Jimmy Johns Order Canceled Due to Contentious Sign

"Global Warming Conference Canceled Due To Snow," said a pithy sign in front of a Jimmy Johns on the parkway for about two weeks up until this morning. The appropriate response, "Then how about you cancel my order?" The dilemma I have about this particularly hair-brained idea though, is why put up a sign to diminish global warming in a city where there are 2 to 1 Democratic registered voters? Doesn't sound like a great plan to me unless they've been taking business advice from soon-to-be governor Rick Scott. 

I brought light to that question with a manager who didn't think the "type of clientele" that go to Jimmy Johns would stop going because of the sign, agreeing also that it was up for about two weeks until this morning. I asked, "What if I told you people stopped coming here because of it?" to which he responded, "I think they need to lighten up." You know since the environmental epidemic causing economic consequences, storms, floods and conflicts because of dwindling resources isn't really that big of a deal and it's okay to be spoon fed by the right-wing punditry which simply says that isn't happening. Maybe that's why the person now in charge of the House committee on commerce and energy has written op-ed's in the Wallstreet journal against enforcing climate rules and the Environmental Protection Agency.

One employee said the sign made sense because global warming causes climate change; true, but it's clear that is not the impression that the message communicates. If it's meant to be ironic, it's not obvious - particularly to people who pay attention to what Fox News has been saying lately about global warming in light of snowstorms, quoting "scientific" comments like, "it's going to be so cold it's like hell being frozen over." The manager added that someone came into the restaurant specifically because they liked the sign; I am sure they didn't think it was a punchline about the climate change that global warming causes.

Given objective testing as far back as the 1960's, global warming has an ongoing environmental effect and that there isn't another critical explanation for the ever increasing infrared radiation in our atmosphere. If you don't "believe" in global warming I challenge you not to "believe" in other testaments of science as well - like gravity.

UPDATE: Also, from the Washington Post at 12:23 PM ET, 12/10/2010

2010 hottest climate year on record, NASA says

The Young Turks Discuss Rick Scott

I was already set back this morning when I read this blog post about Rick Scott's transition team which concludes an aim toward ROI (return on investment in the private sector) more than the betterment of Florida. What could remedy that Scott makes me think about toilet paper more than the toiletries aisle in the grocery store? The answer to that is The Young Turks.

Debunking Talking Points: (DADT) Don't Ask Don't Tell Repealed

Talking point #1
"Straight Troops Must Shower with Gays"

According to this gem, when you're Gay in the military you're not only labeled as immoral but that you're also assumed to be a rapist with impossible ninja-like espionage skills. A warning like this says that Gay soldiers, after repealing DADT, will spontaneously become sexually rampant despite the minimal time allotted for community showers where you're supposed to, "get in, get clean and get out."  Solid snake couldn't accomplish this level of stealth.

DADT allowed more Gays to serve in the military than before (see TP #2) - if you're paranoid struck now I would remind you that this isn't anything new. Gay military personnel are often ridiculed and would risk the social stigma of making those around them uncomfortable were they to act pervy in a community shower. Why would someone risk being discharged for harassment by proposing an uninvited sexual favor?

Talking point #2

"Don't Democrats know that DADT was passed under Clinton?"

The Uniform Code of Military Justice passed in 1950 under Harry Truman barred Gays from the military; It had the most restrictions that Gay soldiers have ever faced when it came to enlistment and minor suspicion could be enough to boot you. Bill Clinton compromised on DADT after being elected as a pragmatic decision against the Uniform Code - Gay soldiers could serve as long as they did not disclose their sexual orientation. Repealing DADT is going to allow Gays to serve openly because the law from the Uniform Code no longer applies.

Talking point #3
"Repealing DADT will bring back the draft"

Fear is the corner in which The Right Wing are backed into when there isn't an argument in their favor. Now they're convincing Americans to oppose the repeal of DADT by creating an imaginary issue - the draft. This video, made by the same group who produced America at Risk, is an advertisement against the repeal of DADT which tags in bright yellow writing along with a sound clip you could only recognize from Lost which says, "be careful what you rally for because Uncle Sam may end up drafting you." I want to remind everyone that this was an ad placed during a time where military recruitment is thriving from the recession.

