Pinheads in the Free Press and News, ad nauseum

So many pinheads, so little time... Once again, Nolan Finley is proving he sucks at math (or is very selective in his use of information). While I am not happy at the amount of money banks and financial institutions have funneled to the Dems, it's funny how Finley only mentions Dems having received money. By my calculations (directly from open secrets.org that Finley mentions), the financial industry for this election cycle has given $6.5 million to Republicans, and $6.3 million to the Dems--that strikes me as roughly 50/50, not the three quarters Finley claims has gone to Democrats. Further, when you look at the last 20 years as Finley mentions, $131 million has gone to Republicans, $90 million to Democrats. Please understand I am not defending the Democrats (Chuck Schumer, you know who you are) taking this money--just pointing out, as Finley does not, that Republicans are even moreso guilty. But what really pisses me off about his piece is the fact that once again Conservidiots are deflecting blame from where it really belongs--the financial industry. Yes, Congress and the SEC could have done much better in protecting us, but ultimately, this is about the financial industry's greed and carelessness. So the News thinks President Obama should name a SCOTUS nominee who will "hear cases with an open mind." Funny, but I don't remember this being one of their concerns when GWB was nominating conservative judicial activists Roberts and Alito. Apparently, only Democrats need to nominate justices with an open mind--Republicans are free to nominate ideologues at their pleasure. Frankly, fuck that--Obama should nominate someone who is to the left of Stevens (if that's possible). And young, too, so he/she can spend years hectoring Roberts and Alito. Ron Dzwonkowski (Wonk from here on out) has another of his lame-ass columns on "commonsense folks," this time concerning the federal deficit. Paul Krugman has written extensively on the difference between the deficit itself and what it means versus the politics of the deficit (a good example can be found here). And any initiative that has the Peter J. Peterson Foundation on board is asking for trouble (Digby here). Hard to know where to begin there's so much bullshit in this article, but first off, I find it really hard to imagine that Dave Camp's entire congressional district is full of folks "who still believe in saving up for what you want and not spending money you don't have." Considering that consumer debt skyrocketed in the early aughts, you'd think a few of them would have spent beyond their means. And just what does this every American being "about $42,000 in the hole" supposed to mean, other than being some second rate scare tactic? Like I'm going to have to come up with 42k to make up for it (and good fucking luck with that). No, as the economy improves, so will tax revenues and the deficit will go down. Finally, does Wonk actually believe, given the complete lack of support Republicans have shown President Obama thus far, that "commonsense" Dave Camp is going to do anything other than push the Republican's colossal failure policies? I'll believe it when Rep. Camp starts talking seriously about cutting the defense budget. And just where are we going to cut anyway? Everyone loves talking about pork, but it's not going to put anything other than a minor dent in it. What do we want--even worse roads? Less education for our kids? Less police and firemen? Worse regulation on our food and work safety? I'd love to hear where they're going to cut that is going to do anything but make our lives worse (though I do have a couple of ideas that won't make our lives miserable--get out of Afghanistan and Iraq now, end corporate welfare). What a fucking idiot. I mean, really--a ban on texting is a restriction on free speech? Isn't it really just a ban on not always being able to do what you want when you want to? I mean if the idiotic messages being passed along are that important, couldn't you pull over for a second? Besides, as Oliver Wendell Holmes so famously stated, the right to free speech isn't absolute (i.e., you can't run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" just because you feel like it). If it presents a clear and present danger (the study she cites says studies have shown that phone use while driving increases the risk of accidents), it can be prohibited. You can swing your fist all you want until it comes into contact with my nose. The problem is that too many people just aren't all that responsible (like the idiot who almost slammed into my family head-on tonight because apparently she thought stop signs are optional). Note to those who do use phones and drive: if you ever hit my car while you're talking on the phone or texting, not only will you be going to the hospital for your injuries, but also to have a phone removed from your ass.... Do you suppose if the Hutatree were Muslims they'd be getting released? Just wondering.... Peace, emaycee