Did George Zimmerman Shoot Trayvon Martin In Self Defense?

Citizens have the natural right and the common sense duty to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and their property... guns are the equalizing tools of self-protection, utopian lamentations notwithstanding ~ Edgar A. Suter, chairman of "Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy".

Everyone who's following the story knows George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems as though if you're a Liberal you're more likely to think it might have been murder, while Conservatives (the hard-right Fox Nooz watching types) are more likely to believe it was self-defense. But perhaps it was neither?

That's the theory put forth by a blogger who calls himself Dale Gribble Rusty Shackelford. Commenting on another blog, Rusty said, "I think this is going to flush out very similar to the Duke case".

Rusty is referring to the 2006 investigation into rape allegations made against three members of the men's lacrosse team at Duke University in Durham NC by a young black woman. The allegations turned out to be false and the players were cleared.

In making this comparison, Rusty must mean that George Zimmerman will be cleared. That is, George Zimmerman did NOT shoot Trayvon Martin. So, who did shoot him? My guess would be that Trayvon shot himself accidentally in the scuffle. A scuffle that ensued after Trayvon followed Zimmerman back to his truck and decked him.

Yes, Zimmerman may have followed Trayvon first, but, if you listen to the 911 tape, you'll find that Zimmerman complied when the operator said "we don't need you to do that" (follow the suspicious black male). Zimmerman said, "OK" and headed back to his truck. It was there he was confronted by Trayvon, who punched him, got on top of him and began pounding his head against the concrete, and finally shot himself accidentally when he went for Zimmerman's gun.

If not for this unfortunate fortunate accident, it would be the shooting death of George Zimmerman we would be discussing. And Trayvon would be in jail awaiting trial for murder.

I'm surprised Rusty did not compare this incident to the Joe Horn case. On 11/14/2007, in Pasadena TX, local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burglarizing his neighbor's home. Joe Horn, seeking to prevent the two thieves from getting away with property stolen from Joe's neighbor's home, ignored the 9-11 operator's advice and went outside to confront the two men. After shouting "move, you're dead!", Horn gunned down both men in cold blood self-defense. A grand jury later cleared Mr. Horn.

The lesson to be learned from these incidents is that Conservatives must stand their ground, and, when confronted by law-breaking minorities they should shoot to kill. Because regardless of whether Zimmerman shot Trayvon, or Trayvon shot himself, Trayvon got what was coming to him.

Or, that's the impression you might be left with after reading some Conservative takes on what went down. Personally I think George Zimmerman may be guilty of murder, although I believe a courtroom is the proper place to determine that. I only hope this doesn't end with a miscarriage of justice similar to the miscarriage of justice we saw in the Joe Horn case.

Note: For the record, I don't subscribe to the gun rights ideology of the individual who I quoted at the top of this post. My position on guns is more in line with the following quote...

...I don't believe gun owners have rights. The Second Amendment has never been interpreted that way. Now I am not for taking guns away or denying guns to law-abiding citizens, but I don't think it's a constitutional right that they have... ~ Sarah Brady (dob. 2/6/1942) the wife of former White House Press Secretary James Brady. James Brady sustained a permanently disabling head wound during the Reagan assassination attempt which occurred on 3/30/1981. Sarah and James Brady became leading advocates of gun control in the United States.

SWTD #112. See also PPP #15.

Current TV Shoots Self in Foot By Dismissing Olbermann (Corporate Democrats Silence Keith Again!)

For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it ~ Keith Olbermann on his depature from Current TV (via Twitter), 3/30/2012.

Current TV debuted a new program last night hosted by disgraced former NY governor Eliot Spitzer called "Viewpoint". At first I thought, "This is odd, where's Keith?". Then I figured that they were debuting this new program in Keith's time slot so viewers who tuned in specifically to watch Keith (like me), would continue to watch "Viewpoint" when they moved it to it's regular time slot on Monday (following Jennifer Granholm's "The War Room", I presumed).

Given Keith's history of clashing with management wherever he has previously worked, all the news stories are saying it was no surprise that Current decided to dismiss him. And there are also the reports that Keith was upset with technical difficulties on his program (difficulties that led him to start broadcasting from a completely black set). So, perhaps I should have seen this coming. Regardless, I was still shocked when I read the email from Newsmax this morning that announced Keith and Current were parting ways (I'm subscribed to several Rightwing newsletters).

I assumed that Current was aware of Keith's history and planned to avoid his notorious "clashes with management" problem by putting him in charge. When hired by Current Olbermann was named "Current Media's chief news officer" and given an equity stake in the company. In my mind this meant they were committing seriously to Keith... because extraditing themselves from this relationship would be extraordinarily difficult (and quite expensive).

Indeed, I think it could break Current if they paid him to leave like MSNBC did (Keith received his FULL salary for the remaining 2 years on his MSNBC contract). This explains why Current is claiming Keith was in "breach" of his contract... for taking several unscheduled days off. According to Meidaite, "technical problems beset the program, and since then, Olbermann has been hosting his show from what appears to be an endless black void". The no-show days were intended to encourage Current to fix the technical problems.

Keith, in his role as "Chief News Officer" wanted Current to succeed, and viewed these technical difficulties as an impediment to that success. Although, as Chief News Officer, I don't know why he couldn't have just ordered the problems fixed. Certainly I believe he should have been able to. Apparently he didn't have as free a reign as the title "Chief News Officer" implies.

What went wrong, a Politico story explains, is a repeat of the MSNBC situation where Keith clashed with MSNBC president Phil Griffin. Politico reports that, "Olbermann had a particularly tense relationship with David Bohrman, the former CNN executive who was brought in as Current president last summer, following the departure of Mark Rosenthal, an executive with whom Olbermann got along well".

A 7/28/2011 "Deadline New York" article by Executive Editor David Lieberman reveals, "Mark Rosenthal decided to leave because [Current co-founder] Joel Hyatt was crowding him in... [Hyatt] wanted to run Current again after Rosenthal recruited Keith Olbermann to come on board. ... Hyatt's desire to run the operation reached the point where he and Rosenthal agreed a few months ago to be co-CEOs... But the the channel's too small to require two chiefs. What's more, Rosenthal had held bigger jobs by himself when he was CEO of Interpublic Media and COO of MTV Networks. He was a board member at Current when Hyatt asked him to step in and professionalize the programming, marketing, affiliate sales, ad sales, and research efforts..."

