Skip to content

They All Look Alike To Us

Can you tell the difference between a Daesh terrorist and a Syrian Refugee. It isn’t that difficult!

Jen Sorensen
© Jen Sorensen

In the wake of the Paris attacks, we are scared shitless of the Syrian refugees, even though these are the people who are trying to escape Daesh. Besides, all the Paris terrorists had European passports. You would think that the smart thing to do would be to support those people fleeing the Islamic State, rather than demonize and punish them. But I guess we don’t do “smart” any more.

UPDATE: Jon Green has an awesome rant about the anti-refugee Republicans. It is short and you really should read the whole thing, but I’ll bait you with a few sentences from it, discussing the Governors who have said they won’t let refugees enter their state:

These governors know the rules, and are saying they’ll ignore them to make their constituents feel like they’re doing something about, you know, those people. But with the overall level of nonsense from Republicans in positions of power getting out of hand, getting them together to go back over the basics became necessary. No, they can’t violate the Refugee Act of 1980. Yes, if the federal government decides that “orphans under the age of 5” don’t pose a national security risk, Chris Christie will have to deal with it. No, religious tests for refugees are not constitutional. And seriously, John Kasich, we are not launching a new federal program for spreading Judeo-Christian values abroad.

Green also points out the stunning stupidity of Republican proposals to “solve” the refugee problem. Like that law that the House just passed to require refugees to get clearance from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security before we let them into our country. That sounds great until you find out that we are already doing it!

Share

Late Night Political Humor

“Halloween is just a couple days away. Everybody’s getting in the spirit. In fact last night, I watched TWO scary movies: the Republican debate and the Mets game. I’ll be having nightmares for WEEKS!” – Jimmy Fallon

“Last night in Colorado the Republican candidates for president gathered to debate. It was the most-watched program in CNBC history. Mostly people watched to get ideas for Halloween costumes.” – Jimmy Kimmel

“During last night’s debate, Donald Trump said he would feel more comfortable if his own employees brought firearms to work. When they heard that, many of Trump’s Hispanic employees said, ‘No problemo’.” – Conan O’Brien

“The worst of memorable moments: We learned Donald Trump carries a gun. He told the group he carries a concealed weapon, conceals it in his hair.” – Jimmy Kimmel

“The front-runner Dr. Ben Carson, in his closing statement, said one thing he’s noticed on the campaign trail that is people are waking up. And we’re hoping that eventually he will also wake up.” – Jimmy Kimmel

“Carly Fiorina said that after the previous debate, people told her that she needed to smile more. They were like, ‘Just pretend you’re laying off a bunch of people.'” – Jimmy Fallon

“Jeb Bush had a very rough night last night. He finally got time to say what he wanted, and how did he use it? He attacks not Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton or Ben Carson. Of all people, he attacks Marco Rubio for missing votes in the Senate. Which is something that literally no one outside of Florida cares about. It was embarrassing. And it’s just like a Bush to attack the wrong guy, it really is.” – Jimmy Kimmel

“In his closing comments, Rand Paul said that he is running to create a government so small that you can barely see it. Paul said it would be modeled after his presidential campaign.” – Jimmy Fallon

“The third Republican debate was held last night, and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said he was extremely disappointed with the coverage. And he understands disappointment, because his parents named him Reince Priebus.” – Seth Meyers

Share

ISIS wants you to hate Muslims

I keep thinking this is obvious, but then something like the (latest) massacres in Paris happen and our reaction shows that we just don’t get it. The point is: Islamic radicals want us to hate Muslims. It is their best recruiting tool ever.

An article in The Washington Post spells it out:

This is precisely what ISIS was aiming for — to provoke communities to commit actions against Muslims. Then ISIS will be able to say, “I told you so. These are your enemies, and the enemies of Islam.”

