They Might Be James Goldman

James GoldmanOn this day in 1917, actor Susan Hayward was born. Ed Yost, the inventor of the hot air balloon was born in 1919. And magician Harry Blackstone Jr was born in 1934.

Economist Thomas Sowell is 83. Musician Stanley Clarke is 52. And actor Vincent D’Onofrio is 54.

But the day belongs to playwright James Goldman, who was born on this day in 1927. He was the older brother of novelist and screenwriter William Goldman. He’s best known for the play and the filmed version of it, The Lion in Winter. But I most admire him for the film They Might Be Giants, which was also a play but it has never been published.

The film is extremely deep, but I fear that most people don’t understand it. It is basically a modern version of Don Quixote. But in this telling, instead of Quixote thinking he is a knight, he thinks he is Sherlock Holmes. His family thinks he is insane, so he becomes a patient of a psychiatrist, Dr Mildred Watson. Once learning of her last name, Holmes becomes convinced that she is his Dr Watson. As time goes on, Watson is pulled completely into Holmes’ fantasy. On its surface, the film is just a silly comedy. But it is really quite deep and poses all of the most important questions that humans ask. Here is the end of the film (which is about all I could find), which shows the final commitment of Watson to Holmes’ world. It doesn’t completely work on screen, but on the stage it would have been perfect:

Happy birthday James Goldman!

The human heart can see what is hidden to the eyes, and the heart knows things that the mind does not begin to understand.

Sluts Should Suffer for Sex

Bill MaherI’ve been having major computer problems today. I think it is the heat. It was 106 today and it is supposed to be—I am not making this up—118 on Tuesday. So if I’m not blogging it is because my internet connection is down or I’ve died of exposure. The latter case is my preference, but it will greatly limit the postings here.

As a result of this, I want to get up a few quick things while I can. On Friday’s Real Time, Bill Maher performed a really good “New Rules.” He cut right to the heart of what we all know is true. All this concern about abortion and birth control and abstinence has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or keeping people safe. It is all about making sluts pay for the sin of enjoying sex. And just look at how sexist it is. Everyone accepts that men will enjoy sex. But if that happens to a woman, she needs to pay. These religious people are small minded and evil.

But Maher’s rant is pretty funny:

Dean Baker and Perry Hotter

Dean BakerLast week, Dean Baker wrote More Thoughts on Patents and Copyrights. In it, he mentioned that it wasn’t just a matter of how long a copyright was; its scope can be even more harmful to the free market. For example, it isn’t just that J. K. Rowling’s books will be under copyright protection for at least 95 years. She can also prohibit derivative works. For example, Baker notes that he couldn’t come out with his own book, Harry Potter Becomes an Economist. That got me thinking…

Sure, we can’t use “Harry Potter.” But what about “Perry Hotter”? It does seem to me that the economics profession is every bit as mysterious as wizardry. Instead of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, it would be the Hogwash School of Chicanery and Subterfuge. Or just the Chicago School of Economics.[1] I’m just brainstorming here. I’ll leave the details up to Baker.

I was also thinking that instead of being a single book, it should be a series. I don’t know why, but seven books seems about right. I’ve got a tentative list of titles:

  1. Perry Hotter and the Economic Stone Age
  2. Perry Hotter and the Chamber of Lies
  3. Perry Hotter and the Prisoners of Austerity
  4. Perry Hotter and the Goblet of Cash (This volume introduces sub-villain Henn Glubbard.)
  5. Perry Hotter and the Order of the Bankers
  6. Perry Hotter and the Half-Baked Principle
  7. Perry Hotter and the Deadly Hollers

I think we’ve got a winner here. The only question is who we use for the Lord Voldemort character. I have a lot of good ideas, but unfortunately, most of them are still alive. Milton Friedman seems like an obvious choice, but despite all the damage he did, he was a pretty good economist. Of course, that’s the thing about economics: you can be great at the art and yet use it for evil purposes. That’s why Alan Greenspan jumps out (not dead, but cadaverous enough for the part), but I don’t think anyone has ever thought of him as a great economists. One doesn’t have to be great to do evil. And then there’s the question of the name. Lord Voldespan might work, but Lord Friedmort has more pizzazz.

I’ll leave all the details to Baker. But I’m really looking forward to reading these books!

[1] Yes, I am aware it produces some fine economists. But recently, major “freshwater economists” seem more involved in apologetics than science.

