Do Trumpies Have Any Concept of Principle or Propriety?

It appears that some Trumpies have panties in a twist over the brouhaha that erupted over "The Donna" waltzing over a question by an obviously ignorant Reeptardo at a NH Rally.  They are outraged, outraged ....that their man has taken it on the chin again by "commies and limp wristed socialists" - oblivious to the searing complaints that have also appeared in conservative media and by Reepo candidates themselves - including Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham. What? These two aren't conservative enough for them?

One FLA blogger has erupted in incandescent vitriol to the disdain shown the Donna by asserting on his site that: "Trump is under no obligation to defend Obummer from words or attacks"

Which is true. He isn't under any "obligation". But as John McCain showed in 2008, there is such a thing as countering racist hate-filled claims (and queries, questions)  on principle- especially woven in lies (the blogger claims he has "proof" Obama "admitted to being a Muslim", but any half competent jerk can put together a dubbed, edited faux video (see link at bottom) that abuses facts and portrays falsehoods - I could cite dozens!)

This is one element of leadership I warrant is important, not that it is "obligated". McCain demonstrated he possessed that element of leadership (as well as courage) but "the Donna" didn't - choosing to bypass a golden opportunity to show he had some type of principles and wasn't just a rabble rousing demagogue as conservative (NOT communist) columnist Cal Thomas put it in his recent column.(Colo. Springs Gazette, Sept. 17.)

But failing to take up the challenge, again because it's easier to act the part of a pissed-ass bully boy, Trump lost on the matter of upholding propriety in a public forum - because even if one had antipathy toward Muslims and especially extremists, it was NOT necessary to drag Obama's background into it, which has already been thoroughly documented as 100 percent Christian NOT Muslim! (With the birther scrapple also debunked by serious journalists.) And I would argue this point to the ends of the earth, though it might be futile in doing so with a person who only gets news or views from a limited, biased media domain. Or, who has his mind already made up, meaning he embraces a pre-established belief, divorced from objective evidence.

The blogger also insists:

"These commies and socialist bastards are just trying to tell Americans that they can't say whatever they want.."

First, we aren't "commies and socialist bastards"-  all his histrionics and hysteria notwithstanding. (Well, ok, I am a socialist, but not a bastard.)  But leaving out all the useless elaborations, we are full, red blooded Americans like he is, but believe our political campaign forums ought to be venues for uplifting political insight and informative exchange, as opposed to being mere pig pens with pig excrement tossed hither, thither and yon.

Thus, a fool - half assed and ignorant - "saying whatever he wants" reduces the political forum to the lowest common denominator. This isn't democracy but rather the rough equivalent of having a shit tossing contest.  See how much shit you can dig up and just hurl in any direction, truth and facts be damned (like in the Reepo "debates").  In such a venue, it is then the responsibility of the political candidate to act the grown up and "throw the penalty flag" - to use football parlance. Not to stand there like a dummy, bloviate about this and that and allow the goober's hurled shit to pass without comment.

Second, it is not just we on the left calling attention to this. If the blogger would have read my blog post properly (from which source I presume he got his material to react so vehemently) he would have seen multiple references to conservatives and Republican candidates.   They also pulled Trump up for his egregious omission to call out a knuckle dragger and hateful fool that debased the civic space of a political forum by his xenophobic ranting.

What I am hoping is that he will agree with the right to criticize by those upstanding conservatives and not vilify them as "commies" too, because they do criticize. It would also give me confidence that the NY Times piece I read last week - about most of Trump's base and following being abject xenophobic haters and racists - is not true. Because, personally, I cannot believe the blogger is a racist at heart.

Anyway, the choice remains: do we want our public political rallies and forums to be hitting the high marks for content and sobriety as well as propriety, or "pig pens"?  If we choose the slack pass, anything goes latter we can only gnash our teeth when the political outcome is ultimately no better than what the Germans wrought in their 1932-33 elections that injected Hitler onto the world stage.

The question then remains which my blogger pal can answer himself:

Do Trumpies have any concept of principle or propriety for the political arena?

We "commies" are waiting with bated breath to hear.


See also:


http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

Trump Shows His Coward Side By Not Calling Out An Ignorant NH Fool

The televised scene from a Trump NH rally confirmed for many of us that the brash guy called "The Donald" by many, ought to really go by the tamer sobriquet, "The Donna". Because while a real male figure would have put a loser moron in his place for asking a dumbass, insolent, incendiary question "the Donna" just let it roll right by, and remarked "we're gonna get to the bottom of it!". The bottom of what? What a bottomless, brainless, gutless poppet you really are?