And it isn’t like we haven’t fallen for this before. A dozen years ago, the Islamists even told us this was their strategy:

This strategy gained traction in the early 2000s after al-Qaeda was sent into hiding by Western military action. Abu Musab al-Suri, an influential jihadi thinker whom the Wall Street Journal called “the new mastermind of jihad,” argued for a distributed network of terrorist cells recruited from the Islamic diaspora, carrying out terrorist strikes in their own communities. These attacks, and the backlash they generated, would inspire others to radicalize.

The US is big and powerful, and we have meddled in the Middle East enough times to make plenty of enemies there. But they cannot attack us directly – nation to nation – that would be suicide. So instead, they got 20 people with box cutters to destroy the twin towers for them. And we played right into their hands. After 9/11, we attacked Iraq, and ended up creating the group variously known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh (the derogative Arabic term for the Islamic State, and now my preferred term).

And the west keeps falling for it. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, attacks against Muslims and vandalism of mosques more than quadrupled in France.

This time around, the reprisals are even more widespread. A mosque in Canada was deliberately set on fire. In liberal Portland Oregon, protestors held a rally outside a mosque wearing T-shirts saying things like “Proud to be an infidel, Islam is a LIE“. Other Islamic buildings received threatening phone calls, like one in Florida:

We are tired of your [expletive] and I [expletive] personally have a militia that is going to come down to your Islamic Society of Pinellas County and firebomb you and shoot whoever is there in the head.

Think about it for a second. Why would Islamic militants stage an operation that kills 129 people in Paris? Certainly they aren’t so stupid that they think it will make the west stop bombing them.

Just last month, they planted a bomb on a Russian airplane leaving Egypt, killing almost twice as many people than died in Paris. But somehow that didn’t work as well. They need to take the terrorism to where we live, whether it is Paris or New York. Even more important, they need to take it to cities where there are large Islamic populations, so they can radicalize even more future terrorists.

And they do need to create more future terrorists. The vast majority of Muslims are against terrorism. Just this week, the King of Jordan (a Muslim country that shares a large border with Syria) denounced Daesh, saying “The atrocious Paris attacks shows that scourge of terrorism can strike anywhere and any time.” He also announced a war against the Daesh terrorists (Jordan is already bombing Daesh in Syria, so this is no hollow threat).

Unfortunately, our reaction to Paris here in the US is even more idiotic than normal this time. Yes, our Republican presidential candidates are waving their sabers around, but that sadly is normal. No, the big news is that 30 governors have announced that they will refuse to let Syrian refugees settle in their states.

First of all, how in the world would a state government stop someone from settling in their state? Religious quizzes at the state border? Even more traffic stops of people who look middle eastern? It boggles the mind. But even if there was a physical way to stop them, what legal reason could they use to stop them? A law explicitly discriminating against Muslims? They would have to repeal the First Amendment before they could do that.

But that doesn’t matter. Do the governors realize just how idiotic this is? The Syrian refugees are people fleeing Daesh. They are trying to get away from Daesh. Indeed, absolutely none of the Paris terrorists were Syrian refugees. They were Muslims already living in Europe. It would make more sense for the governors to threaten to deport all Muslims living in their states (not that it makes any sense at all).

So not letting Syrian refugees find a new home means that they won’t be able to leave Syria and will be stuck there under Daesh. Is that what we want? If you are a Muslim living in the US, and your siblings or parents are unable to leave Syria, who are you going to blame? If your mosque is set on fire, or your friends are beat up by some skinhead, at whom are you going to get angry?

I’m not saying that two wrongs make a right. I’m just saying that through our actions, we managed to create Daesh and we continue to be their best recruiting tool. Just look at our results. They are playing us like idiots, and we keep falling for it.

Matt Bors
© Matt Bors

The last panel of this comic shows the terrorists popping open a bottle of champagne, even though the Muslim religion prohibits alcohol. Maybe this is a subtle reminder that the terrorists in Paris were not particularly religious.

UPDATE: Republican-controlled House has passed a bill to severely restrict the entry of Syrian refugees to the US. Obama is threatening to veto the bill, assuming it gets through the Senate.