Conservative and Liberal Lies About Each Other

Rich Uncle Pennybags: Not Real AmericaYesterday, Paul Krugman wrote about why it is that conservatives so hate Acela Express. Of course, it is all about culture. Geoff Nunberg gets it exactly right in the subtitle of his excellent book, Talking Right, “How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show.” As he discusses in the book, it turns out that conservatives drink more lattes, drive more Volvos, and eat more sushi.

How can the stereotype be so wrong? It’s simple. As I’ve been saying for a long time, while there are many rich people who are liberals, in general, the rich are conservative. It is true that conservatism is more associated with rural areas, but it is still the rich in those areas who dominate the political landscape. It is not the rural poor who make places like Mississippi the political hellscapes they are. But it wouldn’t be fun for Ann Coulter to write a book mocking the rural the poor. So the target is always the urban rich, who interestingly mostly agree with Coulter and her ilk regarding economic issues.

The Real America Myth

Krugman pushes back on this whole business of the Red States being the True America:

Except they (we) are, in fact, the real America—a lot realer than the small-town, all-white America such people have in their minds. As I’ve pointed out before, the average American lives in a census tract with a population density of more than 5,000 per square mile. That’s not Mayberry—it’s dense, even quasi-urban suburbia. It is, as it happens, the population-weighted density of greater Baltimore.

It’s interesting that he mentioned Mayberry. The typical conservative view of “real America” doesn’t come from American history. It comes from early 1960s TV series like The Andy Griffith Show and Leave It to Beaver. They somehow whisk away all the discord that America ever was. They’re more than interested in lionizing Thomas Paine, as Glenn Beck has done, without engaging with his ideas or recognizing what a hated figure the man was at his death. Their view of what America has always been is as cartoonish as their views of what liberals are.

We Are All Real America

The same goes for us liberals. We too often portray conservatives as know-nothing red necks. And I understand that this kind of thing can be fun. But in the long run, these people will be our allies. They are workers, after all. They need a living a wage. They can be the basis for new age of unionization. And we have much in common with them if we can just talk to them. Our true adversaries are the bankers. There is no talking to them except when they are on the verge of ruin and they need a bailout from us. Otherwise, they will fight us with everything they have (and that’s a lot) for every extra marginal dollar of profit. It isn’t that they are evil; it is just their nature:

Move Ahead — Together

People who must work for a living need to bind together. It is the only way forward.

Intellectual Jokes

Math JokeA Reddit user recent asked a question, “What’s the most intellectual joke you know?” The only joke that immediately came to mind was the classic, “How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?” Answer: “Fish!” There is also a line from Woody Allen during his stand-up days, “My ex-wife was a philosophy major at NYU. She and I used to have deep philosophical discussions where she would prove that I didn’t exist.” But that isn’t really a joke, and it is more about the abuse at the hands of his wife than it is about the nature of existence.

Katy Waldman and Will Oremus over at Slate provided An Idiot’s Guide to the Reddit Thread, “What’s the Most Intellectual Joke You Know?” Now, it’s true that by its very nature, explaining jokes is a thankless task. Here is a screamer of a joke from the 15th century when Europe was just rediscovering the joke:

The abbot of Septimo, an extremely corpulent man, was traveling toward Florence one evening. On the road he asked a peasant, “Do you think I’ll be able to make it through the city gate?” He was talking about whether he would be able to make it to the city before the gates were closed. The peasant, jesting on the abbot’s fatness, said, “Why, if a cart of hay can make it through, you can, too!”

As I noted last year, this is like, “Take my wife, as in ‘consider my wife’… Please! In the different sense of ‘take’ you see. I was implying that you should consider my wife but I was really just saying that you should take her off my hands! This is because I don’t like my wife very much.” So Waldman and Oremus can be forgiven if they take some of the fun out of the jokes.

Consider this:

Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, “I’d like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream.” The waitress replies, “I’m sorry, Monsieur, but we’re out of cream. How about with no milk?”

They point out that Sartre argued that the absence of something was still something. This is like in Waiting for Godot where Estragon says, “Nothing to be done.” It is the core philosophical idea in the play: how will we accomplish nothing until we thankfully die. But that is really not what the joke is about. You could pull Sartre out of the joke altogether. We delight in the word play: the server can’t deprive you of cream when she has none. Like most jokes, its just silly.

In general, I don’t find the science oriented jokes particularly intellectual. One is a classic that math teachers like to use to explain how statistics can be misused:

A biologist, a chemist, and a statistician are out hunting. The biologist shoots at a deer and misses 5 feet to the left, the chemist takes a shot and misses 5 feet to the right, and the statistician yells, “We got ‘im!”

