Ever notice how sometimes the very same people who proclaim that our government is completely incompetent and run by morons are the same ones who are convinced that this same incompetent government was able to pull off the greatest hoaxes mankind has ever seen? There’s something amazing in the conspiracy-addled mind that can hold these two inconsistencies together without noticing.
The thing that bugs me most about these government conspiracy theories are that they don’t make sense from a human standard. If the government really did have aliens hidden in Area 51, you’d think someone involved over the past 50 years would have revealed this, written a book, and became rich. That happens now with government secrets of a much smaller scale — you’d think with all the people who have to have been involved in this, someone would have produced some proof by now.
After all, our government is pretty bad at keeping secrets. It really is incompetent in many areas. And between the press and the internet and cameras everywhere and whistleblowers and insiders talking, we know a lot about what our government does. And that’s a very good thing.
Still the crazy ideas continue.
At least this mindset is an equal opportunity employer. There are conservatives who are convinced Obama was born in Kenya and liberals who are convinced we faked the moon landing.
This is not to say that there aren’t minor conspiracies going on all the time — especially concerning money, price-fixing, insider trading, and so on. But nothing on the scale of the “9/11 was an inside job” mentality or the “government wants to take all your guns and install a military dictatorship” delusion.
The annual White House Correspondent’s Dinner allows the President to throw some barbs at himself and the press and is a good time to observe a President’s sense of humor first hand. Known jokingly as the “nerd prom” it gets bigger and bigger every year and is starting to look like the Oscars. Sarah Palin complained about it in a tweet today, but I think she was mostly pissed that she didn’t get an invitation.
Obama’s timing keeps getting better over the years and his joke writers are doing an excellent job. He is starting to rank up there with Reagan for having a great sense of humor. (Lincoln is also up there, but we don’t have any video of his performances!)
Conan O’Brien was the guest comedian and he had some great bits, too.
Here’s the video:
And here are some of my favorite jokes from Obama:
Now, look, I get it. These days, I look in the mirror and I have to admit, I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be. Time passes. You get a little gray.
And yet, even after all this time, I still make rookie mistakes. Like, I’m out in California, we’re at a fundraiser, we’re having a nice time. I happen to mention that Kamala Harris is the best-looking attorney general in the country. As you might imagine, I got trouble when I got back home. Who knew Eric Holder was so sensitive?
So, yes, maybe I have lost a step. But some things are beyond my control. For example, this whole controversy about Jay-Z going to Cuba — it’s unbelievable. I’ve got 99 problems and now Jay-Z is one. (To Bill O’Reilly) That’s another rap reference, Bill.
I know CNN has taken some knocks lately, but the fact is I admire their commitment to cover all sides of a story, just in case one of them happens to be accurate.
Some of my former advisors have switched over to the dark side. For example, David Axelrod now works for MSNBC, which is a nice change of pace since MSNBC used to work for David Axelrod.
The History Channel is not here. I guess they were embarrassed about the whole Obama-is-a-devil thing. Of course, that never kept Fox News from showing up. They actually thought the comparison was not fair — to Satan.
But the problem is, is that the media landscape is changing so rapidly. You can’t keep up with it. I mean, I remember when BuzzFeed was just something I did in college around 2:00 a.m.
There are other new players in the media landscape as well, like super PACs. Did you know that Sheldon Adelson spent $100 million of his own money last year on negative ads? You’ve got to really dislike me to spend that kind of money. I mean, that’s Oprah money. You could buy an island and call it “Nobama” for that kind of money. Sheldon would have been better off offering me $100 million to drop out of the race.
I know Republicans are still sorting out what happened in 2012, but one thing they all agree on is they need to do a better job reaching out to minorities. And look, call me self-centered, but I can think of one minority they could start with. (Waves hand and smiles) Hello? Think of me as a trial run, you know?
My charm offensive has helped me learn some interesting things about what’s going on in Congress — it turns out, absolutely nothing. But the point of my charm offensive is simple: We need to make progress on some important issues. Take the sequester. Republicans fell in love with this thing, and now they can’t stop talking about how much they hate it. It’s like we’re trapped in a Taylor Swift album.
One senator who has reached across the aisle recently is Marco Rubio, but I don’t know about 2016. I mean, the guy has not even finished a single term in the Senate and he thinks he’s ready to be President. Kids these days.
I’m also hard at work on plans for the Obama Library. And some have suggested that we put it in my birthplace, but I’d rather keep it in the United States. Did anybody not see that joke coming? Show of hands. Only Gallup? Maybe Dick Morris?
And some from Conan:
The last time I hosted the White House Correspondents Dinner was in 1995. It’s amazing to think how much our country has changed in 18 years. If, in 1995, you told me that in 2013 we’d have an African-American president with the middle name Hussein who was elected to a second term in a sluggish economy, I would have said, “oh, he must have run against Mitt Romney”.
