Tuesday Twitter roundup

There's always one in every group:

Right, because giving the shaft to people who have already dedicated half their working years to a job and aren't likely to quit is such great management. Hopefully pursuing a Master's in English Literature will help this essayist better understand the definition of injustice. p.s. N&O, the word is "myopic."

Alright, let's see what these idiots are up to:

"The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans," the mission statement reads.

The caucus is made up of Reps. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), John Fleming (R-La.), Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.).

Hmmm, let's see, nine votes out of four hundred thirty five, equals about two percent, a number which is usually only relevant when choosing milk. Conclusion: The Caucus will have zero influence in Washington, but the members will likely be heroes to their low-brow constituency anyway. Making this one of the top ten scams of 2015.

Wow, I just had a 2006 flashback. I think John might be aging into that stage where you keep telling the same story over and over again, while friends and family paste on a smile and contemplate how expensive in-home care has become...

This is one of those issues that has my spidey-sense tingling:

Insurance companies are using a decades-old law to push higher-than-approved homeowner insurance rates on North Carolinians, says Sen. Michael Lee, calling the statute a loophole that needs to be closed.

Lee, R-New Hanover, who is on the Senate Insurance Committee, said he is going to look closely at the law during this session of the General Assembly.

Lee was referring to so-called “consent to rate” letters that ask the homeowner to agree to a higher rate than approved by the state or face losing coverage altogether.

Looks good so far, right? Insurance companies shouldn't be able to threaten homeowners for a rate increase that has been rejected by government. But there may be a free-market snake hiding in the grass:

But consent to rate “circumvents the entire (rate-setting) process,” said Tyler Newman, governmental affairs director of the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, or BASE.

Newman blamed the state’s rate-setting process for the problems and called for less regulation rather than more. He said the free market ought to be allowed to work.

Typical corporate toady reaction. Blame the government for the bad behavior of private companies, and put forward the logic-deprived idea that the bad behavior will cease if you relax your controls. And there are just enough ideologues in the General Assembly to fall for that unsound argument.

Yeah, God forbid the media should help people understand the laws that affect them...

It is a blatant lie. Many parents whose children attended (public) schools for free find themselves paying for more than just back-to-school stuff when they grab the for the voucher. They end up trying to scrounge up the extra hundreds of dollars in tuition the vouchers don't cover. Deeper into debt, and then the other shoe drops years later when they discover their child hasn't been prepared properly for college. But for those selling the lie for profit or for campaign contributions, it's all gravy. Like this jackass:

From the Facebook:

You know what? It wasn't funny back then, and it's exponentially less funny now. I realize it's difficult to compete with the gecko (or the caveman for that matter, who was way underrated as a comic), but if you're going to try to be funny, try a lot harder. Please.

Setting aside for the moment the sheer hypocrisy of prattling on about freedom of speech out of one side of your mouth while viciously attacking a college professor for speaking out about injustice, John's lame defense of Citizens United is overlooking some critical pieces of information. Employees of companies for many years have been allowed to donate to politicians and non-profits, and they've even been allowed to form their own PACs, to pool said donations into something more powerful.

The major difference between then and post-Citizens United is, now corporations can spend monies out of their general funds. In other words, a small group of executives can use profits that were made from the labors of those employees, without seeking their permission or worrying about employees stopping their donations if the PAC goes off the tracks. By any metric you could use, that's an erosion of those employees' "voices" in the formula, ergo a 1st Amendment concern. To put forward the idea that overturning Citizens United would somehow stifle free speech is exactly the opposite of the truth, and it also reveals the gaping lack of logic employed by pseudo-Libertarians like JLF and Civitas.

Good question. Even the hard-core death penalty supporters must be starting to question the accuracy of NC's legal system. I'd almost be willing to see it as a ballot initiative, but I don't have a high level of confidence after the Amendment One fiasco...

So...that's what's supposed to happen February 2nd? How (in the hell) can they craft such a pinpoint map a week before it's going to hit? If that's real, then why can't they predict my ex-wife's moods, so I'll know whether to answer the phone or not? It's a dangerous misuse of science, frankly. I'd rather freeze to death than get sucked into a rhetorical cyclone...

Oh good Lord. The BOE can't bring itself to investigate out-of-state gambling money pouring into Republican pockets, but they can crack down on a poorly thought-out GOTV letter? Thank God we've got loyal Democrats standing ready to throw other Democrats under the bus, lest we actually begin to put the pieces back together and oppose regressive Republicans. Yes, that was sarcasm.

Honestly, I can't understand why some people would consider these two silver-spoon-fed billionaires as anything less than fat-cats buying up elected officials, much less "heroes" of the common man. It's ludicrous, and the voters should reject anybody or any organization that receives money from them.

We're gonna get this one on the record, too:

What specific issues/goals are you focusing on for this upcoming session?
Rep. Torbett: “Revising and streamlining our processes dealing with infrastructure. My statewide observations, developed during my recent statewide tour, provide me the understanding that we are a decade behind in both building and maintaining infrastructure that enables effective and efficient management of the moving of people, goods, and services, from point A to point B safely and quickly. With a return on infrastructure investment of an estimated 10 or 11 to one, infrastructure will drive current and future economic growth throughout our state and across the wide spectrum of North Carolina business sectors. This diverse business growth, created by infrastructure improvements, will benefit citizens in the most rural areas of our state as well as the metro’s.”

That is all true, but you're not going to be able to do that at the same time you cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. And when push comes to shove and your leaders have to make a choice, you know which way they'll choose.

The truth is, for many of us, there's simply nothing to climb. You can start over when you're 25, or even 35. But when you're in your 50's and a 20-year career evaporates, starting over is worse than "not easy," it's damn near impossible.

Which ought to bring a little perspective to discussions about the NCDP's financial situation, but I'm sure there will be numerous people ready to explain to me how the two are totally unrelated.

Of course they do. The bigger they are, the more $$$ they'll throw at candidates running for office. *sigh*

On that nauseating note, here's your Onion:




Facebook is intentionally pissing me off

Serenity now, serenity now...