In defense of Punxsutawney Phil on Groundhog Day

As you may have heard, our go-to groundhog is only right 39% of the time, at least when it comes to predicting winter’s duration. A coin toss would be a better predictor in Groundhog Day’s either/or racket. 39% is worse than chance.

As I heard this yesterday, I got to thinking. Unfortunately, my thinking only goes so far as, I must admit, I’ve got a hazy grasp of things statistical and probabilistic. “What if,” I wondered, “instead of seeing that as only being right 39% of the time, we rephrased it as being wrong 61% of the time?” 39% is such a sad, dismal little number, reminiscent of presidential approval ratings. It’s a number that won’t impress anyone. 61%, on the other hand, that might almost have a certain appeal to it.

“Ah, hah!” one might say. “61% is much better than chance. That might actually mean something!” As one wit put it (sorry, I’ve since lost the link), you’d do better to put your money on the opposite of what Phil indicates.

Or not.

It occurs to me that maybe Phil’s not wrong. Maybe it’s us. Maybe we’ve just been misreading him all along. Maybe, “Meh, I’m going back inside now,” just means, “You woke me up for this? Winter is nearly over. I’m gonna finish my nap now.”

Reading signs and portents has always been an iffy business. Flipping the script might be sloppy folklore, but just think how much more gratifying it would be to make the claim that Punxsutawney Phil is right 61% of the time. That’s somewhat better than chance and far better than either of the Farmers’ Almanacs can support. At least with Phil, we can always claim that we’d previously just misunderstood the poor little bugger.

—-

Image credit: Eddie~S @ flikr.com. Licensed under Creative Commons.

State of the Union Address – rebuttal from the easy chair

If there’s anything better than screaming at football or rasslin’ on the tee vee, it’s throwing fits at political speeches.

First things first. The Onion captured my evening just about perfectly, except I’m not a dad.

I went into tonight’s State of the Union address with the usual trepidation.  First, there were Robert Reich’s words via Facebook earlier in the day:

WHAT OBAMA WON’T SAY TODAY. The State of the Union is abysmal. (1) Economically, 95 percent of the gains are going to the top 1 percent, middle incomes are sinking, 75 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, a smaller share of working-age of Americans are in jobs than at any time in the past 30 years, and the ranks of the poor are swelling. (2) Politically, almost nothing is being done about this because big money has taken over our democracy, Congress is paralyzed, and most Americans think the game is rigged. (According to polls, fewer than 20 percent of Americans believe the government is doing the right thing, while 75 percent did a half-century ago.) (3) At some point, Americans will reclaim our economy and our democracy. This has been the central lesson of American history. Reform is less risky than revolution, but the longer we wait the more likely it will be the latter.

In my usual snarky manner, I shared with an opening comment of my own, to wit:

“Robert Reich covered the omissions. I expect that what does get mentioned will be mostly lies, equivocations, cheerleading, and some zingers. Sadly, the omissions are the most important parts.

I spent the rest of the day up until the SOTU in general bliss.  That is, of course, if you count washing manure off a feed tractor bliss.  At least when I cussed at the tractor and the cow shit and the pressure washer and my own fate, those things weren’t at fault.  Then the dreaded moment arose.  I tuned into MSDNC long enough to catch the warm ups before the big event.  Everyone seemed to be settling in cozily, the thrill in the air palpable, almost as though a special order of Fruit of the Loom MagicFingers underwear had just arrived.

Meanwhile, Lee Camp summed up expectations quite nicely:

Fun fact- Obama listed 41 initiatives in last #SOTU, has accomplished 2 of em. Nothing you hear tonight will matter. 

Given the promise of tonight’s spectacle, I allowed myself to be distracted by important matters like my friend’s new chocolaty dessert, two kittens, an embarrassed dog, and a redneck workbench made from a wall-mounted tailgate.  I don’t think I missed much of importance.  I heard “formalities, formalities, pretty speechifying, empty words, blahblahblah” for a bit because my crotchety side was still cooing over kittens when I heard him mentioned the Trans-Pacific Partnership in conjunction with job creation, sandwiched comfortably and glibly between bullet points.

And when ninety-eight percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create more jobs. 

 Okay, all the pro-TPP progressives form a line over there on the right.  Everyone else, feel free to giggle at the one or two confused folks that queued up.