My conclusion is that Joel Hyatt stepping in and elbowing out Mark Rosenthal is what lead to Keith's firing. And, yes, perhaps Keith should have known better, given Hyatt's past association with the The Democratic Leadership Council. (Wikipedia notes that "Hyatt was a founding member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Leadership Circle and was a member of that group from 1981 to 1986. He was the Democratic National Committee's assistant treasurer from 1981 to 1983").

Given this information concerning Hyatt (information I was previously unaware of until researching this story), it's no surprise Olbermann and Hyatt would clash. Because, as explained by Wikipedia, the DLC "has become unpopular within many progressive and liberal political circles such as the organizations Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, and [progressive blogs like] the Daily Kos... Some critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. In the long run, so opponents say, this strategy results in concession after concession to the opposition, while alienating traditionally-allied voters".

Count me in as a Liberal who strongly dislikes the DLC. It's the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. NO WONDER Hyatt, the president Hyatt hired (Bhorman) and Keith didn't get along! IMO Hyatt should have butted out and let Mark Rosenthal do the job they hired him to do. At least Hyatt should have consulted Keith before hiring Bhorman... seeing as Countdown was the lynchpin of the network's new format. What Current needed was a president who allowed Keith to run things as he saw fit. That, or Hyatt should have objected to the hiring of Keith from the get-go. This whole debacle is clearly Hyatt's fault. He's the one who put himself in a position where a confrontation with Keith was virtually a foregone conclusion.

It's my opinion that Current has shot itself in the foot with this boneheaded move... and Tim Goodman, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, agrees. In his Friday article he predicts that we can "bet on Olbermann to be around longer". That is, Current will fail while Olbermann will find employment as a political commentator elsewhere. Goodman explains his conclusion, stating, "now, let's disabuse those who think he's unemployable given his track record of going someplace and then leaving not too long after, burned bridges and accusations littering the highway behind him. That reputation of his hasn't stopped anyone yet. And it won't in the future. Olbermann's delivered ratings wherever he's been - most recently his defining stint at MSNBC and then Current. If you want to equate him to a diva wide receiver in the NFL (or quarterback or whatever), that's fine. If you're a sports fan, you know that those divas always find a home and always get paid".

Keith's response to the firing, via Twitter: Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract. It goes almost without saying that the claims against me in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently (Huffington Post Keith Olbermann Fired By Current TV; Replaced By Eliot Spitzer by Jack Mirkinson, The Huffington Post 3/30/2012).

My response is... it's back to MSNBC for me. I'm don't think I'm going to watch Eliot Spitzer. He's OK, but Current hiring him to host the lynchpin show for their network is unbelievably stupid. I feel bad for The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur (and gang). Cenk left his gig in the 6pm slot at MSNBC on 7/20/2011 because "he had been told he was too combative towards those in power" and had been instructed to "tone it down".

Cenk's move to Current seemed ideal, because he got to bring along all his friends (from the "Young Turks") and was able to speak his mind (no MSNBC censorship). When I heard about what happened with Cenk Uygur, I thought... that makes sense, given Current's hiring of another individual who speaks his mind (and was let go from his last gig for that reason)... now we've got two strong independent minded Liberals who speak back to power on the same network. "Bravo Current" I thought... AT THE TIME.

The statement released by Current founders Joel Hyatt and Al Gore reads (in part), "Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it". So they're claiming that Keith was uncooperative and disrespectful. Again, didn't they know that working with Olbermann might be difficult when they decided to enter into this relationship?

Dismissing Keith and abruptly replacing him with the inferior (no disrespect intended) Spitzer, especially when Keith was only trying to do what was best for Current, does not, in my opinion, represent loyalty to Current viewers. Difficulties should have been anticipated and they should have been worked out... THAT would have shown loyalty to viewers who followed Keith from MSNBC to Current.

What gives, Al Gore? I thought Current was serious about challenging MSNBC... which is becoming the "establishment" Left channel. Current could have been the REAL progressive channel (instead of another "Liberal" channel run by DLC/Corporate types like MSNBC), but, clearly Current has decided, in letting Olbermann go, that's not the strategy they're going to use to attract viewers any longer.

So, why the heck should people watch Current now? Keith Olbermann provided that reason, and there isn't much of one anymore, in my opinion. I'm disappointed Gore didn't oppose Hyatt's meddling... unless he's in agreement with Hyatt. Then I'm disappointed with him for that reason. Which is probably the case, given the fact that Gore, like Clinton, is also a DLC/Corporate Democrat. At least Gore was hands-off and didn't interfere like Hyatt (although Gore should have said something when Hyatt elbowed out Rosenthal).

I wish Keith luck in his lawsuit against Current, even if that means the destruction of Current and the end of "The Young Turks". The Young Turks was my second (now first) favorite Current program, but if Keith was wronged (and I believe he was) he is due justice. Sorry Cenk, I hope it doesn't come to that. I'll keep watching the "Young Turks" as long as Current remains on the air... unless Hyatt and Bohrman decide to fire him too... for being to outspoken/difficult. In conclusion, I say what we need is a REAL progressive news channel RUN by progressives. I'm sick of the Corporate Democrats being in charge.

Video Description: Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) explains why he turned down a new, significantly larger MSNBC contract after hosting a prime-time show on the network that was beating CNN in the ratings. [It was because he wouldn't play ball with Corporate Democrats].

SWTD #111, KO #3.

Tickling the Conservative Id

There has been a lot of talk about whether Gingrich's recent language, including his performance in the South Carolina debates and his earlier declaration that Barack Obama has been America's best "food-stamp president", amounts to a coded appeal to racist sensitivities. The answer is simple: yes ~ Leonard Pitts Jr (10/11/1957) a politically progressive African American commentator, journalist and novelist, as quoted in his 1/29/2012 publication article, "GOP's Politics of Racial Resentment".

I would not make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money ~ Rick Santorum (5/10/1958) a Republican politician who served as a United States Senator representing Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007, as well as a religious fundamentalist, homophobe and racist, as quoted during a 1/2/2012 Iowa campaign speech... a comment he later denied, insisting he was actually talking about "bla" people.

The following is an excerpt from the 3/13/2012 broadcast of Current TV's The Young Turks, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Cenk Uygur discusses recent statements by Sarah Palin with Alexis Garcia (a political Correspondent with PJTV) and Paul Waldman (Contributing editor at the American Prospect)...

Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [Clip used in an Obama campaign ad pulled from the Sean Hannity Show]. Obama has never been seen in the conventional, traditional way as we who would describe a man of valor. And his profession as a community organizer... what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism. He is bringing us back, Sean, to days... you can harken back to days before the civil war. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards... [End video clip].