The incident was re-related by Chris Matthews last night on Bill Maher's Real Time, noting MSNBC's cameras were rolling at the time, and the camera crew felt it was time for a break, but Matthews said 'hold on'. Good thing he did. Because Trump then called on some loser with a loser look and a loser's dopey ass voice, pseudo-arrogant racist who blurted:

"“We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. We know our current president is one, you know he’s not even an American.”

Thereby echoing the infamous Nazi discussion about how to solve the “Jewish question.”

Trump acting the whole weasel wimp let the comment go right by.

That was the point at which the real would-be leader puts the slimy, brainless little asshole in his place, and reams him out good - like John McCain did with another loser moron who - at a rally in the 2008 campaign - referred to Obama as "an Arab". McCain immediately corrected the feeble-minded twit, telling her firmly as he looked into her piggy eyes, "No!" Then as she tried to babble some more, informed her "He's a good and decent man" and "I just have differences with Mr. Obama over policy."

Trump could have done the same and shown he could at least be considered remotely as potential leader material, but he punted, realizing that challenging the goober required more cojones than he actually possessed. He'd have risked being seen as "soft" and less the bully than he projects, and worse, might have lost votes from the Islamophobic base that the racist turkey hails from.

In making no rebuttal he thereby confirmed conservative columnist Cal Thomas' take of being a demagogue, e.g.:

"Trump is a chameleon, having held contradictory positions on various issues over the years as its suits him. He fits the dictionary.com definition of a demagogue: 'a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions sand prejudices of the people'."

For those who might not recall history, that was the M.O. of Adolf Hitler too. (A guy who was also obsessed about being effeminate - hence over compensated by bullying bombast and aggressive posturing).

 In the wake of what has to be the biggest gaffe yet -one of blatant omission - Trump's bona fides are again being called into question and from both sides of the aisle. Even Lindsey Graham said that Trump ought to have immediately corrected the fool instead of letting him blabber on about Obama.

Chris Christie, never shy about criticizing Obama - said the same thing - acknowledging on the “Today” show that he would have corrected the uneducated bozo:

“I’d say that the president’s a Christian and he was born in this country. Those two things are self-evident,”

Bingo!

Most astute observers agree this latest fuckup may be the one that finally puts the stake into the Donna's heart. But we have to see, recalling that Trumpies - like rock groupies - will likely just rally around the Donna even more -seeing him as being attacked by the terrible media, "libruls" and fake conservatives.

Reality testing anyone? The Bushies demolished the last of that during their last run.


See also:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-silent-questioner-calls-obama-muslic-rally-article-1.2365196

That REEPO Debate: More Fun Than A Barrel Of Monkeys

Okay, I admit it'd be hard to surpass a barrel of yelping, cackling monkeys all going at each other  -in terms of hilarity. But the Republican (prime time) debate last night came pretty close. It also showed, probably better than anything else - how batshit crazy and out of touch the whole lot of them are. But were there some kernels of hope for a Lefty? Definitely, and I plan to pick those out from the general stream of deranged nuttiness..

Let's start from the beginning where the question was asked - unfairly I believe: Was there any candidate who was unwilling to pledge support to the eventual Republican nominee and swear off a third-party run?  Of course, Trump raised his hand to assorted catcalls from the peanut gallery - also provoking an outburst from Rand Paul explaining the Donald's "only hedging his bets because he's used to buying politicians".

Rand may have a point, but let's face it: this would be the best thing to happen for the Dem nominee, whoever it is. Even Bernie Sanders could be handed a landslide victory if the Donald is the opponent, or runs as an Independent - taking at least as many votes from the GOP as Perot did back in 1992.

Now, back to the other deranged aspects of which there were many, but I highlight the standouts:

Next, Foxie  News darling Megyn Kelly put Ben Carson in her sights, with the cameras catching him in 'deer in the head lights' mode.  Megyn recounted previous basic mistakes Carson made in various forums, including: suggesting the Baltic states are not part of NATO,  not knowing the main political parties in Israel and (no kidding!) believing Alan Greenspan had been Treasury Secretary instead of former Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  Any one of these bonehead errors would ordinarily disqualify a candidate as surely as Rick Perry (in 2012) failing to recall the DOE as one  of the main federal agencies.