Now, while I was fuming about that, Facebook served up an image macro from the National Republican Congressional Committee. Note, they weren’t pissed about the TPP thing.  They were upset about…executive orders!  ZOMG, stop the president! Tyranny!  Actually, the caption was slightly less ridiculous, but not by much.

Obama right now: “So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation…that’s what I’m going to do.”

I might not like the current POTUS, but I don’t like the other party’s BS, either. Where were GOP objections to executive orders under Republican presidents? As of 1 week ago, Obama has signed *gasphorror* 168 executive orders. Bush 43 signed 291. His dad signed 166 (in his one term). Reagan signed 381. Ford signed 169, and didn’t even have a full term. Nixon signed 346. Eisenhower signed 484.

Think those numbers sound scary? That was presidents slowing down with the signing pen.

Teddy Roosevelt: 1081
William Howard Taft: 724
Woodrow Wilson: 1803
Warren G Harding: 522
Calvin Coolidge: 1203
Herbert Hoover: 968
FDR: 3522
Harry S. Truman: 907

Clearly, this is just GOP fake outrage. There’s enough real things to be upset about that pawning this crap off just ruins credibility.

Meanwhile, Lee Camp continued with his own observations:

Obama just had one line on climate change. That one line was his only sentence about the thing that could drive us to extinction. That was it. Hope you enjoyed the line. 

Even when President Obama gets it right, I’m inclined to find fault.  He makes a fine point about minimum wage, but did he seriously just trot out a bump in wages for contractors serving the military as a major go-to action without considering how friggin’ tone deaf that particular initiative is?

An E-1 makes $18,194/year after the first 4 months (provided said E-1 has less than 2 years of experience). Divide that out and you get (for a “40-hour week,” lol) $8.75 an hour. Should those who do the laundry and dishes for our troops get paid more? Probably. But I don’t think you should pitch that unless you first pitch a substantial raise for E-1′s, scaling upward as needed. How about $15/hour for every single duty hour and 24/7 while deployed? Then maybe we can think about helping the dishwashers. That’s the kind of good thing that could be done on a Friday without attracting all the media at one time, preferably during a bigger distraction, like going into Super Bowl weekend. If the right wing media don’t glom onto this as a talking point, they’re more strategically incompetent than I give them credit for.

While I was busy railing at my poor (and, happily, insensible) television, President Obama kept right on, so I’m sure I missed a fine point or three about his signature achievement…indirect cash transfusions for the insurance industry.  Surely there had to be a threat of gun control.  Luckily, I missed those.  Had I heard either of those points, I’d have been railing and missed it when he said,

“But I will not send our troops into harm’s way unless it’s truly necessary…”

So…if he doesn’t want to send troops into harm’s way without good cause, then what did he make of Syria? He wanted that like butter wants hot corn on the cob. Oh, but hey, MIT counters US intelligence on administration claims. Hear about that in the news? Of course not. Russia Today covered it, though. Here’s a Google news search showing the coverage it got. Don’t bother looking for ABC, CBC, NBC, MSNBC, or Fox.

Right about there I’d had enough.  That’s the state of our union for you.  The degree of hogwash and hyperbole that emanates from any flag-encrusted podium in this country has gotten to the point where I actually prefer kittens, shamed dogs, and chocolaty desserts.  It will only get worse as 2014 warms up and as 2016 slouches its way across the cable shows and the Intertubes.

The irony runs deep with this one: Norquist vs. Cruz smackdown

Grover Norquist slams Cruz: ‘He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away’

Prominent Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist accused Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of causing the shuttering of government operations by selling his counterparts in the House a bill of goods he couldn’t provide.

Hold on, what? The fellow famed for his drown it in a bathtub quip has a problem with the shutdown?

I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
NPR’s Mara Liasson interview with Grover Norquist, May 25, 2001 Continue reading

I hate to say it, but the GOP is right

I hope you didn’t sprain anything or break anything irreplaceable.  For what it’s worth, you people have no idea how hard it is to resist the trite “wipe coffee off monitor” quip at this juncture.

Bear with me.

Time and again we hear the GOP, establishment and fringe alike, tell us that we’ve got too much government. Never mind the irony of a party that practices medicine without a license by way of routinely mandating transvaginal ultrasounds telling us what too much government is. Just, um, never mind. Never mind a lot of horribly invasive “small” government ironies.