Here our guides try to be funny by saying that the joke is “mean” as in average. I think it is more correct to say that it isn’t really funny, just interesting. Similarly, the following programming joke:

A programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.” The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.

This joke doesn’t have to be explained and I’m sure you see how the folks on the Redmond campus were laughing for weeks over this one. But as written, it isn’t correct. It is two sentences. If I were coding it, it would look like this:

Go to store
Pick up bread
If eggs
    Get dozen

That last statement is ambiguous, but it no more means to get a dozen loaves of bread as it does a dozen stores, eggs, or anything else that happens to be on the top of the stack.

There was one joke that I did not get at all, so let me explain it to you first. The Bechdel test is a way to gauge gender bias in fiction. It is really simple. In a novel, do two women ever talk to each other about anything other than men. I find this interesting because my first novel that I think has really great female characters does not pass the Bechdel test. I only have one scene in which two women talk together, and it is all about men—or rather one man in particular. The biggest problem is just that I rarely have women talking to each other. The primary characters are men. The second novel is even worse because two women never talk to each other at all given it is written in strict first person and the character is a man. But it’s food for thought.

Here’s the joke:

Two women walk into a bar and talk about the Bechdel test.

Not exactly a thigh slapper, but clearly intellectual.

My favorite joke I will leave alone because I don’t want to spoil it:

Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

Let me only add that I am less and less solipsistic and more and more with Woody Allen’s ex-wife: it isn’t even just me.

Here are a few more jokes that I don’t think need explaining, but ask in the comments if I’m wrong:

Pavlov is sitting at a pub enjoying a pint, the phone rings and he jumps up shouting, “Oh shit, I forgot to feed the dog!”

It’s hard to explain puns to kleptomaniacs because they always take things literally.

Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Gödel, and Noam Chomsky walk into a bar. Heisenberg turns to the other two and says, “Clearly this is a joke, but how can we figure out if it’s funny or not?” Godel replies, “We can’t know that because we’re inside the joke.” Chomsky says, “Of course it’s funny. You’re just telling it wrong.”

Now that I think of it, the most intellectual joke is the meta joke about the nature of jokes themselves, “A priest, a rabbi, and a monk walk into a bar and the bartender says, ‘What is this? A joke?'”


Will reminded me of another Woody Allen joke, “I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me.”

The Little Prince

Antoine de Saint-ExuperyOne of the founders of the Mayo Clinic, William James Mayo, was born on this day in 1861. Singer Nelson Eddy was born in 1901.

And the great, great, great special effects master Ray Harryhausen was born in 1920. Harryhausen only died last month. He is best remembered for his films Jason and the Argonauts and Clash of the Titans. His work holds up surprisingly well in this world of computer animation where literally anything can be done. Something to note about his films is that the look of them is not dictated by his special effects. That is a common complaint of mine about many more modern special effects.

Here is a short Turner Classic Movies tribute to Harryhausen:

Addiction guru but mostly idiot John Bradshaw is 80 today. Actor Gary Busey is 69. And comedian Richard Lewis is 66. When I was younger, I though he was hysterical. Now I find him kind of annoying.

The day, however, belongs to author Antoine de Saint-Exupery. He is best known for The Little Prince. He sadly disappeared on a reconnaissance mission during World War II at the age of 44. Here is the first part of the book read aloud:

Happy birthday Antoine de Saint-Exupery!

Lagunitas and Computer Crashes

Lagunitas Little Sumpin' Sumpin' AlePeople complain. They say, “Do you know that your website was down for over two hours today?” And I tell them, yes. My provider totally sucks! But they suck at less than half the price of my old provider. (Actually, my provider is great and they offer the best customer service I’ve ever gotten. If you have a little website, I highly recommend them.) Look folks, right now the site gets about 2,500 visitors per day. That’s actually quite good. And yes, I really should start putting advertising on the website. But there’s a problem. Most of my daily traffic is just repeat traffic because I have such a dedicated following. And I am grateful—believe me! Of course, you’re all crazy. But I love you.

Here’s the deal. Once the site gets up to 10,000 visitors per day, then I’ll upgrade. I’ll get really great, redundant hosting—the kind of thing that costs hundreds of dollars per month. But for now, you will just have to put up with our occasional glitches. Sometimes you will just have to wait a couple of hours for your Frankly Curious fix. But isn’t it satisfying when it shoots up the dropper’s neck and that Frankly Curious rushes through your bloodstream and the endorphins are released and all of the day’s troubles fade away?