Megyn correctly asked if all his drops weren't "basic mistakes"  and "raise legitimate questions on whether you're ready to be president?"

Ben asserted "I could take issue with all those but we don't have time" then changed the subject and lamely said "we will have an opportunity to explore all those issues". Uh no, Ben. See, you were supposed to have a ready answer for your incompetence and you blew it.

After watching Ben's inauspicious performance on stage it might be better if he instantly - and voluntarily  - changed places with Carly Fiorina at the "happy hour" debate.  At least Fiorina looked halfway presidential, Carson looked like he couldn't qualify for dogcatcher in Dogpatch, NC.

Carson's ridiculous answers - even with limited time - showed me the man needs to spend his time another way, perhaps helping out in soup kitchens in Baltimore- especially as penance after his outrageous putdowns of progressives.. In concert they raise serious questions about how well he understands the country not to mention the international scene.

Did he reassure anyone? Not at all, just made them wince even more - and as I told wifey: "How the hell did this bozo even make it onto the stage. How did he ever become a Hopkins neurosurgeon?"

 Marco Rubio's turn came next and 'Cisco Kid' was asked how he could claim to be presidential caliber given his limited experience. This had to be one of the softball questions and Rubio  delivered his usual canned nonsense about "being Senator from one of the most diverse states". Maybe, but that's not the same as governance. Realizing that perhaps, he added "this cannot be a resume competition". Uh, yes it can!

Jeb Bush didn't do much better, and was reminded of his previous gaffes. But the question also let this POS brag how he "balanced every budget"  and was nicknamed "Veto Corleone" but no word on the deplorable state his budget cuts left Florida's ecology sinking in literal slime and pollution.  Bush also showed he either didn't understand Common Core (which he supposedly backs) or was trying a last minute attempt to wiggle out of supporting it. He claimed he favored "state solutions" when the whole idea of Common Core is a centralized educational template that would ultimately be issued from the federal gov't. You can't have each state doing its own Common Core. That defeats the very definition.

Megyn Kelly then went for Trump's jugular - perhaps because she was irate after reading a blog post of mine on how 'the Donald' paddled Katy Tur in her interview with him. So Megyn was out for revenge.  Megyn, bless her agitated soul, eyed Trump like a female boa eyes a paralyzed mouse and said menacingly:

“You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,” as if she was barely able to contain her revulsion.  Trump shot back "Only Rosie O'Donnell" but Megyn shot back 'No, it wasn't!"

To toss in some more acid, she recalled that Trump's "made several disparaging comments on women's looks and once told a contestant on 'The Celebrity Apprentice'  that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.” She asked: "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president and how will you answer the charge when Hillary Clinton is likely to be the Democratic nominee that you are part of the war on women.?”

Of course, the Donald was way too smart to take the bait, and instead launched into a minute's worth of fulsome bollocks on how he "doesn't have time for political correctness" and "this country doesn't have time either"

In fact, the only times  I thought Trump was truly on the ropes were when he was questioned on his Repub bona fides, namely his past published remarks in favor of single payer health care - which he now claimed to have rejected (unconvincingly). Then he was asked about his donations to the Clintons whereupon he delivered the lamo answer "I donate to everybody and always expect something in return". When asked what he got in return for a donation to Hillary,  he snapped: "I got her to come to my daughter's wedding!" 

  Could Trumpie be a liberal "Trojan horse" as some wild conservo conspiracy theories allege?  That might be in the minds of some voters and viewers after this exchange. But seriously? The real issue for voters ought to be Trump's decorum and political competence. To my mind while he survived the debate - and may even get a 'bump'- he aroused more questions than answers.

Ted Cruz came next and averred he knew "where $18 trillion in debt came from" - but really didn't.

Christie was  then given a chance to convince voters why he ought to be Prez given how New Jersey's balance sheet has basically ended up in a sea of red. If Christie couldn't handle his own state economically how could he manage the nation? Of course, 'Mr. Crisco'  the Doughnut Boy dumped it all on the previous D -administration.

