All politicians lie. But currently, only the Republican party proudly promotes lies and deceptions as its policy.
A few days ago, I wrote about the “2.5 million unemployed by Obamacare” lie they are peddling.
I now see that that they are claiming that “Obama caused the government shutdown.”
Here’s how it really went down:
“Hey, President Obama! It’s us, the Republicans! Remember how we voted against Obamacare but it still passed? And how we challenged it in court and lost? And how we nominated a candidate who ran on a platform of repealing it and he lost? And how we voted 42 times to repeal it, losing each time? And how we have tried to defund it and lost?
Well, we now demand that despite all this, you defund it and thus kill it, or else we will shut down the government. No? Okay, you asked for it!
Look, everyone! We, the Republicans, have shut down the government until Obama gives us what we want! We’re proud of this accomplishment!
Okay, Obama, now will you defund it? No? Well, will you cut the budget in a few places? No? Will you at least cut this one thing? No?
Wait a minute … the American people hate this. Our poll numbers are lower than they have been in the history of poll numbers.
Okay, fine, you can reopen the government.
Wow, the public really hates us. Guess we have to use our old standby policy to get out of this one. Everyone, ready? Good. Start lying.
Obama caused the shutdown!!!”
Fortunately, rational and reasonable people are laughing at this. Here’s a nice video of journalist Bob Schieffer giggling uncontrollably when Ted Cruz claimed that Obama caused the shutdown:
… And here is an article from last December where Ted Cruz brags about causing the shutdown.
This is just outright lying, isn’t it? I mean, is there another explanation?
Despite what some defenders claim, this is not the same thing as picking and choosing which facts to highlight when pushing your agenda. It’s not the same thing as “spinning.” It’s not even the same thing as not pursuing your campaign promises. This is lying as policy. To defend this is despicable. (And I applaud those Republicans who are refusing to follow the party line here.)
Tomorrow, I’ll discuss the current GOP strategy of creating fake fraudulent websites designed to purposely mislead people into thinking they are donating to Democratic candidates. I am not making this up.
Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington, announced that his state will be joining the growing list of states that will no longer have the death penalty.
“Blah blah!” you scream. “Blah blah blah blah!”
Yes, yes, I know. Some people deserve it, vengeance should be part of our legal system, and even though there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent, it is a deterrent. 
Yes, I know. Thank you. You can stop now.
I will never shed a tear for certain people who received the death penalty in America (Good riddance, Timothy McVeigh). But I am very familiar with our judicial system. It’s what I do for a living, you know. And all of us who do this for a living will admit that our system is not perfect. Innocent people get found guilty all the time, and guilty people get found not guilty. Sometimes we don’t realize our mistakes until way later. And then it is often too late to do anything about it.
We should not have a punishment that is 100% irreversible in a system that is not 100% perfect. Too many innocent people (mostly poor, largely minority) have been put to death only to be exonerated much later by DNA evidence, witnesses recanting their testimony, or proof of DA and/or police conspiracies. It does happen, and more often than we would like to admit.
And we as a country should not stand for it.
That doesn’t mean we free everybody. Governor Inslee made that very clear with his announcement. “No one is getting out of jail!” he said.
So good job, Washington. Maybe soon the US will join the rest of the advanced civilized democratic world in getting rid of the death penalty completely. But by then, how many more innocent people would we have killed?
Lesson 27.
When an official report says something other than what you want it to say, make sure to twist it into something more favorable to you and bad for your opponent.
Example: The Congressional Budget Office said that because of Obamacare, people who stayed in jobs solely for the insurance were now free to pursue other things. They could now get rid of that second job, stay at home with the kids, or even start their own business. Approximately 2.5 million people would be taking advantage of this, which will mean that 2.5 million jobs will soon be available for the unemployed to get. The unemployment rate will fall, and perhaps even more small businesses will be formed.
Question: How do you translate this news into Republican?
Analysis: This is a difficult one, because clearly these are Republican goals. Reducing unemployment, encouraging parents to stay at home, and helping small businesses form are all traditional Republican ideals. However, to acknowledge this would be to not only admit that Obamacare might have some good points, but also allow the Democrats to claim that. Clearly, any admission of any gains at all would be improper.
Solution: Lie. The best way to get around a truth you dislike is to lie. Try one of these whoppers:
“Obamacare is a disincentive to work!” This one isn’t bad. It implies that staying in a terrible job you hate just for the insurance is preferable to taking your life into your own hands and doing what you want. But it’s still slightly true, albeit misleading. you can do better.
“Obamacare will destroy 2.5 million jobs!” There’s the winner. A complete lie, absolutely not what the CBO said, and sure to be bought by a clueless media who doesn’t want to have to actually do the reading to realize that it’s complete bullshit. Even if it was true, it’s offset by the fact that Obamacare has added 8.1 million new jobs. But of course, you will never mention that.