Cenk Uygur: OK, that's it... it's official. This breaks the record for the dumbest criticism of the president ever. President Obama would like to go back to the days before the civil war when we had slavery. Who can possibly believe that? How can you be that profoundly stupid?

But Palin says that was "heavily edited". All right, we have the actual clip from the Sean Hannity program. Let's see if she was taken out of context.

Unedited Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [My summary] Sarah Palin says exactly the same thing as in the edited clip, with a few sentences removed to cut down the length of the clip. The edited clip is an accurate representation of what she said. Her "out of context" claims are baloney. [End video clip].

Cenk: [Scoffs] Oh, that made it much better. ... She went on and on, calling him the "radical of the radicals". She said "radical" about eight times. When you see the full tape it's much worse. So, Alexis, you're in a tough spot here. Are you going to defend this national embarrassment or not?

Alexis Garcia: ...Obama makes an ad about this because it's the only thing he can talk about. He's got to rile up his base. Your viewers are intelligent and can see this for what it is. The president can't talk about the economy, he can't talk about gas prices, he's continuing the bush policies in Afghanistan... he's got to remind his base - look at the Right-wing wackos out there.

Cenk: Alright, a spirited effort. ... Now I've got to go to Paul. Paul, when someone pitches you a softball, what do you normally do with it?

Paul Waldman: Well, you hit it. And I think it does show the Obama campaign sees some political benefit in drawing attention to Sarah Palin. I don't think that's aimed at the base. I think it's aimed at the broader electorate, particularly independents. What we've seen over the course of this primary, as the Republican candidates have tried very hard to appeal to their base, is that the opinions of the Republican Party and of those candidates in particular have gone down and down [he's talking about public sentiment]... and the Obama campaign knows what it's doing.

Sarah Palin knows what she's doing too. Even though you look at that statement and you may think that's nuts... she understands what parts of the Conservative Id she's tickling. Since Obama came into office, and even before... there's been this real part of the Conservative movement in America who believe the way to keep up their support and generate opposition to Obama is to play on racial grievance. To tell people that, not only is he "other", but that the blacks in America are coming for them.

That's why Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners that the Affordable Health Care Act is reparations for slavery. That's why Glenn Beck goes on TV and says Obama has a deep-seated hatred of White people. That's why Andrew Breitbart did that edited Shirley Sherrod video that tried to convince people that the agriculture department was discriminating against Whites. It's this message over and over that Obama is some kind of Stokely Carmichael type figure... despite everything that he's actually done.

If we can go back and find that he some sort of radical association, that will give you the clue that his war on White people is about to begin. It hasn't actually begun yet, of course... because you don't want to talk about the things that have actually happened. It's always right around the corner. Some kind of terrible thing is about to come and all of that racial grievance is going to be unleashed on White America.

Cenk: Unfortunately we're out of time... to me it seems like Paul is right, of course... [End of segment]

My Commentary: Alexis Garcia's response isn't a "spirited effort", it an obvious dodge. She doesn't answer the question, although she's right about Sarah Palin being a wacko. (and about Obama continuing the bush policies in Afghanistan, unfortunately)... but her answer isn't why I decided to turn this excerpt from the Young Turks into a blog post. The reason I did that is because of Paul Waldman's response concerning Palin "tickling the Conservative Id". It's blatant race-baiting. They deny it eternally, but continue to employ it.

Video 1 Description: Sarah Palin on the Sean Hannity program, 3/9/2012. Sarah inserts the racist dog whistles (those excerpted for the Obama Ad) beginning at the 5:22 mark, and ending at 6:47.

Video 2 Description: Mitt Romney on Barack Obama: "He has been awful European". Translation: Barack Obama isn't American. Or, as a commenter who calls himself "tom cook" on the World Net Daily message board recently said, "You can't be just a good old American anymore to be popular; you have to be an African-American, or a Latin-American, or some other wog-American. The liberals and the NEA have made all of the stupids ashamed of good solid American Americans". So, who are the "American Americans"? Obviously they're white people.

SWTD #110

Reason Magazine Advocation Of Means Testing Entitlements Politically Naive

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1/30/1882 to 4/12/1945) the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945). Excerpted from his 1/11/1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union.

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 2/1/2012, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom and Matt Welch (the editor in chief of Reason Magazine) discuss the social safety net and entitlements.

Matt Welch: I happen to agree that we should have a saftey net, but where I disagree with you, probably, is that entitlements are ruining the saftey net. You have to choose between one of the two so that Warren Buffett is not on Medicare, but his secretary is [a mangled metaphor, since I highly doubt Warren Buffett's secretary would qualify, but you get the point... Matt Welch is in favor of means testing].

Thom Hartmann: Well, then I'd suggest that you're politically naive. The history of programs that are defined as welfare... that are programs for poor people... is that they're very easy to cut. Even supposedly Progressive or Liberal politicians like Bill Clinton ended "Welfare as we know it". It was fine during a boom time... all the restrictions that Clinton put on Welfare... you can't be on it more than 4 years (I think), and you've got to jump through all these hoops... even if you're a single mother with a couple of kids.

But now that we're 4 years into the bush great depression that isn't working so well for a lot of people in this country. If you start means testing Social Security and Medicare, they're going to turn into welfare programs, and mark my words, someone's going to come along and say, "Oh, yea, people who have income over $200 thousand shouldn't get Social Security. Let's cut that down to $40 thousand... let's cut that down to $10 thousand... and then, finally, let's do away with it".

Matt Welch: I think that's a very interesting objection and one that I'm going to take into consideration. Reason Magazine is going to have an upcoming story on entitlements versus the welfare state. It's true that the vision for Social Security, after people started living longer... the concept was that it would retain it's politically popularity if we spread it among people who don't need it as much.

Thom Hartmann: It's a very small number of people.

Matt Welch: But that's what is sinking our finances. That's the problem.

Thom Hartmann: No, it's not. You know, if you took the cap off Social Security, so that everybody making over $106 thousand paid on all of their income... the Social Security program would be solvent forever. In fact it would have a massive surplus, larger than the 2.6 trillion it's got right now.

Matt Welch: You might get agreement from some of my [committee].