Then there was Scott Walker, who stood at his podium with a half drunk, quizzical stare:  a visage that resembled Alfred E. Neumann with parts of Dean Martin grafted on. Asked a question (by Megyn Kelly)  on his recent decision to outlaw abortions even for women facing  critical complications the maggot didn't blink an eye. Nor would be do so for a young female who'd been raped. As far as the drunken stupor Scott - with the Alfred Neumann -Dino Martin stare- it was no biggie. "Most Americans" would agree with his position. Let's not forget this turd had originally not embraced such an extreme position on abortion rights and only changed his stripes after entering the race.

 Huckabee's turn was next and was as extremist and insane as one would expect him to be, bloviating about how he'd invoke the 5th and 14th amendments to defend the "personhood rights of the unborn child". Those who've read my earlier posts on the Huckster grasp that I view him as unhinged, and that response he delivered ought to now convince everyone else too.

The 5th amendment against bearing witness against oneself, for a fetus or zygote? Seriously? The entity isn't even conscious, you nitwit! And the 14th amendment, the same one used to liberate the slaves in the Confederacy?  Are you serious? Who is the fetus a slave to? Its mommy?

By far the most constructive interlude in this circus  arrived in a raw and revealing exchange (baited by the Foxites)  between Chris Christie and Rand Paul over national security, federal eavesdropping and the collection of personal data. Christie pounded his fat chest in self-righteous indignation - as most pro security tools do - bragging on his U.S. attorney bona fides after 9/11 and actually dealing with the pain and fallout. Fine as far as it goes but missing Paul's point that you don't need to scoop up every record to catch the bad guys.

When Christie shot back 'How else would you do it?" Paul responded, 'By getting a warrant!" which is exactly correct, and for once Paul and I agreed on the issue of the 4th amendment - which I wish more Reepos embraced as fiercely as they do the 2nd.

Christie was wrong when  - after Paul's 'get a warrant' response - he dismissed it as a “ridiculous answer,” because  "It’s impossible to know who’s who at the start". But, in fact, there are ways to separate good guys from bad and yes, from the start.

Former NSA code breaker Bill Binney commenting on Keith Alexander's NSA spying testimony and breaking up plots two years ago, put it bluntly:

"I  don’t understand this being bamboozled into thinking that you have to do this to find bad guys. That’s false. There’s very simple principles you can use to find out who is the bad guy and who isn’t and you can do this without violating anybody’s privacy”.-

So Rand Paul was quite justified in firing back to Christie's nonsense:

.

“You fundamentally misunderstand the Bill of Rights,”

That spontaneous back-and-forth was literally debate gold, because it was simultaneously fiery, spontaneous  and substantive, a perfect distillation of the two sides of an essential argument about the value of our civil liberties. (One that, too often, hasn't come up often enough since the insinuation of the "Patriot Act" into the national fabric.) It was, to my mind, what a real debate ought to feature much more of.

 Some FOX lubbers will hurl brickbats at the network for - as one commentator called it  - presiding over an "inquisition" rather than a debate. But come on. They were basically foxed...uh boxed into a corner, given they've always been tagged as the REPUBLICAN network. Hence, in order to show more objectivity and not be accused  of pro-Democratic partisanship, the question panel had to be provocative.  As Frank Bruni put it:

 "They took each of the 10 Republicans onstage to task. They held each of them to account. They made each address the most prominent blemishes on his record, the most profound apprehensions that voters feel about him, the greatest vulnerability that he has."

Which was terrific because it meant you were hearing from the candidates themselves, not merely regurgitated slop from their handlers and focus group gurus. This ensured the debate was lively, and also made it possible to pick out the genuine morons and crazies - which alas, was all of them excepting Ohio gov John Kasich - who actually sounded rational in his response about using state Medicaid.

Bruni again:

"On this night, the network that pampers Republicans provoked them instead. It was great television, and even better politics."

Indeed. And in using this technique FOX did us all a solid favor by showing just how unhinged all of these clowns really are. The frightening thing, as Janice noted, is that one could actually become President if the Dems don't pay close enough attention and play their cards right - as opposed to assuming it'll be a cakewalk.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/07/fear_loathing_at_the_gop_debates_behold_the_the_autocratic_xenophobic_war_hungry_spectacle_of_the_modern_republican_party/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/63349/the-gop-debate-its-what-oligarchy-looks-like

Chris Christie's Social Security "Solution" Will Get Him Fried On The "Third Rail"

Chris Christie probably thinks he's innovative with his just announced Social Security proposal, but in fact, he's just committed political suicide. He obviously doesn't take seriously the warning of Social Security being the "third rail" when it comes to presidential politics. If he did he'd have paid attention to polls showing that even 58% of Republican base voters do not want the eligibility age for Social Security increased (or their Medicare touched). This in contrast to the Republican donor class, who do.