Summary: As we have seen from every other lesson, the answer is always to lie. You can never go wrong that way if you want to learn how to speak Republican fluently.
So today, on the 50th anniversary of the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan show — at the time, the largest TV audience ever — I’ll share my view on the top five underrated Beatles songs.
By “underrated” I mean they should be considered along with the more famous classics, and I think if any of these had been released as singles, they would be.
I didn’t count any song that had been on a Greatest Hits collection, although two of these songs were featured in the background of other songs on the Love album remix.
Final disclaimer: Like all art, music is subjective. One person’s masterpiece is another person’s trash. Your mileage may vary.
In no particular order:
HEY BULLDOG
This was recorded around the same time as “Lady Madonna” and I think is far superior. John threw this together in the studio and everyone pitched in ideas as a video crew filmed. It was one of the last true group efforts, and George does one of his best solos and Paul’s bass really pushes the song forward. After it was done, they gave it to the Yellow Submarine filmmakers who put it into the movie and then the song was cut for the American release of the film. The only way you would have known this song existed is if you bought the Yellow Submarine soundtrack album, which few people did since it only had four new songs on it. (The scene has been restored to the latest DVD releases of the film!)
AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING
This is another one of John’s and was on the excellent Revolver album, which has no bad songs whatsoever. Engineer Geoff Emerick had developed their distinctive guitar style by that album (copied many times since by other bands) and it really shines on this classic. Imagine how much John and George had to practice to get those parts done!
YOU NEVER GIVE ME YOUR MONEY
Paul, apparently inspired by John’s work on “Happiness is a Warm Gun”, decided to write his own song like that, with many different parts that all flow together into one. I mean, you don’t really realize it while you’re listening, but the first bit (“you never give me your money”) is never repeated after two consecutive runs-through. And we go right along, because it all fits so well. Paul, of course, felt that he really should do another verse of “you never give me your money” so he stuck it in “Carry that Weight” near the end of the album instead. Cheeky lad. (Note that he continued to do these kinds of songs in his solo career, notably with “Uncle Albert / Admiral Halsey.”)
SEXY SADIE
This began as John’s comments on the Maharishi and that is what it was originally called. He then just replaced “Maharishi” with “Sexy Sadie.” I love the feel of this song, from the spooky piano to the fade out with the solo that goes on and on, which is perfect. (Not too short, not too long.)
TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS
Try to imagine what it was like in the music world in 1966 before the Beatles released “Revolver” with this song as the closer. The top songs that week included “Wild Thing” by the Troggs; “Li’l Red Riding Hood” by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs; “Summer in the City” by the Lovin’ Spoonful; and “Hanky Panky” by Tommy James and the Shondells. And then this comes over the loudspeakers.
The Beatles were once more pushing every envelope possible, experimenting in the studio in the way no one had done before, and, with this song, pretty handily creating what is still today known as “psychedelic music.” And more importantly, underneath of that is a really catchy tune. John wasn’t about to give up hooks for his experimentation. (Well, not until “Revolution 9” a few years later, anyway.)
So happy 50th anniversary, everyone. Now to go watch Paul and Ringo perform at the Ed Sullivan theater again…
For those of you who are against Obamacare: Most of you are not deluded. You understand that it’s not going to get repealed. We’re stuck with it.
But it has a whole lot of problems. There’s a new bureaucracy, and that damned web page, and there’s still issues involving businesses that don’t want to provide health care for things they don’t believe in. It’s a bother to force people to sign up for it, and then there’s the penalty part of it if you don’t. And insurance companies can still limit which doctor you get to see. (That happened to me when I switched and suddenly discovered that they wouldn’t cover payment to the family doctor my wife and I have been seeing for a dozen years or more.)
There is one easy solution.
All we have to do is remove the age restriction on medicare.
The bureaucracy for it is already in place, and the elderly are overwhelmingly happy with the way it works. You get to choose your own doctor. Insurance companies are out of the picture and can’t regulate what gets covered. 
We spread the costs out among 300 million people or so (as opposed to the way we spread them out among much smaller insurance groups today) and reduce the average expenditure per person. And a new Obamacare bureaucracy, with its books full of regulations telling the insurance companies what they can and cannot do, can be thrown in the garbage.
And just like the elderly do now, you can buy insurance that goes beyond what medicare covers if you so desire.
This is the original plan the Democrats wanted way back when, but you folks insisted on a “market-based” plan similar to Romneycare. That is, until the democrats agreed to do it that way. Then you hated Romneycare.
Medicare for all is the way to go.
This is why every other industrialized country has done it this way, and has had many years of experience doing it to show that it works. (Heck, we have many years of doing it, if you count medicare.)
But the fact is that this is the easiest, cheapest, and best way to provide health insurance to Americans. That’s what you like, right? Saving money?
This will do it.
ventrellaquest.com 