Damn, it’s hard to do this with a straight face. Continue reading

Why we’ll continue to face shutdown battles and debt ceiling debates

Stocks End Week Lower As Govt. Shutdown Deadline Approaches

U.S. stock indexes fell on Friday as the September 30 deadline for an emergency budget deal in Washington to avoid a Government shutdown loomed ever closer.

Is it correlation or causation?  Tough call.  The way McSherry puts it in the Forbes article, one thing happens as another thing happens.  Sounds like correlation, right? Continue reading

Is James “The Liar” Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, on the way out?

I wonder if he can lie with his mouth closed?

Every once in a while, I like to check the Federal Register. This is a vice I should indulge more frequently, apparently. This evening I indulged, and discovered this:

Designation of Officers of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence To Act as Director of National Intelligence
A Presidential Document by the Executive Office of the President on 09/25/2013

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq. (the “Act”), it is hereby ordered that:

Section 1. Order of Succession. Subject to the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of this memorandum, and to the limitations set forth in the Act, the following officials of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in the order listed, shall act as and perform the functions and duties of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) during any period in which the DNI and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence have died, resigned, or otherwise become unable to perform the functions and duties of the DNI:…

This couldn’t get much hotter off the press if it tried, and it strikes me as a very big deal, indeed. Surely someone in the media caught wind of this, right?

Not that I can find.

A variety of news searches using Google turned up nothing on today’s presidential memo on succession for the role of Director of National Intelligence. For that matter, nothing came up about the memo when I search my news sources and blog roll in InoReader (the tool I use now that Google’s Reader is caput). That, however, is not to say that there wasn’t anything relevant out there.

Marcy Wheeler’s emptywheel had this fresh, new content today:

Senate Intelligence Committee Open Hearings: A Platform for Liars

So DiFi’s [Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA] idea of an “open hearing” is to invite two established liars. And for her non-governmental witnesses, one keeps declaring Congress NAKED! in the face of evidence the government lies to them, and the other tells fanciful stories about how much data NSA shares.

It’s like DiFi goes out of her way to find liars and their apologists to testify publicly.

I love it.  For that matter, Ms. Wheeler starts the piece off strong with:

Pentagon Papers era NYT Counsel James Goodale has a piece in the Guardian attracting a lot of attention. In it, he says the first step to reform NSA is to fire the liars.

Excellent. Ms. Wheeler might not have mentioned today’s succession memo, but perhaps Mr. Goodale did over at the Guardian?

To reform the NSA, fire officials who lie

This article is also from today, and it’s an excellent bit of reportage. Mr. Goodale ends it on this note:

Obviously, if this culture seeps into popular culture, lies and deceits will be easily tolerated – and we will all be the worse for it. President Obama should focus on this issue before it is too late. But it is not at all clear that he cares about it any more than Congress or the Justice Department do.

Interestingly, he also makes no mention of the memo hot off President Obama’s desk.

If this were a reshuffling of succession rules for just about any other agency, it would probably be among the dullest things ever. With James “The Liar” Clapper at the center of so much controversy, however, should we see this as just a bit of housekeeping minutiae? Or should we expect to see an announcement of Clapper’s resignation soon?

I hope so. Part of me will cheer. The dominant, cynical side of me will just wonder who will be signing Clapper’s checks next. My gut says he’ll still be an intelligence insider, just on a private contractor’s payroll.

—-

Image credit: Official portrait in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Aren’t crippling sanctions and regime change what we seek against enemies?

A wild GOP appears!

Seriously. If one searches on the terms effect of crippling sanctions, one finds over 800,000 results at Google. A quick review of the first great many confirms, at the very least, that Iran, an enemy (so-called), is the primary subject. Debate rages as to whether sanctions are effective for accomplishing their intended goals, but there seems to be a fair amount of detailed information that they are certainly effective at damaging the enemy’s middle class.

This just in! Partisan radicals have stormed buildings nationwide and are holding hostages at gunpoint. If their demands are not met, they will kill as many hostages as they need to until the Obama administration backs down on the Affordable Care Act.

Here we are, the 21st Century barely warming up, and a select band of partisan radicals famous for co-opting an unholy trinity of political party, fake philosophy, and extremist religion are proposing just such crippling sanctions that would certainly do more to harm the middle class than they would to meet stated objectives. The problem is, those partisans are right here in America, the regime they seek to change is our own, and the net result is that they are treating America as the enemy.