Thus on Tuesday, did Christie - following the edict of the donor class-  propose the following:

- Reducing Social Security benefits for seniors earning more than $80,000/yr.

- Eliminating Social Security for anyone earning more than $200,000

- Raising the retirement age for Social Security from 67 to 69.

- Increasing the age at which seniors qualify for Medicare from 65 to 67.

The last two, make no mistake, would be especially disastrous, and even Mike Huckabee knocked them - but then he's more in touch with the Reepo base.. Christie, meanwhile,  seems oblivious to the fact that the 1983 Social Security enactment -amendment- which effectively phased in a two year increase in the full retirement age from 65 to 67 - has already lowered benefits by about 6.5 percent.  When fully phased in, the delay of 2 years to defined "full retirement"  effectively cuts the benefits to those born in 1960 or later by around 13 percent. Christie's proposals would nearly double these cuts over time, plus - as Robert Reich pointed out on Chris Hayes' 'All In' last night - ensure even fewer working class Americans live to collect a dime. (For some reason, the hardest working among us - coal miners, sanitation workers, argri-laborers, don't live as long as hedge fund managers and investment bankers. Hmmmmm.....wonder why!)

Christie's proposals don't even (apparently) reckon in the fact that up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits have been taxed for some individuals with incomes in excess of  only $34,000, and  $44,000 for couples. It is almost as if the benefits are given with the right hand and taken away with the left hand of gov't! Worse, because these  thresholds are not adjusted for inflation,  the reduction in benefits increases over time. The effective cut was, on average,  6 percent in 2012  and will be 8.8 percent by 2030 and 9.5 percent by 2050.


As for his Medicare -qualifying age delay, that would render our health care bills even higher. Christie probably believes that those between 65 and 67 will find relief in the existing health care markets but don't buy it.  First, NO health insurance companies are going to compete for senior health care! They only do it now because the Medicare Advantage plans are paid more for their services than the government pays in standard Medicare. Hence, contributing to the standard program’s insolvency (by an excess $12 billion a year according to the GAO).

Second, you can bet your sweet bippy that those 65- 67 year olds will face sky high premiums even for bare bones, high deductible plans. Given their increased health problems (higher blood pressure, cholesterol, weight, type II diabetes, cancer probability) they will likely see premiums of $1,500 a month or more. Many of these oldsters will also already have been laid off jobs to make way for the young Turks, and hence not have the money to purchase anything worthwhile. Thus, they will likely wait for treatment or to see a doc - until their problems become unmanageable. Then WE will have to cough up for their ER visits. But I guess this is what Christie wants. Just like most conservos prefer the bulk of low wage workers go on food stamps rather than increase the minimum wage to a living one. ($15/hr)

As Economics Professor Fiona Scott Morton aptly put it  in respect of another Repuke plan on changing Medicare three years ago (Paul Ryan's "premium support" malarkey):

"The Republican plan is not solving the problem. It’s solving the problem of the cost of government health care. You have people who can’t afford it and they’ll just die. Economists call that demand shedding”.

As for Christie's other proposals:  to cut Social Security for those getting $80k a year or more and eliminating it for those getting $200k a year or more, let's look at some data on Social Security recipients' income distribution to get a grip.  These are from the excellent book 'Social Security Works' by Nancy J. Altman and Eric R. Kingson:

 - 72.5% have less than $50,000 /yr.

- 18.5% have from $50,000 - 99,000

- 5.3% have $100,000 - 149,999

- 2.0 % have $150,000 - 199,999

- 1.9% have more than $200,000

In other words, barely 9 percent of elderly - or 1 in 11, has more than what is regarded as a middle class income. Only 1.9 percent are receiving the cut off point threshold for Christie's proposal. Only about 12 percent if that, would be affected by either Christie's reduction or total elimination proposals.

Given roughly 40 million retired workers are receiving S.S. benefits at a total cost of about 52 billion monthly, Christie's reductions or cuts would have minuscule effect. The math savvy can work it out to a savings of around $4 billion, if that.  Worse, the reductions and cuts for high earners would have exactly the negative effect we can't afford: turning Social Security into a de facto welfare program. 