And make no mistake, I work very hard at this. When I wake up, I am in a near panic. “What am I going to write about?” I think. I was in a high state of stress this morning because I was traveling and I couldn’t write anything until after noon. I thought I was letting you all down. I managed to get a couple of articles up, which led to a certain level of calm. But I was still working. I got another idea for an article. And before I could even start I got yet another idea. So I went to the site and: nothing. It was down. The next two plus hours were agony because I knew that I was letting all of you down.

Well, we’re back up now. The only problem is that now I’m a little drunk. Speaking of which, Lagunitas Brewing Company (located in my very own county) makes arguably the best beer on the market: Little Sumpin’ Sumpin’ Ale. Is it better than Arrogant Bastard? In general, I would have to say no. The two are the best beers that I’ve ever drunk, and I make it a habit of drinking good beers. I am also a light weight, because I’ve only had 12 fluid ounces of Little Sumpin’.

So these are my suggestions for you. First, recommend Frankly Curious to all your friends. Second, relax with a good beer like Little Sumpin’ or Arrogant Bastard. Sure, you can drink something like Negra Modelo, I won’t hold it against you. I will hold the following partial list of beers against you: Budweiser, Coors, and Corona. It isn’t because those beers are bad. They aren’t bad necessarily. But you will pay as much for them as you would for a decent beer. Where was I? That’s right, third, drink responsible. Don’t drink and blog! And fourth, recommend Frankly Curious to all your friends. Wash, rinse, repeat!

Global Warming in Perspective

HellscapeI know it’s not global warming. Weather is not global warming. But here is the seven day forecast for my hometown of Santa Rosa, California: 106, 106, 106, 106, 95, 97, 91. Three days ago it was in the 60s and pouring rain. This is not typical weather for this place at any time. The truth is that in the last decade, this area hasn’t been getting as much rainfall as it normally did. I suspect that’s global warming. I suspect that we will be seeing more and worse heat waves because of global warming. That’s the thing about climate science. We’ve never been that concerned that average temperatures would go up by a couple of degrees. The big problem is extreme weather events. This five-day period of 100+ temperatures (yesterday was the same) will cause people to die unnecessarily. They don’t die because it is a bit hotter on average. They die because a two day heat wave of 99 degrees is now a five day heat wave of 106.

The other issue, perhaps even more important, is rainfall. Hotter surface temperatures will lead to more rainfall. The problem is that all that extra rain and then some will be falling over the oceans. Agricultural areas like my hometown will be screwed—as will all those avocado farmers in the valley. In fact, over the next hundred years, most of the really productive farm land in the United States will go away. Things are looking mighty good for Canada! (Not that they weren’t anyway.) Siberia is likely to become very fertile land as well. (The reasons for this are complicated, but the main thing is that carbon radiative forcing affects polar regions much more than equatorial regions.)

Of course, all of this is very directly focused on humans. We don’t really know what’s going to happen to the ecosystems of the world. There is little doubt that global warming is going to be great for insects. So there’s that. Whether it will be good for bees, specifically, we can’t say. And if bees die out, we are basically screwed. Or it could mess up the thermohaline circulation and then we are basically screwed. Or… We are basically screwed.

But what does any of this matter?! I mean, ExxonMobile only made $41 billion in 2011. What are extra deaths, the destruction of American farming, and the decimation of ecosystems compared to shareholder profits? Really: we have to have priorities and it is clear what those priorities are. After all, you start cutting into oil company profits and soon it is a Stalinist hellscape. Except it would be cooler than the world we are headed for.

Meanwhile, it’s still too darned hot:

What Choice Do Republicans Have?

White RepublicanSteve Benen is a smart guy, but he suffers from a common tendency among liberals to misunderstand conservatives. He has entered the discussion that I wrote about earlier this week, Sean Trende’s belief that the Republican Party can continue to win elections by pandering only to white voters. Benen has the usual very reasonable objections: Republicans will have a hard time getting white voter turnout ever higher and making whites vote in ever higher numbers for Republicans. Alas, Mr. Benen is so thinking like a Democrat!

The Republicans can’t come right out and say it. But we’ve been dealing with them for a long time, so we should all know. Republicans are experts at subtext. There are two ways that they can increase the percentage of white voters. They can increase the number of whites who vote. This is what people like Benen logically, but incorrectly, think proponents of the “white party” strategy are suggesting. But they aren’t. They are suggesting the other way that the white voter percentage can increase: decrease the number of non-white voters.