Everybody doesn't support the draft; from deep Southern peons to the richest 2% of Americans - it's not coming back anytime soon. When the Confederates imposed a draft it didn't work out too well for them either. You know - "A rich mans war, a poor mans fight"? - that's from the wealthy slave owners who could send either $500 or an able bodied person (aka slave) in their place during the Civil War. Rich people would rather buy their way out and wouldn't send their kids or themselves and if lowly pro-Southern Confederates knew their history, neither would they.

 Talking point #4
"The Military won't stand for this"

How much of the military is against the repeal, is the question and given the specific evidence - most of them are okay with it. According to this study (pdf) taken by the Department of Defense, 70% of the military support the repeal of DADT.

Greg Sargent from the Plum Line says "84 percent of Marine combat corps combat arms units who said they'd worked with homosexual service-members in the past found the experience either very good, good, or neutral," striking out a key talking point that opposition is stronger in the Marines.

I am going out on a limb here but my guess is we won't see any military coups from this one.

"Welcome to the Progressive Internet Forum"

"Some politicats think Obama isn't liberal enough?!" I can see sporadic GOP nose bleeds all over this video except in some circles we can't use that visual - particularly in japan. By the way I am still waiting for the Westboro baptist church to protest Japan for being homogeneous. I can see it now, "God hates fans."

Thank you to the 13th Juror

The 13th Juror is a blog written by Jacqueline Dowd, a poverty lawyer and law professor. On December 14th Mrs. Dowd linked to my last cross post to the FPC, titled "Meet David"

The 13th Juror

Meet David

David is a Veteran of the Vietnam war

While I was doing some holiday browsing I had just left a gaming store parallel to a Walmart parking lot, where David asked me for change. He said that he was hungry and like most people, I wasn't carrying any cash with me. I told him I didn't have any loose bills and that it's a grim place where people don't carry cash on them anymore. Instead I asked if he would like me to drive him to the Taco Bell nearby to get him some food. He was set back when I offered, seemingly hopeful but apprehensive.

"Are you sure? Maybe I shouldn't ride in your car," He said.

I could see that he thought it would be conspicuous on his part to get in a young woman's vehicle. I convinced him I was perfectly ok taking him not a single minute up the street to get him some food and he agreed, noting that he wasn't dangerous because he was a veteran. He probably thanked me half a dozen times before we started walking.

On the way to my car I realized he wasn't keeping up; Looking back I saw that he was limping with a hand pressed to his knee. He told me that his leg wasn't very reliable and we took a good five minute walk to my car which might have been less than a hundred feet away. I couldn't imagine how he got around anywhere.

Once he sat down in the passengers seat he apologized for being drunk and said that he promised me he wasn't diseased or anything. I was shocked he had to assure me he wasn't some kind of infectious vessel; Diseased - is that how homeless people are made to feel? I replied that he wasn't the only person that would be drinking that evening. Most people drink with less reason to, anyway.

On the drive he told me how difficult it was for him to find a job and that he cleaned up better but all he had right now were the clothes on his back. By the time we pulled up to the restaurant he had begun sobbing and when I said he could order anything he wanted, he cried even harder. He didn't ask for anything in particular, he said whatever I ordered would be more than enough. When someone is that grateful to eat what could be described as a food-like meal, it makes you wonder what went wrong.

David said that a friend stole $10k from him, he was recently divorced and that his favorite hobby is riding motorcycles although he no longer has one anymore. He apologized again, this time for venting his life's story. Few people probably talk to David and even fewer probably want to know about his life's events, given that he was homeless. It didn't bother me, it was good for him to talk about what was on his mind. I offered David a ride into town but he said he would rather stay in his spot for the evening and when I left he incessantly thanked me for the help.

David was grateful for a favor which we wouldn't even think twice about had a friend picked up the check for us. A small act of humanity can give someone just enough hope to make it through the day or at least remind them what its like not to feel alienated, dangerous or "diseased." People need to see they have worth and that they're not alone. Instead of passively observing, try reaching out - what you might dismiss as a small courtesy might make someone else's day.

Woodrow Wilson - The Spirit of Learning

Woodrow Wilson was the 28th president of the united states and was the only president to hold a Ph.D in office. Wilson believed in a strict credential of the educated mind which in part was the responsibility to bring light to a conversation and not spoon fed partisanship.