The solution to solving Social Security shortfalls is simple, but clearly Christie and the Right won't go there. As Robert Reich noted last night, it is simply to raise the payroll tax cap  from its current $118,000 level. 


Christie's recently stated bollocks:

"Frankly Washington is afraid to have a conversation about Social Security with the people of our country. I am not."

Is flat out bull crap, since all "Washington" is afraid of is putting forth real solutions to the problem as opposed to trying to stuff Neoliberal solutions down the throats of an alert and aware populace - who understand that any "entitlement cuts" will even further increase the gulf of inequality.

As the authors of 'Social Security Works' put it (p. 4), our politicos may have polarized us  on just about every issue - from immigration reform to taxes-  but on one we are fiercely united: we support Social Security. This unity forges our future security and is something the Neolibs and their conservo austerity cousins dare not mess with. Hillary also needs to take note and come out four square for Social Security expansion. As Reich observed last night on 'All In':

"What Hillary Clinton can do is completely the opposite. She can acknowledge, because of widening inequality, a lot of working class people don't have enough Social Security and we ought to actually raise Social Security benefits - instead of getting into this debate on whether we should cut them."


 Else prove to us skeptical libs she really is a Neoliberal in progressive clothing. 

Further facts on Social Security:

1) Social Security's  Trust fund has historically taken in more money than it pays out in benefits. Currently it is at $2.76 trillion and continues to grow.

2) Without making any changes whatsoever, current projections show Social Security will be able to pay full benefits through 2033.

3) With just a minor tweak to the payroll tax cap - raising it to a mere $300,000, full benefits would be able to be paid through 2100.

4) The system could easily be rendered 100 percent secure, even with higher disability benefits paid out, if congress would cease raiding Social Security moneys for current expenses, including wars.

Thom Tillis: Another Faux Liberty Bumpkin Who's Really for Lunacy

The 'uninvited guest' on your restaurant  food - if idiot Thom Tillis has his way. Just one of these noroviruses will have you going both ways for days if you're unlucky enough to receive that burger from some careless food handler- who doesn't believe in washing his hands after a No. 2.

It appears the definitions of liberty have now plummeted to new lows, as we see libertarian twits like Rand Paul arguing that vaccinations can sometimes do more harm than good, and Chris Christie having to walk back recent remarks that "government shouldn't be telling parents to vaccinate their kids."  Oh yeah! Well, let's clarify that in fact governments (mainly of the states) are actually too cavalier in allowing too many vaccine exceptions - including for "personal beliefs" and "religious beliefs". In my day, you could not darken a school door unless you had all your vaccinations and could prove it. That's the way it should be and why a number of diseases were nearly wiped out.

Now, the "liberty" meme has been brought to a new low by the latest lowbrow mutt - a bumpkin named Thom Tillis (R-NC), an actual Senator - which goes to show how low the voting standards are in the Tarheel state. During a Q&A at the Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday, Tillis  described his own history of opposing certain health and hygiene regulations, including those that require employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom.

This cornpone turkey related a story (from his time in the state legislature in 2010),  when he complained that the U.S. is "one of the most regulated nations in the history of the planet," video via C-SPAN shows.  He said:


“I was having a discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like ‘maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,'"


Tillis said his interrogator was in disbelief, and asked whether he thought businesses should be allowed to "opt out" of requiring employees to wash their hands after using the restroom.
The senator said he'd be fine with it, so long as businesses made this clear in "advertising" and "employment literature."

Yeah, and what if that "literature" is embedded on some barely visible, post-card sized index card with 8-point font tacked up in some corner?

“I said: ‘I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says “We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom,” Tillis said, adding:

“The market will take care of that!"

Inciting laughter from the audience.

Oh, will it also take care of the all the customers that get norovirus- spawned diarrhea and vomiting? Of course, they will likely never return to said place of business again - whether Starbucks, Chipotle, Applebee's or Olive Garden - but by then the norovirus bug will likely have spread to thousands of others - simply by random contact. (It can survive on surfaces for up to 12 days)

Is this idiot for real? How the hell did he even manage to get to the U.S. Senate?

But it exemplifies the problems we have today with all manner of morons touting liberty when they don't have a clue what true liberty means. For one thing, and in the most basic sense, it means your liberty cannot transgress on my health and welfare. It also means, by extension, it cannot trespass on the communal health and welfare. Since people working in restaurants, and especially those handling foods that will be consumed - are at the critical nexus of disease communicability (including from not washing hands properly) it means they have NO liberty not to wash hands thoroughly. If they do not, and special cameras catch them - they need to be fired Johnny on the spot.