My Commentary: I'm not sure about that last word, "committee"... I listened to the audio several times, but I couldn't discern exactly what Matt Welch said. In any case, I'm pretty sure he indicated that some of his fellow Libertarians might agree with the argument in favor of lifting the cap (in regards to high wage earners not paying Social Security tax on income over 106k). That's interesting. I'd have been positive before that Libertarians would be strongly against raising (or removing) the SS tax cap in addition to being strongly in favor of means testing.

In my opinion Republicans are in favor of means testing because they want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, and means testing is the first step in accomplishing that goal. I mentioned this on the blog of a self-described "Moderate", and he called it a "conspiracy theory". He also said lifting the cap would amount to the largest tax increase in American history and he would vociferously oppose it. A Libertarian leaning blogger ridiculed the argument against means-testing, saying it amounted to "bribing" higher income people to gain their support for the programs.

But here is a Libertarian, and the editor in chief of the top Libertarian magazine no less, voicing some agreement with Thom Hartmann. I must say that Matt Welch's Libertarianism sounds at least a little more reasonable then Ron Paul's... this is an individual who thinks allowing an uninsured person to die represents "freedom". I'm with FDR in opposing this kind of "freedom". A necessitous man is not a free man. Perhaps enacting FDR's proposed Second Bill of Rights should be a goal of the 99 percent movement? At the very least we need to STOP the talk of "reforming" (cutting) entitlements that even our "socialist" president seems to be gung-ho for (with his "grand bargain").

Thom Hartmann Postcast Info: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 7:30 to 9:37 of Hour 2 on Thursday February 2 of 2012.

Video: Ron Paul was serious when he said (to audience applause at the 9/12/2011 CNN Tea Party debate) that society should allow uninsured people to die.

SWTD #109

Rush Limbaugh's Disgusting Comments Regarding Sandra Fluke Versus Bill Maher Calling Sarah Palin The C-Word

Senator Rubio... issued a statement in which he called Thursday's vote "a setback for religious freedoms in America". In fact, it was nothing of the kind. The health care law does not demand that religious groups change their beliefs, only that they not impose them on nonbelievers - or believers who disagree ~ Randy Schultz in a 3/2/2012 Palm Beach Post editorial, referring to Rubio's disappointment in the defeat of the Blunt amendment (an amendment under which all employers - not just religious or religious-affiliated employers - could refuse to include any coverage in medical insurance plans that is not "consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions").

Note: The following is an excerpt from the 3/9/2012 broadcast of The Young Turks hosted by Cenk Uygur, which I edited for brevity and clarity...

Cenk Uyger: In a stand up routine in Dallas Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the "C" word, which is very, very harsh (although this was in a stand up routine and not on his HBO program). Apparently he said "That's the only word for her".

Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [My summary] Sarah Palin has suggested on Fox Nooz that Barack Obama's Super PAC should return the 1 million dollars Maher donated. Sarah Palin calls the donation "dirty money" and asks (in reference to the president) "How can he sleep at night". [end video clip].

Cenk: Here's how I would sleep at nigh [makes snoring noises].

Video Clip of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: [Responding to the suggestion that Bill Maher's donation should be returned]. "We are not, and cannot be the arbitrator of every statement that everybody makes in the policy and political arena. As a general matter, obviously language that denigrates women is inappropriate. [End video clip].

Cenk: Alright, let's open it up to [our panel]. Let's start with Ana, logically. Obviously [both Rush's and Bill Maher's comments] were directed at women. You're a woman. This was really, really bad. What are your thoughts?

Ana Kasparian: The C word is really bad, but as with anything, context always matters. When you look at Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was not doing a comedy routine, he was being serious. He called [Sandra Fluke] a slut and a prostitute and he meant it. Whereas Bill Maher... look, that word is very, very harsh, but it was in the middle of a comedy routine. I give him a pass for it.

Cenk: OK, now, Jimmy, you're a comedian. Should comedians get a broader area to play in here? Is this fair game in that context?

Jimmy Dore: Here's the problem when they try to equate what Bill Maher did with what Rush Limbaugh did. When you are ridiculing someone in power - that's comedy. When you're ridiculing someone who is powerless that's called bullying. That's the difference. Sarah Palin had power, she was a governor, she ran to be the second most powerful person in the country... she's wide open to ridicule. Bill Maher doesn't have any power over her. Rush Limbaugh used his power to intimidate not only [Sandra Fluke] but all women who might speak up for women's reproductive health.

Cenk: I hear you, but I think the C word is out of bounds. I'm not sure if it is out of bounds in a comedy routine... he didn't say it on his TV show. If he had said it on his TV show - I'd say it's not right and he should apologize. Michael What do you think?

Michael Shure: I think it's OK for them [Conservatives] to say if Rush Limbaugh had to apologize, some of these people should have to apologize. But I do think there is a difference in the arena where you are, and context (in agreement with Ana). I think that does matter.

Cenk: Alright, Jesus, you're usually the voice of reason. Because it's a comedy routine, do you think that word can be used?

Jesus Godoy: I don't think it's OK. But Rush Limbaugh with his history...

Ana: Rush Limbaugh has been pushing this anti-women ideology for such long time... for decades now. That's why use of the word feminazi is very common among people who want to hate on women.

Cenk: I hear you, I think the word "feminazi" is worse then all of them. I hear you on that, but, at the same time, it's not like Bill Maher... and I love Bill Maher, and I agree with him 98 percent of the time, but if someone were to charge Bill Maher with misogyny, I wouldn't say that was out of bounds.

Jimmy Dore: The words he used were probably not a good choice (he also called Palin a "twat"). At the same time I don't believe it's equivalent [to what Rush said]. Rush's was a three-day attack on a woman who was not a public person. And when [Bill Maher used the C word] he wasn't shaming [Palin] for her sexuality, [but] Rush was shaming [Sandra Fluke] for her sexuality.

Cenk: I hear you. I also do not think they are equivalent. You guys are 100 percent right about the context. Now, having said that - when they say, President Obama look at these comments which are harmful to women... give the money back... is that a fair point? Should he give the money back Michael?

Michael Shure: No. I don't think he should give the money back - because Bill Maher gave money to a PAC. On the Republican side you've got much worse.

Jimmy Dore: The John Birch Society.

Michael Shure: The John Birch Society, exactly. That's a perfect example.

Cenk: If I was Obama I'd say, "Super PAC? I don't coordinate with my Super PAC at all". I hear you on the two not being equivalent and not giving the money back, but I think Maher should consider apologizing. What do you guys think about that? Quick ruling, Ana?

Ana: He should consider it.

Michael Shure: He should consider it, but it's fine if he doesn't because he's a comedian.