This isn’t rocket science. Hell, this isn’t even paint by the numbers! The one thing that Republicans have really been working on the last two years is voter-ID. Now, I understand that the rank and file Republicans really do think that Democrats steal elections because every Monday before an election, the party buses in millions of Mexicans to vote illegally. They know this because everyone they know is a Republican. Just look at Fox News: people would have to be America hating latte sipping communists to vote Democratic. Just ask Kathleen O’Brien Wilhelm. But the elites know what they’re doing. They know that there is no voter fraud; voter-ID is about one thing only: limiting non-conservative voters.

But I am again left to ask the obvious question that liberals don’t seem to have an answer for: what else are the Republicans to do? They really are trapped. And trapped by the Democratic Party. The Republicans cannot move even a little bit toward the center without effectively becoming Democrats. The only solution is for the Democrats to start fulfilling their traditional role as a liberal party. Understand: I am a Democrat. But the Democratic Party is the villain in this story. It is common to note that the Republican Party doesn’t really seem to stand for anything. I make that argument myself all the time. But over the last 35 years, the problem has been that the Democratic Party didn’t stand for anything. It was more than willing to co-opted any and every conservative idea. And thus, the liberal party became the conservative party. And the conservative party just went insane.

The Republicans can abandon their base, which will almost certainly spawn a third party. If they liberalized on economic issues, they would be the same as the Democratic Party and this would likely lose them their big money economic conservative base who more agree with the Democrats on social issues anyway. If they liberalized on social issues, their voting base would disintegrate. They really don’t have any good options but the continuation of the Southern Strategy. The Democratic Party is already Republican Lite. The political landscape cannot support the Republicans becoming Democratic Heavy.


There is one option that I think might give the Republicans some breathing room. They could become a libertarian party. They wouldn’t stay that way. The truth is that libertarianism is not very popular. So it would degenerate into old fashioned conservatism. But it would provide the Democrats some time to liberalize their ideology and eventual create a space for a traditional conservative party that the Republicans could occupy.

I’ll Take Richard Rodgers

Richard RodgersOn this day in 1577, the great Flemish Baroque painter Peter Paul Rubens was born. He was named after Pee-wee Herman. Oh, I kid the great Flemish painters! But I do wonder if the great actor was named after him. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was born in 1703. The great philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born in 1712. Delta bluesman, David “Honeyboy” Edwards was born in 1915. Pat Morita, Keisuke Miyagi from the original The Karate Kid series, was born in 1932. And comedian Gilda Radner was born in 1946.

Mel Brooks is 87 today. As I’ve noted a number of times, I’m not fond of the man. He has been a part of a few really good movies—mostly where he took undeserved credit. I didn’t know he was so old. The great Kathy Bates is 65, so I’m sure she’ll stop acting. And John Cusack, is 47.

The day, however, belongs to the great musical composer Richard Rodgers. He had two incredibly successful collaborations with lyricists: first Lorenz Hart and second with Oscar Hammerstein. I prefer the Hart era myself but all of the work was great. Here is “Manhattan” from The Garrick Gaieties:

Happy birthday Richard Rodgers!

There Will Be No Discharge Petition

Scared RepublicansHave you noticed the change in coverage today about immigration reform? I sure have: all those people who were so optimistic that somehow the House would take up the “gang of eight” immigration bill are strangely silent. And now a lot of people are coming out and saying what I’ve been saying, “Why would the Republicans pass immigration reform?” What’s more, with the “good news” that Republicans can greatly limit the voting rights of Democratic voters, there is less reason than ever to reach out to all those Obama voters.

Still, there has been one thing that I thought held out some degree of hope: the discharge petition. If the Democrats could get just 17 Republicans to join them, they could force the bill onto the floor for a vote. It is certainly true that there are at least 17 House Republicans who want to see immigration reform pass. But I didn’t think this was likely. As I wrote yesterday, “There would be hell to pay by Republicans who signed it.”

Today, Brian Beutler over at Talking Points Memo laid out the case for why this won’t happen, Discharge The Immigration Bill? Don’t Hold Your Breath. Basically, he made the same argument that I did, but in more detail. For example, he noted that even if the Republican leadership gave the nod to members to signs the discharge petition, they would still face external consequences. I would go further. Boehner clearly cares about keeping his job. If he didn’t punish those disloyal Republicans, that might cause him to lose his speakership.