Share

Love Your Corporatocracy!

Ruben Bolling
© Ruben Bolling

This comic is brilliant. And it doesn’t even mention the military propaganda pre-game shows that are paid for by the military using your tax dollars. Or the sports stadiums that are heavily subsidized by local governments (when those same local governments were broke).

It also doesn’t mention that conservatives seem to love Fox News more that they love their country. Do those conservatives know that Fox News is owned by a foreigner who only became a US citizen in order to satisfy the legal requirement for ownership of US television stations, and who still owns significant media assets in other countries?

Share

Proven Christians?

Rupert Murdoch (the dark lord of Fox News) tweeted the following:

Obama facing enormous opposition in accepting refugees. Maybe make special exception for proven Christians.

Seriously? Proven Christians?

Of course, the best part is all the responses to his tweet. Here are just a few:

  • ‘proven’ Christians. Lolz. Some sort of bible quiz on the borders, then? That’ll be a hit with Passport Control.
  • a religious test for citizenship says the Sith Lord
  • How to find ‘proven’ Christians? Splash them with holy water? Or maybe some sort of heathen dunking stool? #SimpleDarkAgeFixes #DrunkTweeting
  • isn’t that the logic isis employs when deciding whether to kill someone. Works SO well for them.
  • how about a Saturday night reality show? Live or Let Die with Simon Cowell? Viewers could vote on who looks the most muslimy
  • “Can you prove you’re a Catholic?” “Sure. But how?” “See this 8-year old boy?” “Yes?” “Fuck him.”
  • Refresh my memory, I forget how it works – if they float, they’re a witch, and if they sink they’re a Christian? #buffoon

UPDATE: More Twitter responses to Murdoch:

  • This is about the least Christ like thing i can imagine
  • Is Rupert Murdoch a Christian? If so, prove it.
  • I’m not even sure he’s human!
  • wish we could get rid of proven arseholes like you
  • what’s the test for “proven Christians?” A recent case of stigmata? Able to show documented proof of slave ownership?
  • I would have thought a “proven Christian” would make no distinction between people in dire need
  • Conservatives okay w/ selling AK-47s to people w/o asking if they have criminal or mental issue but refugees must prove they’re Christians.
  • yeah because Christians don’t shoot up schools or do anything else bad !!!

Actually, Murdoch gives me an idea. I think we should only allow people to own or run TV broadcasters, radio stations, and newspaper publishers if they are natural born Americans.

Share

Investigate This!

You really should go read a stunning article in Politico Magazine, which interviewed all living former CIA directors and other intelligence officers to answer the question “Did the Bush administration know that an attack was coming?”. And according to the CIA, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Not only did Dubya and his administration not want to hear about any potential terrorist attacks, they didn’t even want a paper trail to show that they had been warned. Rather than keeping us safe, they were more concerned about covering their collective asses.

George Tenet (the CIA director during the Clinton and Bush administration, including 9/11) says he warned the Bush administration repeatedly, telling them “There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda’s intention is the destruction of the United States.”

Cofer Black, the then-chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, says they refused to do anything: “To me it remains incomprehensible still. I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened?”

To me there are only two possibilities. The first is almost too frightening to imagine: that Dubya and his administration knew that 9/11 was going down, and just let it. The more believable possibility was that they were just too stupid and arrogant. As Black puts it, “I think they were mentally stuck back eight years [before]. They were used to terrorists being Euro-lefties — they drink champagne by night, blow things up during the day, how bad can this be? And it was a very difficult sell to communicate the urgency to this.”

Either way, this totally puts the lie to Jeb Bush’s assertion that his brother “kept us safe”. Between ignoring all the warnings about 9/11, and then afterwards getting us into an unrelated and unnecessary war in Iraq, which certainly encouraged (if not directly created) ISIS/ISIL, he did nothing of the kind. It also explains why Dubya’s dad, who is not only a former president but also one of those former CIA directors, recently tried to blame the mistakes made by his son’s administration on Cheney and Rumsfeld. It is called regret.