Jimmy Dore: I don't think he should because it gives the appearance that he agrees that it's equivalent.

Cenk: OK, I think he should consider it, but I'm not the boss of Bill Maher. He isn't going to listen to me or anybody else. Alright, thank you guys. [end of segment].

Cenk: (After returning from a commercial break) In the last segment we asked if Bill Maher's comments were as offensive as Rush Limbaugh's. We asked the same question on Current.com to find out what you [the viewers] thought, and the response was overwhelming. 87.27 percent of you said, no, not as offensive as Rush Limbaugh. Only 12.73 percent said yes. Well, if the Current viewers see it that way, it must be the case.

My Commentary: The comments are not equivalent. I said as much recently on another blog, and in response the proprietor (an individual who describes himself as a moderate) said, "Maher is every bit as much of a dirtbag as Limbaugh. They should BOTH be eviscerated/pilloried, in my opinion".

Furthermore, regarding Maher's use of the C word, I said "I think that word is demeaning to women and shouldn't be used, period. But, honestly, I am willing to [give Bill Maher a pass]. Why? Because I don't particularly care about Sarah Palin being demeaned. Also, "the National Organization for Women (NOW) condemned earlier Maher comments on Palin, [and] Palin responded by saying, 'I need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle'. She isn't willing to accept NOW's condemnation? OK, then I say to Bill Maher - use whatever words you want".

In response a blogger who calls himself "Rational Nation" said, "With your Palin comment you told us quite a lot about yourself. Your character anyway..."

I don't care what Rational Nation thinks about my character. I don't approve of Maher's use of that vile word, but I'm not going to condemn him either (or call him a "dirtbag"). Palin rejected NOW's condemnation of Maher's comments, so I assume she'd reject a Liberal blogger's defense of her as well (if I felt inclined to offer it). Yea, so no way... I'm going to remain a Bill Maher fan. As for Limbaugh, he's a dirtbag and his "apology" was insincere. If Maher apologized I'd believe him... although I know he won't, and don't think he should.

Note: The quote by Randy Schultz (no relation to Ed Schultz) at the top of the post really has nothing to do with the content of the post... although it does reflect how I feel about the Obama Administration's initial decision to require anyone who offers insurance (including religious institutions) to cover birth control.

As pointed out by Constitutional expert David Boies on the 2/8/2012 broadcast of "The Last Word" hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell, "There isn't a constitutional issue involved in this case... You don't exempt religious employers just because of their religion. You are not asking anybody in the Catholic church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal law that every employer has to comply with".

SWTD #108

The Lazy Jealous Liberal Beggar Learns A Lesson

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people -- Abraham Lincoln (2/12/1809 to 4/15/1865) 16th President of the United States (3/4/1861 to 4/15/1865).

William and Suri ran flat out for several blocks until reaching the bazaar in the heart of town. There they blended in with the large throng of citizens haggling over various sundries.

"If anyone was following us, I think we lost them", an out of breath William wheezed.

Suri turned to William and angrily shoved him in the chest. "Your unpredictable temper has really done it this time", she growled.

"What are you talking about?" William asked, looking confused. "We got away".

"You killed a priest at a temple of oracles William! You think they don't have extraordinary methods of finding out what happened?".

"I don't follow", William replied.

"Divine methods", Suri clarified.

"Yea, no. I think those oracles are frauds", William concluded. "I doubt we have anything to worry about from those hucksters. I'd like to go back and demand a refund".

Suri shook her head in disbelief. "Look, William, we've got to get out of town posthaste. It's only a matter of time until they come after us. The temple priests are extremely influential in this city. We should head back to the inn, grab our gear, and clear out tonight".

"You're overreacting Suri. Although, perhaps we should leave town just to be safe. I have no desire to go back to prison", William reasoned.

"Good, I'm glad we're in agreement", Suri said sarcastically. "By the gods, what an imbecile", she added under her breath.

But William didn't hear. He had turned away and was making his way through the crowd. Suri sighed and trotted after her companion. Suri saw William stop at the entrance to an alleyway. Suddenly he shouted, "get your stinking hand off me you damn dirty beggar!"

Catching up to William, Suri looked down to see a elderly man squatting in the alleyway. He withdrew his extended hand in response to William's screams.

He noticed Suri, smiled, and pointed to his beggar's bowl. "Please miss, can you spare a few coppers for a poor, disabled old man?"

"Certainly", Suri replied, digging in her pockets. She tossed a few coins in the man's bowl.

"Bless you, miss", the grateful beggar responded.

"What the hell are you doing!" William demanded. Quickly he stooped and retrieved the coins Suri had just tossed in the decrepit panhandler's pot. "We have no money to spare. Especially none for you to waste on rotgut", William lectured the beggar.

"Wait a minute", the old man cried, "you took more coins than the lady threw in".

"So I did", William agreed, looking at the coins in his hand.

"William, that is my money to do with as I please", Suri protested.

William disagreed, "It was your dumb idea to consult the oracles, Suri. I think you should be paying me back the gold pieces I wasted on their worthless advice before throwing away your coins on worthless beggars who'll only use it to get drunk".

"Sir, I am not worthless", the beggar protested. "I used to live a modest middle class life thanks to the pension I earned working for a company that manufactured arms and armaments for the King's army. But my pension was stolen from me by the evil Romney of Bain. He took over the company where I once worked, promising greater returns for the shareholders. The first thing he did was eliminate the pensions of former workers. That is why I am in the street, sir".

"Oh boohoo!" said William, mocking the old man. "I didn't ask for your sob story. I've heard of Romney of Bain. He is a great man, not a thief. I also heard that under his leadership the Royal Armaments Company made great profits for it's investors. Only jealous lazy Liberals dare criticize the genius of Romney. He's made this entire city quite wealthy. I happen to admire him".

"Only certain segments of the population have become wealthier, William", Suri interjected. "Others became much poorer. I remember a time when there were barely any indigent beggars, now they are virtually everywhere you turn. But we have no time for this. Please return the money you stole to Cecil".

"Who in Hades is Cecil?" William asked.

"I'm Cecil", said the old beggar.

"He told me his name while you were spouting off about that arsehole Romney", Suri explained.

"Yea, well screw you, and screw Cecil", William exclaimed, kicking the panhandler's pot, scattering his coins in the street.