Terrorism is the application of violence or threat of violence to attain political goals. Repeal of the ACA is the obstructionist GOP contingent’s stated political goal. That the threat of government shutdown almost certainly results in the death of greater than 0% of those affected is, of necessity, a threat of violence in the same way that this particular politically partisan contingent construes taxation to be violence. Ergo, GOP obstructionist radicals are, like Al Nusra Front, terrorists actively engaged not only in threats of violence against the American people for their political goals, but in the undermining of national security. Adding insult to injury, their assault on the American people won’t even accomplish their goal if they start executing hostages.

Taxation as theft

Mr. Boehner said the dispute with Democrats amounted to a question of “how much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government.” 

Clearly, we are dealing with folks that believe that the apparently non-violent is, by extension, actually violence. For them, the abstract is concrete. I believe I fairly make their case when I put it thusly:

The government sends you a polite letter notifying you that taxes are due and payable. You send a polite letter back indicating that you will not relinquish your funds upon their polite request. The government proceeds to shuffle about other seemingly polite pieces of paper such that you are required to appear in court. Not wishing to appear ungracious, you make your appearance. The judge informs you, ever so politely, that payment is not optional. It is mandatory. You politely decline. The government proceeds to shuffle about more seemingly polite pieces of paper. At some point, gentlemen armed with guns and authority arrive at your home or place of employment, presenting polite pieces of paper indicating seizure of a variety of your assets. Followed through to its logical fruition, the peaceful and noncompliant citizen is eventually faced with drawn weapons. Violence!

Terrorism

The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Simplified rendering of the latest GOP legislative tactic: Repeal Obamacare (political goal) or we will shut down the government.

See what you made us do?

Fox News: Capitol Hill report warns shutdown could pose risks to national security

“We had victory today,” House Speaker John Boehner said after the vote. “The House has listened to the American people. Now it’s time for the U.S. Senate to listen.”

Yes, because taking America hostage and issuing a credible threat of indiscrimate death to achieve your political goals is a victory.  Added bonus, you actually jeopardize American national security.  We see what you did there.

With that bit of preamble out of the way, let’s take a look at a slice of America as an example of the potential effects of a government shutdown, shall we?

America Under Siege

What a government shutdown would look like in Nevada

The current threats, however, may be more plausible than earlier occasions when Congress sounded an alarm. For the first time, there’s a solid faction of the Republican Party openly angling for a shutdown and for lawmakers to vote to prove how much they really hate Obamacare.

And it’s not like Democrats are about to wave a white flag in surrender just days before the health care exchanges are scheduled for their national debut.

So if a government shutdown is on the horizon, what would it look like for Nevada? Here’s a list of what and where to expect the local effects.

For the sake of simplicity, however illusory, let’s assume that while the numbers presented in the Sun’s article will differ from region to region, the effect of a government shutdown as experienced elsewhere in the country will essentially mirror the effect in Nevada.

Number, numbers everywhere, and not a drop of blood to drink. Pity that, because we only seem to understand blood. Allow me to reframe issue a touch. We’re not just dealing with clowns in clown cars here. We’re dealing with clowns like this:

I’ve got your number, and it’s sweet and gooey!

Hold on, what? Blood? Clowns? Bloodthirsty clowns? What the hell?

Simple. Numbers are the crunchy outside. Blood is what makes numbers gooey in the middle.  These clownish bloodthirsty freaks holding America hostage talk numbers, numbers without calling attention to the fact that it’s actual American blood they’ll gladly spill in pursuit of their agenda.  Hell, even if they actually believe that they’re preventing a greater harm, Obamacare, with its fictitious death panels, that’s just not going to wash.  Destroying the village to save it wasn’t good enough for My Lai.  It’s not good enough for us here.  And it doesn’t change the fact that threatening violence in pursuit of a political goal is a form of terrorism.

This is one arena where GOP & Co. have Team Blue at a severe disadvantage. These clown-headed redshirts (therein lies our sole cause for optimism where they are concerned) are content to use their croupier’s rakes to push little plastic political soldiers around on maps and to hell with the short-term consequences, except when that means they get to gorge on blood-filled numbers that fall out of their cracked and broken toys. It makes great political theater, after all. Pass the popcorn!