How many people died unnecessarily because of the Dubya’s administration? And yet the Republicans spend all their time screaming about Clinton and Benghazi.

Share

Religious Freedom

A woman in Massachusetts won the right to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo:

Lindsay Miller

Lindsay Miller is a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Also known as Pastafarians, members are encouraged to wear a colander in official identification photos as a public expression of their belief.

I think this is actually a very serious issue. Religious extremism is a very real problem in this world. People like Kim Davis think that the constitution gives them the right to violate other people’s rights (and the law) because of their “sincerely held beliefs”. But this puts the state in the position of deciding what is a religious belief (and thus what is a religion) and what is not (even though the First Amendment “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion”).

People react in horror at what ISIL is doing in the name of religion, but Christianity had their “crusades“. Shouldn’t Christians practice what they preach: that only people without sin should cast stones?

Where do we get the moral authority to condemn ISIL? Note that I am not defending ISIL – we definitely need authority to condemn ISIL and their atrocities. But that authority can not come from a religious disagreement between Christianity and Islam. If judging a belief as “sincerely held” is the only requirement for violating the law, is there anyone who thinks that ISIL’s beliefs are not sincerely held? They are clearly willing to die for their beliefs.

No, our moral authority can only come from our being a nation of laws that follows the rule of law. I believe (sincerely!) that the Constitution intends that government keep out of the religion business. That means that everybody has to follow the law, regardless of their religion.

Otherwise, I sincerely believe that I should be allowed to deduct 18% of my federal taxes because funding war is against my religion.

Share

Who Says the GOP Doesn’t Believe in Evolution?

Ronald MittDonald

It took me a minute to get this. Say the three names quickly.

Share

Obamacare: Good for Jobs

The GOP is still trying to repeal Obamacare. If that isn’t strange enough, arch-conservative Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Mike Lee are going to vote against this repeal, saying that it doesn’t go far enough. Ignoring the fact that as usual this is a symbolic gesture (Obama would surely veto any repeal), it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Which brings us to the most recent GOP debate. First, reality-challenged Carly Fiorina declared “Obamacare isn’t helping anyone.” What about the 17 million people who have gained health insurance?

Then Marco Rubio doubled down with a more specific claim, “We have a crazy health care law that discourages companies from hiring people.” If companies are being discouraged from hiring, you would think that after the ACA was signed into law that employment would suffer. Well, here’s the reality:

Jobs under Obamacare

The private sector has not lost jobs since Obamacare was created. In fact, the economy has gained jobs for 60 straight months, which (according to Forbes) is a new record.

You may recall that ACA implemented its changes in stages over several years. The first full year when it was implemented was 2014; that year had the best increase in jobs since Clinton was president (and better than every year of Dubya’s presidency). That’s including all private sector jobs. If we look at just the health care sector, things look even better:

The healthcare industry’s employment spree has continued into autumn with an increase of 44,900 jobs in October.

Healthcare has now created almost 407,000 jobs so far in 2015, which almost equals the 410,000 jobs the industry added in 2013 and 2014 combined. Nearly 11% of all U.S. nonfarm jobs are now in healthcare.

The Republicans have been trying to repeal Obamacare for 6 years, but they still haven’t said what they would replace it with. The new GOP is just as much the party of no as the old one.

Share

Merry War on Christmas!

Stephen Colbert weighs in on the outrage directed at Starbucks because their special holiday cup is not Christmasy enough for some Christians:

Share

Dark Money Landslide?

I’ve complained about “dark money” – unlimited money coming from 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) organizations that don’t have to disclose their donors, and who can use that money for political campaigns. Because they don’t have to disclose their donors, their money can come from foreign enemies, even criminal or terrorist organizations.