"That was uncalled for!" exclaimed a shocked Suri. She was about to bend down and help the old man pick up the coins, but they were suddenly beset by a gaggle of prepubescent street urchins. The half-dozen youngsters quickly gathered up the coins and dispersed in multiple directions, disappearing into the crowd. After they had gone Suri discovered the old beggar was sobbing.

"Now look what you did!" cried Suri.

"Wow, those little fu©kers were fast!" William swore. "Well, we really should be going", William said, grabbing Suri by the arm and attempting to lead her away.

"Not so fast", Suri growled, wrenching her arm out of William's grasp. "Here take this" she said, pressing an object into Cecil's palm.

"Now what the fu©k did you give him?" William demanded, taking several menacing steps toward Cecil.

Cecil, clutching the item Suri had given him tightly in his fist, grabbed his cane, pulled himself up, and quickly hobbled down the alley.

William was about to pursue, but at that moment he noticed his belt pouch was a little light. "Son of a bicge, I've been pickpocketed!" William howled. "Gods damn it!" he screamed, turning his empty belt pouch inside out in disbelief.

"What the Hades is your problem buddy?" a nearby marketplace shopper queried.

"None your business a-hole!" William bellowed at the stranger. William noticed that quite a few people were starring at him, which made him very uncomfortable. "Nothing to see here folks. Move along", William said, addressing the crowd. William, looking for Suri and not seeing her, turned and almost ran into the stranger who he had just shouted at.

"Out of my way dumbass!" William hollered, shouldering the stranger violently which sent him tumbling to the ground.

"Stop accosting my husband", a rotund woman screeched, shoving William as he attempted to leave.

"Shut up you fat bicge", William said, punching the woman in her ample belly. The woman fell to the ground like a sack of potatoes.

Now even more people had gathered. Some were yelling and pointing at William. Several uniformed men that William recognized as members the of Lord Mayor's police force emerged from the crowd and approached William.

"Slowly undo your belt and let your weapon fall", the lead officer sternly cautioned, eyeing the sheathed sword at William's side.

William, realizing he was about to be taken into custody, scanned the area looking for an escape route. None of the crowd was blocking the alleyway Cecil the beggar had exited via, so William quickly dashed toward it.

"Halt!" commanded the officer. But William, not wanting to be arrested, sped away as expeditiously as he was able.

 swtd-107. wtm-3.  Previous. Next.

w-dervish's Liberal Buddies Told Willis Hart on Facebook that w-dervish Is A Frigging Nut

If Alien was my friend, I'd like to be with him when he went to the dentist. When they started drilling, he'd probably go nuts and start eating everybody. That Alien! ~ Jack Handy (dob 1/25/1949) an American humorist. He is best known for his Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey, a large body of surrealistic one-liner jokes, as well as his "Fuzzy Memories" and "My Big Thick Novel" shorts. Although many people assume otherwise, Handey is a real person, not a pen name or character.

I'm a "frigging Nut" and my "Liberal Buddies" have told Willis Hart (of Contra O'Reilly) so...

Willis Hart: Nobody like you, wd. Nobody. Even your liberal buddies think that you're a frigging nut and have told me so on Facebook. I didn't want to say this but you push me to answer you. (2/15/2012 AT 4:51pm).

So Willis didn't want to tell me, but I pushed him? Isn't it sweet that he's concerned about my feelings? He was so concerned about possibly crushing my fragile ego that he keep this damaging information from me.

And notice that Willis described these people as my "buddies" instead of "fellow Liberals". If there are other Liberal bloggers out that who consider themselves my "buddies", why are they bad-mouthing me behind my back (I'm not on Facebook)? What I want to know is who my "Liberal buddies" are, and what they've said. If you're one of these individuals (this is taking for granted that the Hartster isn't bullshitting me), I presume you'll know he's talking about YOU. Please let me know exactly why I'm a "frigging nut". I can take it. Who knows, maybe I'll agree and modify my position (re: whatever issue I'm nuts on).

Step up and stand behind what you've said. If you're really a "buddy" then you'll read this post, know Willis is referring to YOU, and have the balls to admit you're the kind of individual who'd knife a "buddy" in the back by making derogatory comments about him in a forum he doesn't visit. Ha, ha... I kid! You probably meant "frigging nuts" in the nicest way possible.

I look forward to your constructive criticism. Hopefully I can learn from your comments, grow, and become a better more mature, reasonable Liberal.

Update, 9/24/2014: The one and only "liberal buddy" turned out to be Joe "Truth 101" Kelly (AKA Truth 101, AKA Joe Kelly, AKA Joe Hagstrom) who, in addition to badmouthing me behind my back to Willis, also stabbed me in the back with a post on his blog titled What Defines a Shithead (in which Joe calls me a shithead - because he called me nuts and I disagreed). Turns out Willis lied (big surprise) about there being "buddies" (multiple people telling him on Facebook they think I'm nuts). It was Joe Kelly-Hagstrom who said this - and ONLY Joe Kelly-Hagstrom (see his comment below).

Also, I joined up with Facebook in October of 2013 and sent Willis a friend request, which he rudely declined.

SWTD #106, wDel #12.

w-dervish's Top Four Democratic Legislators (And Dishonorable Mentions)

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators ~ Unknown.

What follows is a listing of my favorite 4 Democratic Legislators; written in response to a post on the Contra O'Reilly blog. This "Moderate" blogger selects his legislators for (primarily) their support of the Bowles-Simpson Conservative Deficit Reduction plan, which has rightly (in my opinion) been criticized as being "stacked with people who want to target entitlement spending rather than any balanced proposal".

Re Bowles-Simpson being Conservative, Willis sez "only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered". Wrong.

In any case, my four picks are legislators I feel have exceptional character and integrity, and are among the cream of the crop. Politicians who have not been bought or sold, but in fact have been working hard for the average American (in alphabetical order)...

w-dervish's Top Four Democratic Legislators

[1] Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio) due to his opposition to free trade, and authorship of the book, Myths of Free Trade (which details why "an unregulated global economy is a threat to all of us"). I also respect him for being a strong advocate of equal rights for LGBT individuals and being ranked as one of the most Liberal members of Congress. Unfortunately he gets a demerit for his co-sponsorship of PIPA (The Protect IP Act).

[2] Rep. John Conyers (Michigan's 14th) for introducing (every session) HR 676 The U.S. National Health Care Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States), voting AGAINST HR 1540 (The National Defense Authorization Act)... the horrible legislation that allows indefinite detention without trial of American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil (signed by President Obama!), releasing (5/2005) "What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election", voting not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 US presidential election, suing the bush Administration in an effort to stop the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (a bill that cut Medicare and Medicaid) from becoming law, being one of the most liberal members of Congress.