Tillis' version of freedom via non-regulation of hand washing for food handlers and others in restaurants, is therefore not freedom at all but license masquerading as freedom. It thus amounts to sheer lunacy given the adverse consequences to many people if allowed.

But it shows again how our educational foundation has been gutted because too many today are unable to distinguish legitimate freedom from license. It's a shame this stuff is no longer imparted in high schools and colleges, but evidently - given the success of turkeys like Tillis - it isn't.

Just be sure if this character is visiting some restaurant you're at, and wants to glad hand you - you properly disinfect your hands afterwards!

 

Ten Reasons the Packers Should Clean the Cowpokes' Clocks Today

Sitting with my 'Packer-whacker' at Lambeau Field in December, 2009.

A question on every Packer fan's mind is whether the Pack can dispatch the Dallas Cowboys at Lambeau Field today. Make no mistake, this is a historic game, the first playoff meeting at Lambeau between the two teams since the infamous 'Ice Bowl'  47 years ago.  That game I saw in New Orleans, with the Pack winning 21-17 on a game ending quarterback sneak by Bart Starr. The game is still the coldest ever to be played with wind chills approaching minus 48.

What about the current game? Can the Pack win? Let us recall the past three playoff seasons the Pack were dismissed including a "one and done" after a 15-1 regular season record several years ago. But in those previous times there were critical injuries or a key piece (in the case of the 2011 SB defense) left out. (Cullen Jenkins not resigned so the 'D' was not up to the SB standard)

Anyway, here are ten reasons I believe the Pack will take care of business today:

1) The Pack are unbeatable at Lambeau this year and the crowd will be louder than ever when Dallas is on offense, even rivaling the 12th man in Seattle. Romo - amidst the noise- will make a slew of errors and look for lots of false starts.

2) Dallas RB DeMarco Murray still suffers from a broken bone in his left hand which will be magnified in pain in Lambeau where temperatures won't rise above 14F. One hard hit and he will likely be forced to leave, or at least fumble.

3) Aaron Rodgers, Packers QB rules at Lambeau as much or more than Brady at Gillette Stadium or Peyton Manning at Denver's Sports Authority Field. Look for Rodgers to make quick passes to Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb for long yards after the catch.

4) Clay Matthews, unlike in prior years, is now healthy and as he even said 2 days ago  "there are no excuses". Also, he will have former Bear LB Julius Peppers on the other side helping out to keep Romo off balance.

5) Romo will be 'twitchy' and gun shy after his already vulnerable back took several shots in the Lions' game last week. After several knockdowns, compliments of Sam Barrington, Clay Matthews and Peppers, look for Romo to make a number of wild throws - including two for picks.

6)  Look for Packers' coach Mike McCarthy to put more run plays in for Eddie Lacy - at least enough to match his 100+ yard effort vs. Detroit. This strategy will be good to help Aaron out (still nursing a calf injury - not helped by getting stepped on by Ndamukong Suh).  and also keep Dallas RB Dez Bryant off the field so he can't make as much trouble.

7) The Pack will make at least two big plays on special teams - likely a runback for TD (compliments of Micah Hyde)  and maybe a blocked punt.  The Pack's special teams have been taking heat all year for less than stellar play and are determined now to make a statement. I believe they will!

8) There are a lot of guys who weren't on the Packers' 2010 Super  Bowl champion season team and are hungry for that special title, and the ring. They have 5 to 7 guys left from that team to encourage them to go all out - leave it all on the field. No one and done!

9) Chris Christie's "good luck" orange sweater (worn when he sits with Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones in his box)  has an expiry date on it  - and that will be today!

10) S.I. picked the Packers to win, and also beat the Patriots in the SB.

Footnote:

Wifey is still reeling from the dastardly tricks played by the Patsies yesterday in not reporting Shane Vereen as an ineligible receiver. Ravens coach Harbaugh had to go out onto the field to seek some kind of explanation and his team was penalized for it.  Steve Mariucci, on NFL Game Day this morning, did say it was "within the rules" but also said an official ought to have pointed out the ineligible to allow the defense to set coverage before the play.

This is also something the competition committee will have to address and soon. Meanwhile, any team that might have to play NE better look at that game tape closely.