC News

Ron Paul Finally Packs it In. . .Or Does He?

Image from source, TPM

So, Ron Paul, crazy, old Ron Paul is finally done campaigning. Good grief, the man would be 80 during his first (extraordinarily hypothetical) term!* But, it would seem that Paul is going to continue trying to gather delegates, something he's doing behind the scenes. Can he gather enough to win? Doubtful. But will it make Mitt Romney nervous? Hope so!

[Excerpt]

The Revolution Retreats: Ron Paul Partially Suspends Campaign

“. . .We will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Paul wrote in an e-mail to supporters Monday. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. I encourage all supporters of Liberty to make sure you get to the polls and make your voices heard, particularly in the local, state, and Congressional elections, where so many defenders of Freedom are fighting and need your support. . .”

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

*While you're thinking about how old Paul would have been as president, think about this. Mitt Romney is 65 right now. He looks great of course. But Ronald Reagan was our oldest elected president, at 69. That puts Mittens--should he tragically be elected--in the "old" presidents category. And should he hopefully lose, it makes the likelihood of another run pretty low. But not as low as Ron Paul's.

Barack Obama Echoes Ronald Reagan

How about that? The Kenyan, socialist, radical black Christian/secret Muslim is being criticized for having essentially the same policy as The Great and Exalted Gipper, St. Ronaldus Maximus?  Reality does have a liberal bias!

Eric Cantor's Press Secretary Thinks Reagan Didn't Raise Taxes

I assume the machine works a little like this.

I wonder sometimes how politicians can say something that is blatantly untrue, and maintain its validity even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I have a hunch it has something to do with the Karl Rove/Frank Luntz Alternate Reality Machine™. The machine ran nearly perfectly for the first several years of the Bush Administration.  You know, like a "Clean Air Act" that allows more pollution, or the always shifting reason for the Iraq War.  It didn't work on Democrats generally, but it was almost flawless on pundits and journalists.

The Machine started creaking and sputtering in the waning Bush years, and wasn't nearly effective by the time Grampy McCain and Caribou Barbie tried to take over. Occasionally, it flares up, and a totally bullshit meme will set the beltway press on fire. But even though it doesn't work very well anymore, it would seem that a lot of conservative politicians think it still has them covered with its conversion ray. Case in point, Eric Cantor. Or rather--at least in this case--Eric Cantor's press secretary, who interrupts an interview with Leslie Stahl in order to fact check her. The problem of course is that Stahl was right. Ronald Reagan raised taxes. And no amount of alternate reality warping is going to change that.

Ronald Reagan on Illegal Immigration

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally." 
- Ronald Reagan, 1984




Ronald Reagan would be denounced by today's Republicans as a RINO: Republican In Name Only


Via: Ben Patrick Johnson on Facebook

Obama Doesn't Get Credit for Anything

What did President Reagan do that was so great? I mean really, he's held up as practically a saint in today's Republican Party, but what did he do? He raised taxes several times. He gave amnesty to all then-illegal aliens. He doddered around a bit in the waning days of his administration, and many thought Nancy was running things there at the end (with her astrologers). But the biggest thing (besides: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help) that is remembered is "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Reagan didn't actually tear down that wall, though you'd believe he did, based on the reverence given to him. No, the Soviet Union didn't fall until George H.W. Bush's term. But Reagan gets the credit.

So tell me. Osama bin Laden is dead. Muammar Gaddafi is dead. Lots of Al-Qaeda operatives are dead. The actions in Egypt and Iraq are all but over, and Afghanistan is soon to follow. There are a handful of disorganized terrorists left, and we're hunting them too. What the hell does President Obama have to do to get a little credit?


[Excerpt]


Jon Stewart Mocks GOP Over Blaming Obama For Bush’s Iraq Withdrawal Agreement

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Last week, President Obama announced plans to remove all U.S. military forces from Iraq by year’s end, effectively ending the long and still questionably effective Iraq War. Over the weekend, numerous GOP leaders like Lindsey Graham and John McCain . . .

Read more at: Mediaite

Turns Out Ronald Reagan Agreed with "The Buffett Rule"

As we all figured, the hero of the right, St. Ronnie of Hollywood, Ronaldus Magnus Maximus himself, would be laughed off of the 2012 GOP debate stage. Or booed off, more likely. See, the great right hope was himself drastically to the left of today's Republican Party.

The Republican Debate in 45 Seconds

Ron Reagan Explains Marriage Equality to Rick Santorum

This past week, Ron Reagan subbed for Chris Matthews on Hardball, and while I don't usually watch the program, I did manage to catch the following clip. In the "Let Me Finish. . ." segment, Reagan--whose radio show I miss a great deal--explains why marriage equality won't lead to polygamous, incestuous or bestial  marriages. What, you didn't think it did in the first place? Me either, but Rick Santorum does. Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry probably do. The entirety of FreeRepublic.com definitely does. So thanks to Ron for making the answer so easy. And thanks to him also for causing a few right-wing brain explosions for being a liberal, since his dad remains a Republican saint.

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

Reagan's Famous (Ridiculous) Nine Words

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" -- Ronald Reagan

Unless a hurricane just hit your state. Or a flood. Or tornadoes. Or an earthquake. Or. . .  St. Ronnie is a construct of right-wing revisionist history. This guy was not as popular as they claim he was. Does anyone remember the Ollie North/Iran Contra hearings? Reagan was affable, and telegenic for an old guy. But he probably could not be elected to dogcatcher in today's Republican Party.

Michael Reagan Trashes Ron Reagan?

WTF? You know, step- half-brothers can have strained relationships, I know. But this little family drama is getting fairly ugly.  I'm not sure that it's Ron that comes off badly here.

[Excerpt]

Michael Reagan Rejects Half-Brother's Charge Their Father Had Alzheimer's While President

Michael Reagan released the following statement to FoxNation.com: "Ron was an embarrassment to his father when he was alive and today he became an embarrassment to his mother. . ."

Read more at: SAU Mag