But the main argument that Beutler made is that allowing immigration reform to pass via a discharge petition would be the worst of all worlds for the Republican Party:

In fact, the worst possible outcome for the GOP would be for the bill to become law over the explicit objections of leadership. It would give Democrats a huge policy victory but leave Republicans without the political dividends they’d pocket by being equal partners in the reform effort. It might even exacerbate their problems with Hispanic voters. And allowing a couple dozen Republicans to sign a discharge petition would accomplish just that.

That is the argument I’ve made all along. Why would the Republicans get any credit for immigration reform when the party was doing it at best grudgingly? Look at yesterday’s vote: the huge bipartisan agreement ended with 70% of Senate Republicans (including all of the leadership) voting against it. That doesn’t say, “We are embracing immigrants!”

More Idiocy from the Deer Lady

Kathleen O'Brien WilhelmI’ve been away visiting family, so it has been hard keeping up with my usual reading. And now I feel really behind. I started to panic, “What am I going to write about?” And then I had a thought, “What about the deer lady?” By that, I mean, Kathleen O’Brien Wilhelm, the woman who thought that deer signs were a waste of money for the obvious reasons that (1) deer can’t read and (2) deer have no inclination to follow the law. Now, the tea party idiot has her very own blog over at the Avon-AvonLake Post. And truly: Wilhelm is the gift that keeps on giving.

Her most recent blog post (almost a month old, because gems like “deer can’t read” don’t grow on trees) is about… I don’t know! It has no title. And it really isn’t about anything except her contention that all Democrats are liars. Her ignorance is staggering. It reminds me of when I was a kid. My father would tell me things. I would repeat them to my friends, only to find out that what he told me was either a huge exaggeration or far more complicated than I had been led to believe. Over time, this caused me to be cautious—especially about things that seem outrageous. Wilhelm never learned that lession.

As usual, she starts out with her contention that America has gone crazy:

What’s happening to America? It was bad enough we had a US President Clinton who lied about having sex with an intern, and VP Al Gore who lied about global warming. Gore made billions off of the stupidity of others.

Delicious, right? I’ll grant that Clinton lied about his creepy sex life. I don’t see what this has to do with with America. But okay. Then she says without the slightest of evidence that Gore lied about global warming. And that he made billions?! Al Gore’s net worth is only $300 million. So clearly, he has not made “billions.” This goes right along with an argument I have heard a frustrating number of times from conservatives: Al Gore invented global warming so he could make money. Not only do these people think that this is all about Al Gore, they seem to forget that in 2011 alone, ExxonMobile made a net profit of $41 billion. That’s one company. Yet people like Wilhelm think the oil companies are the honest brokers when it comes to global warming; scientists making $50,000 per year are just doing it for the money.

But she’s just getting started:

Now, we have Obama who continues to lie and work to tear our US Constitution into bits and pieces.

I don’t doubt that Obama lies and craps all over the Constitution as much as any president. But it isn’t clear what she’s talking about. Of course, it never is. Wilhelm basically just structures conservative talking points in paragraph form. But notice the switch: She goes from Clinton to Gore to Obama. What’s missing? Oh! That’s right: that paragon of truthfulness George W. Bush!

It’s amazing how Obama focuses on convenient details, but denies focus on murders and gun running/Fast and Furious, murders in Benghazi, bullying taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service/IRS and picking on the news media.

Again: I don’t know what details she’s talking about. Clearly, she is referring to the recent scandals. But other than listing them, she adds absolutely nothing. But she does muddy the waters. What “Fast and Furious” murders? No one says Obama was responsible for the murders in Benghazi. The IRS scandal, even in late May was clearly not about Obama. And the NSA scandal is not really about the media, and regardless, she would have been fine with it under Bush. (Just saying.)

Why isn’t America screaming? Isn’t anyone paying attention to the lies, thugs, thieves that is government?

Government is beating America to a bloody pulp and it appears there are only a few fighting

A lot of us are screaming about the NSA scandal. But Wilhelm seems only interested in that scandal in as far as it affects Fox News reporter James Rosen. There is nothing to the other scandals, which she would know if she got her news from anything but the most partisan sources.

Kathleen O’Brien Wilhelm is a good example of what is wrong with our political system. Most of those who are interested in politics get their information from the conservative media freak show. At one time, the left had the same thing, but those days are all over. Now, it is pretty much only on the right. And things are so screwed up that people like Wilhelm think that they are safe publicly spouting their shockingly ignorant opinions. And it is done on a very popular website.