[3] Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Arizona's 7th) for being the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, being rated as one of the most Liberal members of Congress, calling for a withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, opposing Arizona's SB 1070, being strongly pro-choice, support of the public option, voting against HR 1540, receiving an "F" from the NRA, requesting that the UN certify elections in the United States, opposition to a border fence due to it's potential damage to sensitive wildlife habitats, and calls for stronger oversight of the oil industry - offshore drilling in particular (In 2010, he introduced H.R. 5355 to eliminate the cap on oil company liability for the cost of environmental cleanups of spills).

[4] Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Illinois's 9th) because she voted NAY on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's blueprint (Simpson-Bowles) and offered a superior alternative, voted not to accept Ohio's electoral votes in 2004 in response to concerns about electoral irregularities (it was in Ohio that bush stole the 2004 election), supported the public option and single-payer, voted AGAINST HR 1540, and because she gave a speech at the 2004 Chicago Democratic Socialists of America's 46th Annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington Dinner. Unfortunately I have to give her a minor demerit for her condemnation of the Progressive Democrats of America's support for the second Freedom Flotilla.

Dishonorable Mention & Runner-Ups

Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) an individual who On The Issues (an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates) described as being a "hardcore Liberal", but upon closer examination THIS Liberal has to ask, "hard core? I think not", a decent Democrat perhaps, but a Democrat who acted as a useful idiot when he teamed up with GOP House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan to develop a Medicare reform plan that would result in the semi-privatization of the system. The Ryan-Wyden plan provoked a negative response from Wyden's Democratic allies, including President Obama.

Wyden also earns his dishonorable mention for sponsoring the Healthy Americans Act (which would institute a national system of market-based private insurance) and joining with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the bush Administration's Medicare Modernization Act (The bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was tripled). The act has been also criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates), and for "mostly" supporting free trade.

And, while the Fact Checking Organization Politifact called the Democrat's claim that the Ryan-Wyden plan would "end Medicare as we know it" their "lie of the year", it is actually TRUE and not a lie at all, as a 12/25/2011 Mediate article points out...

Tommy Christopher, writing for Mediaite: The blowback from Politifact's "Lie Of The Year" award has been fast, furious, and despite Politifact's smug insistence to the contrary, bipartisan. One overlooked effect of the site's naming "Republicans Voted To End Medicare" their "Lie Of The Year" is that it gives the false impression that Paul Ryan's original plan to end Medicare as we know it was nothing to worry about, and paves the way for acceptance of the newer Ryan-Wyden Medicare "reform" plan. In an interview with Fox Business's David Asman, liberal radio and TV host Thom Hartmann slammed Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Politifact for their assault on Medicare (Thom Hartmann Calls Sen. Ron Wyden "Useful Idiot" For Promoting Ryan-Wyden Medicare Plan, 12/25/2011).

Dishonorable runner-ups include Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad and Chris Van Hollen for their support of the Bowles-Simpson recommendations. Bowles-Simpson was NOT a "good starting point" as it looked FIRST to entitlements for savings. According to economist James K. Galbraith "the current deficits were caused by the financial crisis [and] cuts in Social Security and Medicare would be harmful and would not reduce the deficit".

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research criticized the commission for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund. He also denounced co-chairs Alan K. Simpson and Erskine Bowles for claiming to have looked everywhere on ways to increase revenue, but not including the financial industry (excerpted from Wikipedia).

I'm in complete agreement with the two economists quoted above. Instituting the Bowles-Simpson recommendations would hurt our economy. This is the primary reason I placed Jan Schakowsky on my top Democratic Legislators list. She voted NO, and for the right reasons (others voted NO, but for the wrong reasons; i.e. the commission didn't cut entitlements ENOUGH).

Video: Thom Hartmann and Igor Volsky discuss Politifact wrongly naming the Democrats saying that "Republicans Voted To End Medicare" their 2011 Lie Of The Year (7:42).

See also: Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag (SWTD #266). I thoroughly refute Willis Hart's assertion that Bowles-Simpson isn't Conservative.

SWTD #105, wDel #11.

Conservatives Destroying American Jobs With Falsehoods About Unions & Free Trade

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1/30/1882 to 4/12/1945) the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945). Excerpted from his statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, 6/16/1933.

What follows is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 1/5/2012, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Have paying higher wages for manufacturing jobs been as disastrous for the "job creators" in Germany as here in the United States? According to the Right-wingers the greed of labor unions and the outrageous salaries and benefits they extracted from their employers bankrupted the auto industry. Is this true? Thom Hartmann reality-checks the assertion...

Thom Hartmann: This is incredible when you think about this. Germany just announced this week, that their unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 20 years. And 20 years ago they were doing pretty good. The also... and this is going to make your head explode... they also announced that not only do they make a lot of things there... they, for instance, make twice as many cars. Germany is ... smaller then us [81 verses 312 million people], and they made, last year, 5.5 million cars while we made 2.7 million. They also make precision equipment, medical machinery, precision tools, etc. But guess what the average auto worker in Germany makes.

In the United States the average auto worker makes $33.77 an hour. That includes the benefits. At GM and Chrysler the new hires are coming in at $14.00 an hour. That's in the United States. So we've seen, since Reagan came into office, the average wage of the average US autoworker dropping, from what would be in today's dollars around 45 to 50 dollars an hour, down to 14 dollars an hour at entry level. That's 30 years of Reaganomics... and insane free trade policies.

Germany, which protects it's domestic industries, requires large corporations have half of their board of directors made up of representatives of labor, has a system called "worker's counsels" where the workers make all the major decisions about the workplace... how things happen on the factory floor... In Germany the average hourly salary with benefits is $67.14. On top of that those German workers have free health care. Their children have free education through college (more or less free). It's amazing.

Conservatives would look at this and say, "Germany must be having horrible problems. They pay $67 an hour and the workers run the factories? Their CEOs must be hysterical". No. The CEOs and stockholders are doing just fine. In fact their companies are making billions. Last year Volkswagen, BMW and Audi... all three of the major German car manufacturers, all reported profits in the billions. That's the leftover money after everyone has been paid. After the CEOs have been compensated, and they're well compensated. Not hundreds or thousands of times more then the average worker, but dozens of times. They're making good money.

Horst Mund is an executive with IG Metall [the country's equivalent of the United Automobile Workers] said that because of the work's counsels "you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin". In other words, we're working together here. What an amazing idea, an economy where people collaborate?