As a late night comedian, I was kind of pulling for the rich guy whose horse danced in the Olympics.
A lot of online stars are in the room but, unfortunately, Matt Drudge couldn’t make it. He had a prior commitment to teach a web design class in 1997.
Some people say print media is dying, but I don’t believe it. And neither does my blacksmith.
The print media are here for two very good reasons: food and shelter.
It’s no surprise that Speaker John Boehner isn’t here tonight. President Obama and John Boehner are kind of like a blind date between Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow. In theory, they understand each other’s positions but, deep down, you know nothing’s ever going to happen.
Gerrymandering is an American tradition that has been around since Governor Gerry (look it up). Like the Electoral College, it’s a great way to make sure the will of the people is ignored.
In some states, they have passed laws to prevent it as much as possible by keeping politics out of it.
Anyway, a new study has been done which shows what the last election would be like if all states used that procedure. Surprise! The Democrats would have won the House. OK, it’s not really a surprise, because more people voted for Democrats in the House races than Republicans.
Check out this study. Yes, it’s on a liberal blog, but the math looks good.
Prosecutor: Something must be done! War would mean a prohibitive increase in our taxes.
Chico: Hey, I got an uncle lives in Taxes.
Prosecutor: No, I’m talking about taxes – money, dollars!
Chico: That’s-a where he lives! Dollars, Taxes! (from Duck Soup)
It’s tax day and Americans all over are complaining even though we have the lowest taxes of any industrialized country. Of course, they could be even lower for many of us if we just had a good, progressive tax system.
We’re the richest country on earth but yet our government is quite poor and in debt. Partially this is due to George W. Bush, who (a) started a war, (b) created a prescription drug plan and (c) cut taxes on the very wealthy without making any provisions for paying for any of these things.
The obvious solution when one is in debt is to increase one’s income. And, in fact, raising taxes on the very wealthy is supported by a majority of Americans. The problem is that the very wealthy have a lot more power than the majority of Americans.
Back in the old days after WWII and before Reagan handed the country over to the wealthy, we did great things. We built highways, created the internet and went to the moon — and these investments helped our economy and made us even richer. Now our infrastructure is falling apart (literally, bridges are collapsing with traffic going over them) and our science program is dead.
If we could just go back to the tax levels set by that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower, we would create jobs, pay down the debt, and improve our standard of living.
The ultra rich though have managed to convince people that if you tax them fairly, it will hurt us because they are the “job creators.” This ignores all facts completely — we’ve had historically low taxes on these people for many years and no jobs have magically appeared.
One thing some people don’t understand is how progressive tax works. When you hear that the top tax rate under Eisenhower was 94% you think, “Wow! Millionaires only got to keep 6% of their income?” I know that’s what I used to think, especially after hearing George Harrison complain in Taxman: “If 5% appears too small, be thankful I don’t take it all.”
But that’s not how it works. You pay a certain percentage up to a specific amount. For instance, our current tax rates look something like this:
10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $388,350, plus
40% on taxable income over $400,000
If you earn more than $400,000, it doesn’t mean the government gets 40% of your $400,000. It means they get 10% of your income under $8,700 and then 15% on your income between $8,700 and $35,350, and so on. The highest rate is only for whatever income you have over $400,000. That’s how we were able to have tax rates in the 90% range on the very very wealthy without bankrupting them (while at the same time providing for budget surpluses).
Do I wish my taxes were lower? Of course. For those of us not earning a six figure salary, tax time can really hurt. One way we could fix that is by going back to the system that we know works, where the absolute richest pay a higher percentage.
1. It will make every vote count. I grew up in Virginia which, at the time, was reliably Republican. My vote meant little in the Presidential race. Then I moved to Massachusetts and later New York where my Republican friends’ votes were meaningless.
That’s ridiculous. With the winner-take-all elections we have now, people who are in the minority party in their states have no real reason to come out and vote.
By having a popular vote for the President, every vote will count. Democrats in Utah and Republicans in Hawaii won’t feel their votes are wasted.
2. It will force candidates to campaign everywhere. Right now, there are states that rarely see a political campaign, where the candidate visits only to raise money and then disappears. The candidates also pay an inordinate amount of attention to whatever issues are important to those states that are in play, even if those issues would hurt the rest of the country. (Admittedly, some of that will still go on with our current primary system.)
Getting rid of the electoral college means a vote is a vote, no matter where it is. A vote in Idaho is meaningless to a Democratic candidate now, but it would be worth just as much as one in a swing state if we get rid of the electoral college.
3. It will help get people in those non-swing states involved. It should increase voter participation, and even help the local economy.