Well, it is getting worse. According to PolitiFact, the amount of dark money that has been spent so far in the 2016 election (almost a year away) is ten times as much as was spent at the same point in the 2012 election cycle.

In the 2012 election, the total amount of dark money spent was over $308 million. Not surprisingly, 86% of dark money was spent by conservative groups (including groups headed by Karl Rove and by the Koch brothers), and only 11% by liberal groups.

Of the $4.88 million of dark money spent so far on the 2016 election, more than 98% was spent by conservative groups.

Does that mean we will see over $3 billion of dark money (the vast majority of it from conservative groups) spent on this election before it is over? It is both possible and likely. Already in some elections, spending by dark money groups has surpassed all money spent by traditional political action committees, both PACs and “Super PACs”.

That is a very scary thought.

Share

No Limits

Jen Sorensen
© Jen Sorensen

Yes, it is true, Arizona is now the only state that has a one-year lifetime limit on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits. Which means that next July, about half the people currently receiving benefits will lose them.

What’s ironic about this is that TANF is specifically designed to move people into new employment. Not only are the benefits limited (the time limit varies by state), but in order to receive any benefits from the program a family must have dependent children and the parents must be enrolled in a jobs program. There are other requirements too: the children must be attending school and be immunized. And for all this, the average family on TANF receives $195 a month.

One worry is that families losing support to move them back into jobs will end up homeless and on the street, which will cost us taxpayers even more money when we have to take care of their kids.

Share

Meet Mrs. Fulbright

Some of you may have heard of “Honest” Gil Fulbright, who may be the world’s most honest politician. But the honesty doesn’t stop with him. Here’s an ad with his honest wife. Be sure to watch to the end, where there’s an easter egg.

Share

Debate Format?

Republicans candidates keep whining about their debate format. They seem upset that they were asked mean questions.

Steve Sack

Share

Money Can’t Buy Happiness?

While the Citizens United decision and the rise of big money and Super PACs had a huge effect on the 2010 midterm election, they don’t seem to be having as much of an impact on the current presidential primaries. Don’t get me wrong, there is even more money being spent this time, but it doesn’t seem to be having as much of an effect.

Exhibit A is Jeb Bush, whose Right to Rise Super PAC has aired a stunning $15.5 million in TV ads while his polling numbers sank.

Likewise, candidates who focused completely on raising lots of money through Super PACs, including Scott Walker and Rick Perry, have mostly dropped out of the race. The exception to this is Marco Rubio, but his rising star was largely fueled by two strong debate performances.

There are two, somewhat related reasons why Super PACs aren’t helping as much as they used to. First is because Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign directly. So they cannot be used to build ground operations, pay employees, or organize campaign fundraisers. Which leaves them mainly paying for TV ads. Once upon a time, TV ads were the things that broke or made campaigns.

Which brings us to the second reason, which is that TV ads aren’t working as well as they used to. Part of this is because of sheer fatigue – right now, roughly half of all TV ads in Iowa are political. The advertising law of threes says that somebody has to see an ad three times before it has any effect on them, but after they see it three hundred times? But the main part is probably because of media changes. The rise of the internet means that people are watching more video online, rather than on broadcast TV or cable. Super PACs have been slow to adapt to this change. And finally, political campaigns get steep discounts on advertising, which are not available to Super PACs. A Super PAC typically pays four times as much per commercial as a candidate’s campaign does.

So, does this mean we shouldn’t worry about Super PACs? Not at all. Super PACs can still be a huge accessory to the main campaign, they are just not as effective on their own. When they are used as the campaign’s center of gravity (as they were for Walker or Perry) they fail. But they are still good at keeping a candidate alive in the lean times.

However, the main reason we should worry about Super PACs is because of their lack of accountability or transparency. The form of Super PACs called 501c4 do not have to disclose any information about their donors, and is now the second biggest overall TV ad spender. This means that our political candidates could be bought off by our country’s enemies and there is no way we would even know.

Maybe they already have been.

Share