Paul Ryan does not seem to understand the political climate right now. John Boehner understands the Obamacare is here to stay. Earlier this year he said in an interview with Diane Sawyer "I think the election changes that, it's pretty clear that the president was re-elected, Obamacare is the law of the land."
Congressman Ryan should probably get on the same page with the Speaker. Today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace he had the following exchange. To Wallace's credit, he didn't let his comments go without comment.
Ryan: These are increases that have not come yet, so by repealing Obamacare and the Medicaid expansions, which haven't occurred yet, we are basically preventing the explosion of a program that is already failing. So we're saying, don't grow this program through Obamacare because it doesn't work.
Wallace: Are you saying, as part of you budget, you would repeal -- you assume the repeal of Obamacare?
Ryan: Yes.
Wallace: Well, that's not going to happen.
Ryan: Well, we believe it should, that's the point.
Chris Wallace is exactly right, it isn't going to be repealed. The House GOP has tried dozens of times to repeal it, and have failed miserably. As more and more benefits of the Affordable Care Act become available to people, the popularity of the law increases. His budget is dishonest because it centers around an impossibility. Obamacare is here to stay and the country is better for it.
"Of Course Hitler Was A Left-Winger" - Ben Shapiro
No, actually, he wasn't.
It takes all of about 2 seconds to type into Google and find a decent article from a credible source to debunk this fool. Here is one from the BBC that outlines Hitler's whole life.
I thought about going into a lot of detail about why what Shapiro said is wrong, but I really don't see the point. Anyone that has taken a survey of 20th Century history knows that this is ridiculous. I have a history degree with a focus in German history so I think I'm a little more qualified to talk about it.
Hitler used German Worker's Party as a tool to get into politics. He was an extreme anti-Semite, obviously, and the men in that party shared his views. The party name was later changed to National Socialist German Workers Party. You know them as the Nazis. They were hyper nationalists, anti-Semitic,
The businesses that were shut down were mostly run by Jews and other people they didn't agree with. They were shut down because he hated Jews, not big business.
The name of his party having "socialist" in the name is a weak argument. People's Republic of China, are they a republic? Shapiro must think so. National Socialism and Socialism are two drastically different things. National Socialism is "a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader."
Ben Shapiro is the one who is historically ignorant here.
I found this video and thought it seemed appropriate because of the cycling post earlier in the week. Stretching is important before you exercise and apparently just in general. I didn't know about this at all.
There are some images of cadavers, so if that creeps you out, don't watch.
I was directed to this site this morning. It is the original website for the movie Space Jam and has not been updated since 1996. It's a nice window back to the early days of the internet.
In a demonstration of complete ignorance to current climate science, Washington State Representative Ed Orcutt claimed in an email that cyclists contribute to greenhouse emissions by breathing harder when they ride. In an email to bike shop owner Dale Carson he said:
"Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride,"
Rep. Orcutt has introduced a bill that would levy a 5% tax on new bicycles that cost more than $500. He argues that this is fair because cyclists do not pay any transportation tax. Motorists pay a tax when they register their cars and there is a tax on gas. These help pay for the roads and other places cyclists ride. I ride and I also have a car, which means I do pay the normal taxes. While I don't live in Washington state, I have a problem with his argument.
The 5% tax would be added to the sales tax you already pay. This means you could end up paying 11% or more extra for your new bike. My advice? Go get your bike in Oregon should this pass.
This kind of thing is a great indicator on why very little seems to get done politically on climate change. They just don't get it. I don't need, nor am I really qualified, to go over the science of climate change with you. This is simply ridiculous on its face.
He has since apologized for his statements.
"My point was that by not driving a car, a cyclist was not necessarily having a zero-carbon footprint," He said in the email, according to Reuters. "In looking back, it was not a point worthy of even mentioning so, again, I apologize."
Last week the House finally passed the Violence Against Women Act, which the Senate had passed earlier. The Republicans in the House had been holding up this legislation for quite some time. Speaker Boehner finally brought the Senate version of the bill to the floor for a vote and it passed 286-138, winning over 199 Democrats and 87 Republicans.
The Republicans had proposed their own version of VAWA, which did not include the same protections for LGBT, Native Americans living on reservations or undocumented women. It would create extra steps for Native women that are brutalized on reservations to find justice. It would also create very strict guidelines for undocumented victims. LGBT families would not be included in the protections.
Megan Whittemore, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said, “The House is expected to take up a strong Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization...so we can protect all women from acts of violence and help law enforcement prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law.” Apparently she thinks excluding certain groups from protection constitutes "all women."
This is why it was really no shock when Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) admitted that she opposed VAWA because it granted protections to those groups.
When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up.
Watch here:
Ah, I see. If only we used the money to open new crisis centers and shelters, maybe on reservations, she would support it. And then there is that bit about diluting the money that goes to the existing shelters, so she probably wouldn't want new shelters being opened either. The only way I read her comments is that she is upset that these extra provisions are taking away money from women in her district, her predominately white district. If she was truly about protecting women, adding more groups of women to protect would not be a problem for her.
I won't even touch how she seems to oppose an "against violence act."
