Skip to content

Quiz of the Day: What do these men have in common?

January 19, 2013

What do these guys have in common?



Ann Coulter’s Mugg Shot

December 20, 2012

Sorry. Had to show it.


Does Gun Control Work? Revisiting the Windsor/Detroit Divide

December 17, 2012

A mere river between them, Windsor and Detroit are a world apart when it comes to homicide.

Now that the topic of of gun control is on the political forefront again, Conservatives are screaming louder than ever that “guns are NOT the problem!” and Liberals are countering, “yes, they ARE!”

I am reminded of a news story I read a year ago comparing the homicide rate of Windsor, Ontario against Detroit, Michigan. One side has gun control, the other doesn’t, and the differences are startling even though the cities are hardly a mile apart.

According to a Statistics Canada report Windsor’s single murder case (a stabbing!) in 2011 earned them a homicide rate of 0.30 cases per 100,000 people. In contrast, Detroit’s police department reported that there were 358 murders in the Motor City in one year. Most were gun related.

Guess which city has gun control?

More articles on this here:

A tale of two cities: Windsor and Detroit murder rates show stark contrast – The Windsor Star

Windsor murder free for 2 years – CBC News

Canadian border city has first homicide in 26 months – CNN

Limbaugh: Shootings due to White Boys ‘Chickified’ by Affirmative Action

December 17, 2012

In today’s radio talk show rant addressing the Sandy Hook massacre, Rush Limbaugh accused liberals of turning to gun control as their latest “shiny object” to distract from “their own failed policies”.

Limbaugh emphasized that in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, where a gunman shot and killed twenty young children and six adults, “guns are not the problem”. Instead, Limbaugh said, we need to look at how “white boys” are being ‘chickified’ by liberals and excluded from sports and schools to make room for girls. This, he said, is the root cause of the violence we are seeing. If boys were just allowed to be boys all would be ok.

I’m not making this up. I’ll offer direct quotes and/or a link to the transcript when it becomes available.

CORRECTION: Updated 12/17/12 10:10 EST

The transcript (in part) to the above is now available online under Rush’s title, “An Interesting E-Mail on Young, White Males” (I won’t link to his site), and the comments were from an email sent to Limbaugh. The transcript includes only the contents of the email, and not Rush’s commentary. In any event, Limbaugh felt it important enough to read it on the air. Here it is, in part (bold added here):

What do all of the public shootings in the last years have in common?  They were all done by young white males who were from upper middle-class families.  The problem is not guns.  That’s the easy shiny thing that the liberals flash in front of us so that we don’t look at their failed political agenda. 

The problem in America today is how we have treated white boys for the last decades, and it all has at its root the unrelenting liberal political agenda.  Boys have been pushed out of two of the most important activities:  school and sports.  In an all-out effort to convince girls they can do anything a boy can, schools have ignored the natural needs and learning traits of boys and forced them to learn like girls.  Fewer boys are going to college, in part because they’re being pushed out by a feminist agenda in education.  We have rushed to dilute the energetic aggressive aspects of the male species by drugging them as children and chickifying them at every turn. 

Rush Limbaugh concludes his edited transcript with, “Interesting, don’t you think?”

The GOP’s Challenge: Averting the Fiscal Cliff Without Climbing Obama to Summit

December 13, 2012


Over the last four years Republicans have thrown all their resources behind an Obama failure campaign. They have been rewarded with a failed presidential run, loss of Senate control, and a loss of critical seats in the House. Now they simply can’t afford handing Obama another victory in a ‘Fiscal Cliff’ resolution. That would risk launching epic Obama approval ratings, which would really make Republicans look bad.

So the Republican thinking goes like this: if they give Obama the tax hike he wants for the top 2% (they know they have to), they will also have to give him a public spanking for something else. They need something that will make people (beyond the 2%) really upset to keep Obama’s approval ratings in check. We’ll have to wait and see what that is.

As The Liberal Mob reported previously, radio host and unofficial GOP leader, Rush Limbaugh, predicted that “events” will happen that might net Obama some approval points for any gains made. This is the warning sign Rush has signaled to his party, and they are wary.