The object of a liberal training is not learning, but discipline and the enlightenment of the mind. The educated mind is to be discovered by his point of view, by the temper of his mind, by his attitude towards life and his fair way of thinking. He can see, he can discriminate, he can combine ideas and perceive wither they lead; he has insight and comprehension. His mind is a practised instrument of appreciation. He is more apt to contribute light than heat to a discussion, and will oftener than another show the power of uniting the elements of a difficult subject in a whole view; he has the knowledge of the world which no one can have who knows only his own generation or only his own task.

What we should seek to impart in our colleges, therefore, is not so much learning itself as the spirit of learning. You can impart that to young men; and you can impart it to them in the three or four years at your disposal. It consists in the power to distinguish good reasoning from bad, in the power to digest and interpret evidence, in a habit of catholic observation and a preference for the non-partisan point of view, in an addiction to clear and logical processes of thought and yet an instinctive desire to interpret rather than to stick in the letter of reasoning, in a taste for knowledge and a deep respect for the integrity of the human mind. It is citizenship of the world of knowledge, but not ownership of it.

Obama: A quick rant on splitting hairs

So the wealthiest 2% of Americans just thieved seven hundred billion dollars - how did this happen? Well at first a special gentleman in congress that alludes to a double chinned alien convinced a many GOP leaders to make an all-or-nothing deal where they would oppose everything the democrats had to put up in congress - and sure, they would have probably done it anyway. Then from out of the curtain we had a deal - the extension of unemployment benefits and yes, all the tax cuts.

When I am reminded of democrats who are angered about Obama's decision in regards to the extension of the Bush  tax cuts, we would be unjustly dismissive to ignore that he made the most pragmatic decision. Why? Taxes would have went up for everyone had they not been passed, not just the 2% who didn't deserve those tax breaks. The unemployment extension was certainly a necessity - for the people and the economy.

Ok, so Obama needs to fight with a little more umph (Mr. President, we seriously need you to bring the ruckus) but does no one see this as a revelation to the factions who claim "he's a radical socialist nazi"? Consider that this decision may have saved his election and yielded us away from a 2012 that only the Mayans could predict.

Sarah Palin: Less a rogue, more a thief

Just because something is time-tested doesn't mean the test wasn't a failure. Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claims in her blog post that all tax cuts should be extended because conservatives have "articulated" that said cuts for the wealthiest of Americans have spurred economic growth. Is it a coincidence that I remember even conservatives "articulating" the very opposite?

It's easy to persuade that progressives, Democrats and liberals likely contemplate the possibility that Palin is a Stepford wife droid bot created in Matell's basement, however - conservative figures that Palin has before referenced have also admitted tax deductions don't boost revenues.

Palin was a guest speaker at this past RNC rally in Orlando, which I hesitantly attended to make these interviews. If I drank every time I heard her say, "Reagan" I would have probably ralphed on the nearest "LISTEN TO ME!" picket sign. She used the same "time-tested" argument for Reagan's trickle down economic policy as she does in her blog post - So, surely that means that Reagan's right hand men would agree, am I right?

As it turns out David Stockman, director of OMB for President Reagan says otherwise. Stockman explains in a recent NY Times Op-Ed:  

"The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts." Read more

In the same Orlando speech Palin tagged senate Republican candidate Marco Rubio as a maverick-y rogue character such as herself. In this ThinkProgress article Marco Rubio admits a similar but brief comment, saying that “The tax cuts don’t pay for themselves..." It's evidently too good to be true that they would.

TPM covered Republican House minority whip Eric Cantor on his reluctant statement following the support of the Bush tax cuts, who said: 

"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators."

Democrats aren't entirely against tax cuts, they want everyone to pay proportionate taxes; Progressives and myself just don't find it economically viable to give the wealthiest two percent of Americans a tax break which they will indefinitely lob into their bank accounts. It seems that when this Moody's study came out (a must read), the US must have thought it was national opposite day; instead of noting objective data congress cut taxes and nixed unemployment extensions.

Haven't corporations reached their highest quarter of profits yet? The GOP are Jedi mind tricking the collective you to portray that giving CEO's more money, they will create jobs rather then add to their bottom line. Near the end of the post, Sarah Palin then went to label her view as "common sense."

Maybe she meant the sixth sense

More from leaflet here

"Life Line"

If unemployment insurance is not extended let's not forget who did this when crime rates peak; when people lose their well being because they can't afford a doctors visit (or the gas to drive anywhere); and when homeless shelters are filled to a brink with insufficient resources. Somehow this is supposed to benefit the economy when these are affects which will cost lives and tax payers in the long run - This is the GOP's will to power, not the people's.