And then, on top of that he said, "this goes against all the mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals". Now, in Europe they refer to what we here call Republicans or Conservatives... they call them "neo-liberals". Liberalism in Europe means being in favor of business being able to do whatever it wants. Unrestrained business. As opposed to here in the United States where Liberalism means having a social saftey net, and providing people with bootstraps so they can pull themselves up.

So [Mund] says that the fact that the German companies are making billions in profits and the average auto worker is making $67.14 an hour. He says "this goes against all the mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages... despite our [the union's] possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany".

(The facts presented in Thom's rant are from a 12/21/2011 Forbes article by Frederick E. Allen, titled "How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much".)

My Commentary: What this proves, as stated in an article by Daily Kos author Laura Clawson writes (12/28/2011) is that "German auto manufacturers' high profits and high pay show why U.S. labor laws need to be stronger". Because if the government doesn't force companies to pay decent wages they will take advantage of their employees and pay them as little as possible. The Daily Kos article concludes, "that's why we need laws that level the playing field for American workers - and how we know, despite what Republicans tell us, that those laws won't tank our economy".

Such laws will actually be very beneficial to our economy, as it will put more money in the hands of workers, who will then spend it and stimulate further economic growth. This is the same reason why minimum wage laws don't cost jobs (as conservatives claim). Paying higher wages to workers (and a little less to CEOs) causes those workers to buy things; creating more demand; and thus causing employers to have to higher more workers to meet that demand.

Greedy unions forcing employers out of business and the minimum wage costing jobs are lies conservatives use in order to justify underpaying workers (and keep that money for themselves in the form of outrageous CEO compensation). Economies THAT WORK... like Germany's prove Conservatives are wrong. So-called "Right to Work" laws lead to lower wages and are bad for our economy. Protecting good paying American jobs via unions and tariffs are good for our economy. We need both higher unionization rates and higher tariffs.

This is why Congress needs to pass Card Check, tie increases in the minimum wage to inflation, and back away from the free trade agreements. Until (or unless) those objectives are accomplished the American middle class will continue it's decline.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 0:16 to 6:30 of Hour 3, Thursday January 5 2012.

SWTD #104

Mitt Romney: A Destroyer of Companies & Jobs, A Vulture Capitalist, An Unethical Thief

Bain made billions by, as the Los Angeles Times writes, "firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits". In all, Bain bankrupted nearly one-quarter of the companies it invested in, often causing "substantial job losses", according to a new Wall Street Journal report ~ Scott Keyes, writing for ThinkProgres, in a 1/9/2012 article titled, "GOP Speaks Out On Romney’s Greed: He Likes Firing People, Bankrupting Them, And Taking All The Money".

Bane, definition: a person or thing that ruins or spoils; that which causes death or destroys life.

Bain Capital, definition: an investment firm founded by Mitt Romney that ruins or spoils people's lives; an investment firm that causes the death of jobs and destroys companies.

The following video is an excerpt from the 1/10/2012 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe". In the clip Newt Gingrich explains the issue he sees with Bain Capital. Below the video I've excerpted some of the dialogue from the interview that I'd like to address.

Gingrich (1:39 to 2:45): The question is, if you look at the Wall Street Journal report in the last day or two, if you have a company that cost 30 million dollars and they took out 180 million... and then it went bankrupt, they have some obligation, I think, to explain. Why did they take that much money out if it was bankrupting the company? I think that's just a fair question about process and judgment. I think people draw a very sharp distinction between investors who really want a company to succeed, and investors who basically take over the company for the purpose of draining out it's cash, and then walk out without any concern for the consequence.

I think Governor Romney is going to have to have a press conference at some point and explain what happened with these particular companies. Because they weren't just failures, they were just "oh, we went in, we invested, we lost money too". These were cases where they were making a LOT of money while the company was going bankrupt. I think you have to ask real questions about whether that's responsible management and the kind of management you want to see as president of the United States.

Gingrich (6:47 to 9:16): [responding to question: What are the specific concerns you have regarding his record at Bain Capital?] There was a company that they put 30 million dollars into that they, according to the Wall Street Journal, they got 180 million dollars. That's a 6 to 1 return. And the company went bankrupt. It doesn't seem to me like the owners were taking much of a risk. It doesn't seem to me like they were sharing in the problems of the workers. How could they, in good conscience, take 180 million dollars out of company that they invested 30 million in, and leave all the workers behind? What if they'd taken 60 million out, which would still have been a nice profit... would the company still be alive? Would the workers still have jobs? Would families still have paychecks?

I think there are at least three or four cases where it wasn't traditional capitalism. It's not, "I made an investment, the investment went bad, I feel sorry about it, but we all suffered". These are cases of, "I made an investment, I did really, really well. Sorry about the company going broke". I think people have the right to ask the question - is that the kind of management responsibility you want in a president. And is that the kind of attitude you want in a president. ... This is, "I invested in something, I got richer, they got broke". I think he's going to have to explain that model.

My Commentary: The "model" I think is, as Rick Perry first said, Vulture Capitalism. Granted, this may not quite be the modus operandi of Bain Capital. Many of the companies they took over went on to become successful. But I'd have a problem if they did this just once. In my mind it is basically thievery. A vulture picks from the carcass of an animal that is dead or dying. And this appears to be what Bain did.

If, in their judgment, the company could be turned around, they made the effort to do that. If, on the other hand, they determined that it could not, then they took advantage of the bankruptcy process to load the company up with debt, pay themselves with that borrowed money, and then laugh all the way to the bank with no concern at all as to whom they were shafting. I think this behavior is utterly deplorable and should be illegal. There should be provisions in the law that allow those who lost money to come after Bain to recoup it.

According to a 12/3/2011 LA Times article, "Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy".

The Wall Street Journal, in the 1/9/2012 article referenced by Newt Gingrich, says one of their findings was, "that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors - yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains". However, "of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court".

Was it because the company, so burdened by the debt Bain forced them to take on (in order to pay them for their "services"), eventually went under? I think the facts say "yes". My question is, would an ethical person seek a profit so out of proportion with their initial investment that it put the company in danger of failing later (the unbelievable 600% return cited by Gingrich)? I say "no". In my opinion (at least some of) what Romney did at Bain Capital was very unethical... it may have been legal, but it was quite unethical.

Further Reading: Romney's Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In by Pat Garofalo, ThinkProgress 1/9/2012.

SWTD #103