Ever since Republicans became enamored by Frank Luntz‘s ability to shape-shift public opinion and destroy liberal policy through linguistic sorcery (say “energy exploration” instead of “drilling for oil” – “climate change” instead of “global warming”), they have believed they can talk themselves into or out of anything. They are in a pickle now, with little-to-no leverage and a lot more to lose if they don’t compromise on something. You can bet that Luntz is dial-testing a focus group right now so he can advise the Republican leadership how to verbalize their surrender to Obama’s Tax the Wealthy legislation.

When a deal to avert the “Fiscal Cliff” is finally settled behind closed doors, Obama will likely allow Republicans to publicly put forth their skillfully crafted semantics to give them some kind of public victory. There’s not going to be much else to be had. So be it.

But in the long run, actions speak louder than words.

Get Your War On, the GOP’s Response to Losing Battles

December 12, 2012

Republicans and their minions (Limbaugh, Coulter, FOX and the like) tend to be absolutists. Their ideas aren’t flexible and generally don’t evolve with the times. So when they find themselves on the losing end of democratic, political and social debate, as well as public opinion, they accuse the opposing side as waging war. Let’s look at a few of them:

The War On Christmas

FOX‘s annual War on Christmas awareness campaign is in full force now, promoting ultra-right, political and religious activist groups, such as one that performs a live nativity scene . Considering the Christmas season has grown to the point we begin celebrating it at Thanksgiving, it’s hard to envision the apocalyptic war against Christmas that FOX projects onto us. So where does this notion come from?

It probably comes from various court cases questioning the constitutionality of religious displays on State and Federal property. Conservative Republicans believe that the United States was founded on Christianity, so Christian imagery should be front and center by default. All other religions (and Atheism), though they are also protected by the Constitution, should take a back seat. If FOX argues otherwise, and especially since they are “Fair and Balanced”, shouldn’t they be promoting the “War on Hanukkah” as much as the “War in Christmas”?

The War on Religion

During his last presidential run, Republican nominee Mitt Romney ran a television ad accusing President Obama of declaring “a War on Religion”:

“Who shares your values?” the announcer asks. “President Obama used his healthcare plan to declare war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith. Mitt Romney believes that’s wrong.”

Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan also heavily pushed the War on Religion meme.

And why not? Romney was losing the women’s vote (in spite of his Binders full of Women), and what’s worse, women (including Catholics) were overwhelmingly in favor of Obama’s contraception coverage mandate. Rush Limbaugh’sslut” attack didn’t work, so the only other cover was to accuse Obama of waging war on religion. Put aside the fact that Obama’s contraception coverage mandate offers exemptions for houses of worship and religious non-profit organizations.

War on Terror

Who can forget President George W. Bush’s catch-phrase for retaliating against al-Qaeda after 9/11. Although the “War on Terror” closely represents an actual “war” against radical, militant extremism, the word “terror” has been loosely used by Bush and the Right to further their own agendas.

War on Women

Oh. Right. This one comes from liberal Democrats, but, given the long list of anti-women’s rights legislation pushed by Republicans, it comes close to meriting the phrase.

War on Men

FOX’s response to the “War on Women” with the “War on Men” is laughable (hysterical). Suzanne Venker, in a FOX News op-ed entitled “The War on Men” wrote this:

In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

Now the men have nowhere to go.

Say no more…

War on the Wealthy

Following Obama’s State of the Union address in 2009, CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, in an op-ed entitled “Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More” had this to say about Obama:

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Now, in 2012 and soon-to-be 2013, polls show Obama’s tax the wealthy plan is supported by 60% of the public, including 39% of Republicans. The 30% or so Republicans left screaming include Conservatives like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who is threatening “one hell of a fight” next year if the president forces through his plan for high-income earners to pay more taxes. Here we go again – Another war to cover their losses.

There are so, so many more of these “wars”. And most of the time they are mountains made out of molehills or a cover for self-inflicted failures. If Republicans could just accept the occasional defeat of ideas (elections), and not explode into their habit of inventing wars all the time, maybe they would start winning some of their own battles  again.

Sen Chambliss wants voters to think for himself

December 1, 2012

File under stupid:

Said by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia to a group of Republicans in Atlanta:

I think that you sent me to Washington to think for myself. And I want to vote the way you want me to vote. I don’t want to be dictated to by anybody in Washington as to how I’m going to vote on anything.

Chambliss said this in response to Grover Norquist’s attacks for breaking his Tax Protection Pledge (which Chambliss initially signed to get voters to think for himself).