4. It will get rid of “red states” and “blue states.” This concept does nothing to help political discourse, and only divides us more.
5. It will make it clear that the President represents the people, not the states. And, more importantly, all the people, not just the ones in the states that elected him.
Right now, a President can lose the election and still win. That has happened three times in our history, most recently when Gore got more popular votes than Bush yet Bush won the electoral college. We ended up with a guy a majority of Americans voted against. How is that democracy? That’s winning by a loophole. And it could easily happen again.
(EDIT: Be sure to read the very extensive debate on this topic in the comments!)
(EDIT #2: Obviously, this was written before the 2016 election, so now we have two examples of a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the election within a period of 16 years.)
You have to give libertarians credit for one thing: they are consistent.
Liberals want government involvement in economics (Health care! Welfare! Regulations!) but not in individual personal choices (Gay marriage! Legal abortion! No promotion of religion!).
Conservatives want government involvement in individual personal choices (Prohibit gay marriage! No abortion! Our religion in the laws!) but not in economics (No health care! No welfare! No regulations!).
And, of course, both are completely hypocritical even in that. Liberals want to regulate all sorts of personal choices (No smoking! No unhealthy foods! No assault rifles!) and conservatives want involvement in economics (Tax breaks for corporations! Subsidies to oil companies! Government vouchers to help private schools!).
Libertarians are consistent. No government!
There aren’t a lot of true libertarians, though. After all, libertarianism is practically anarchy. Most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t really.
Take someone like Rand Paul, who says big government is bad, except when it is telling women that they can’t have abortions or gays they can’t get married — or when they give our tax money to corporations.
Not that you should ever believe anything this guy says, but especially pay no attention to him when he says he is a libertarian, because he isn’t.
They warned us. If you legalize marijuana, it’s going to destroy civilization. Criminals will run rampant, and, as we all know, marijuana leads to harder drugs, just like how milk leads to alcohol.
And now we actually have some place where we can see the results.
In Colorado, since the legalization, many changes have happened.
The state has saved millions of dollars by not arresting, prosecuting, and jailing marijuana users.
The state has earned millions of dollars in registration costs, fees, and taxes on marijuana.
They’ve also earned millions in tourism. Everybody loves a “bud and breakfast.”
One of the biggest insults politicians give is when they say they represent “real” America. Usually they say this while standing in front of a farm somewhere while a video plays showing rural Americans shopping, going to church, and watching an eagle fly by in slow motion.
They then will claim that real America loves traditional marriage and unfettered access to guns, wants to protect the rights of the unborn, and hates government involvement in health care.
And that’s just plain insulting.
The majority of Americans live in cities and suburbs, not rural farmlands. The majority supports gay marriage, thinks limits on gun ownership is a good thing, agrees with abortion rights, and actually likes the provisions of medicare, medicaid and yes, Obamacare.
It’s bad enough to claim to represent the majority when you clearly do not. But to also claim that you are “real America” — that you’re true and everyone else therefore does not support our country — well, we should all be insulted by that, even those these politicians are trying to claim as their own.
I feel patriotic when I walk down a street in Manhattan and am surrounded by people of all races, backgrounds, cultures and sexual orientation living together in relative peace. That to me is more of what America means than any bucolic rural scene. But both are “real” America, and anyone who tries to claim that it doesn’t include all of us just doesn’t understand what it means to be an American.
When I discuss this issue with other people, strong feelings take over, and often emotion prevails. This is understandable; I cheer when the bad guy dies in the movies, and I’m happy Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are no longer around.
The problem is that there is a balance to be met when dealing with the law: While you should not be Mr. Spock, ignoring your emotions, you cannot also be Dr. McCoy, letting your emotions overwhelm your logic. Yes, some people deserve to die.
The problem is this: Who makes that decision?
Some people would like to see rapists put to death. Others think anyone who commits a murder should automatically be given the death penalty. There are probably people who think drivers who don’t turn off their turn signals should get the death penalty.
If we say that it should only be applied in the most heinous of cases, then we still have that problem. Who decides that the crime is so terrible that the death penalty applies? Well, a jury first, of course, and then a judge. But wait a minute — that’s what we have now.
And this is where we meet the real problem: Our system of justice is not perfect.
Trust me, I do this for a living. Innocent people get found guilty all the time (and guilty people get found not guilty, too). I don’t think I have to cite all the cases of people on death row who have later been found to be innocent (including some who confessed — although usually the confessions were coerced or they have mental problems). And who knows how many we have already executed who we’ll never know if they were innocent because no one is researching their cases like they’re doing with those currently on death row?
So long as we have a system of justice that is not 100% perfect, we should not have a penalty that is 100% irreversible.
ventrellaquest.com 