These groups do need protection just as much as any women in America do. If a lesbian is the victim of domestic violence does she not deserve justice? Does an immigrant deserve justice?
There is currently an epidemic of sexual assaults on Native American reservations. This is why it was so important for this provision to be included. While it's estimated that 1 out of 6 American women will be raped and/or sexually assaulted in her lifetime, more than 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in her lifetime. And 80% of rapes on reservations are committed by non-natives. This creates many legal hurdles for reservation authorities. Only Federal authorities can prosecute crimes on tribal lands. This means that many rapes are not reported.
An NPR investigation also revealed a system underfunded and often broken: a tribal health center inadequately staffed and without rape kits to collect DNA from victims; tribal leaders and Native police unable to prosecute non-native perpetrators; and a patchwork of confusing jurisdictions in which federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement intersect and clash with each other.
Why Rep. Ellison agreed to come on Hannity's show at all is a mystery to me. I'm sure he could have imagined how it would go, and potentially what would be the result.
Round 1:
Sean Hannity opened the segment talking about something that didn't sit very well with the Congressman. He was apparently misrepresenting the President, as well. I know what you're saying, "Hannity wouldn't do such a thing!," but believe it.
Right before he cuts to Congressman Ellison he plays a video of the president giving speeches on the problems the sequester cuts would have on people. Hannity calls it "The Obama Sequester" and then claims he is more interested in fear-mongering than finding a solution to the problem he, President Obama, created. He then says that the President is very good at staying on message.
Here is a video of the exchange:
HANNITY: I guess that's what we can describe as staying on message, something the Democratic Party I would argue is very good at.
ELLISON: You're pretty good at it too.
HANNITY: Thank you.
ELLISON: Quite frankly you are the worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen.
HANNITY: I can't hear you.
ELLISON: You heard me.
HANNITY: No, say it again. I didn't hear you.
ELLISON: What you just displayed was not journalism, It was yellow journalism. It wasn't anything close to trying to tell the American people what's really going on, and I mean, it's just shocking.
Sean Hannity is trying really hard to pin all the problems that the cuts will cause on the President. This is simply unfair and I have a hunch that he knows that. The President is the one that has come up with a plan to fix the issue and the Republicans will not even consider it. His plan has been regarded as fair by many and it certainly is not as arbitrary as the sequester cuts were set up to be.
Rep. Ellison should have known this would not be the end of this.
Round 2:
On his Thursday show, Hannity implied the Congressman was an anti-semite and a racist. He unearthed some old attacks on Ellison from when he ran for Congress in 2006.
During the 1990's, while Ellison was in law school, he worked with a group that helped organize the Million-Man March. This group included Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Ellison wrote in his school newspaper defending Farrakhan from charges of anti-semitism.
Ellison had apologized saying he did not “adequately scrutinize the positions and statements” of the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan six years ago. He wrote this in a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas.
“I wrongly dismissed concerns that they were anti-Semitic,” he wrote, adding, “They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did.” “I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues.”
When these statements surfaced people that went to law school with Ellison dismissed the idea of him being an anti-semite. They said they never got that impression from him. Also, in the 2006 campaign, Ellison was endorsed by American Jewish World, the newspaper for Minnesota’s Jewish community. This doesn't exactly scream anti-semite. I don't think Jewish groups are in the habit of endorsing anti-semitic people for Congress.
I believe Hannity has a problem with Rep. Ellison because he is Muslim, and even if he doesn't personally, he is playing it up for his audience that probably do have a problem with Muslims in general. It's despicable and really proves all of the Congressman's critiques he made at the beginning of their interview. The sad thing is people watch this guy and think they're getting real information.
Once Congressman Ellison was elected, he chose to be sworn in on the Qur'an because he is Muslim. Hannity compared this to a racist being sworn in on Hitler's Mein Kampf, as he put it, the Nazi Bible.
And then, this:
Apparently going back five years on something he said, that he never retracted, is too far. Pulling up an issue that happened in the 1990's and was resolved seven years ago is fair game.
As everyone knows, because the media was obsessed with this story since it broke and not for no reason, the Pope retired yesterday. Every time any news channel ran a story on this the question was always: "What's next?" We now have an answer to that question.
The President took a little heat today when he violated a huge taboo: confused Star Trek and Star Wars. He said in a press conference that he is unable to do a Jedi mind meld on Congress to get them to do something on the sequester. Of course, there is a Jedi mind trick and a Vulcan mind meld. Two drastically different things on two entirely different planes of nerd-dom. Twitter exploded because of this, of course.
The White House has rolled with it beautifully, however. If you go to WH.gov/jedimindmeld it redirects to the President's plan for the sequester.
But seriously, it was good to see him take it too the Republicans. He pointed out that he had a plan and had submitted it to Congress. Most people had said that it was a reasonable plan and Congress would rather the arbitrary cuts go into affect ultimately hurting the economy. I hope Congress as a whole, not just the Senate, can "get off their ass" and solve this problem before too many people are hurt.
Sean Hannity and Congressman Keith Ellison got into it this week, but more on that tomorrow.