Team Blue, on the other hand (provided I leave my cynicism at the door for a moment), positions itself as those who see those little plastic figures as representing very real people, so short-term consequences are as important as the long ones. If the Blues can’t outnumber these Clown Patrol at the polls in deep red territory, at some point Team Blue needs to be willing to make the painful sacrifices necessary to meet bloodthirsty clowns in the abstract.

“Hyperbole!” you say. “Hogwash,” I reply.

For that matter, at the end of this post, I suggest how to concretely drub them about the head and shoulders with their own abstractions.  Far be if from me to show up with a bucket of bitching and not have a solution to offer.

A Dash of Legalese

“But for” – In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the “but for” test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

Proximate Cause @ Wikipedia

A Look at Those Tasty, Crunchy Numbers and Their Gooey, Bloody Filling

God always punishes us for what we can’t imagine.

Stephen King, Duma Key

The article at the Las Vegas Sun highlights a great many consequences that, but for GOP terrorist hostage-taking, would not occur.

Approximately 11,000 civilian federal workers in Nevada may be furloughed or asked to work, temporarily, without pay. Does this mean their bills stop? That a bank will kindly waive mortgage payments? That they cease needing food, clothing, healthcare, fuel, automotive insurance, or a host of other necessities? Of course not. Is it really that much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that at least one of these workers or their family members may actually die as a result of such deprivations as may be caused by the GOP’s act of terror? To wit, I posit that some percentage greater than 0% of affected workers and/or their family members face a threat of death that, but for GOP hostage-taking, they would not face.

Active duty service members should not expect to be paid until after the shutdown is ended. I posit that some percentage greater than 0% of active duty service members, distracted by a financial crisis imposed on them by GOP terrorists, and perhaps other service members and/or civilians that rely upon the effective discharge of their duties, will die. Is it really too much to imagine that an interruption of soldiers’ allotments to their families back home be would weigh heavily and distractingly on their hearts? That worries about keeping the lights on and mortgages paid back home would add to the already inordinate burdens they bear in the name of patriotism and service to country? Do we not have enough active duty military suicides already? But for GOP terrorism, this additional risk would not exist.

What about the risk of death faced by military contractors and their families? Is it too much to think that even one might die for no other reason than hardships caused by GOP terrorism?

Some in the country, depending on the ability of their state to bridge the gap between unemployment benefits due and funds available from the federal government, might suddenly find themselves even farther up shit creek without a paddle. Again, I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to suggest that greater than 0% of the people already struggling to survive will experience the slashing of their unemployment benefits in the form of death that, but for GOP terrorism, would not occur.

Social Security benefits for existing recipients may be safe, for some value of the word “safe,” but new applicants and those awaiting adjudication won’t be so lucky. Will every single one of those unfortunates be able to bridge the gap between existing resources and the start of their benefits? That’s yet another risk the GOP is willing to take with American lives.

The same goes for new applicants for VA benefits. Once again, when it comes to fully supporting our troops, the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way for the good of our nation, the GOP sees no problem with putting this incredibly at-risk population under the gun. Think that active duty suicide rate was jaw dropping? Can anyone believe that a government shutdown will do anything to improve on the suicide rate among veterans? Yet again, but for GOP terrorism, some percentage greater than 0% of veterans will likely die.

Surely none of this affects civilians who work in the home construction market, right? Wrong. FHA won’t be processing loans under a shutdown. No loans, no purchases. No purchases, less work for contractors, less sales for home improvement businesses and suppliers. Take everything you know about trickle-down economics and apply it to loss instead. If someone, due to a political hit on an already struggling recovery, should lose their job, how much luck are they going to have, as a new applicant, in getting unemployment benefits from strapped state coffers? Don’t get weary of my repetition just yet. Death is death, after all, each one a tragedy, each one a mere speck of collateral damage the GOP is willing to embrace as part of its political machinations. But for GOP terrorism, some percentage greater than 0% of workers in the construction and allied trades will die.

Are the good folks in the private sector working to address our renewable energy issues immune? Nope. As indicated in the article, programs expecting payments at the beginning of the fiscal year might just have to wait. Sometimes waiting is not an option. If those concerns cannot find a way to stay operational while funds are pending, doors get closed, sometimes permanently. Not only is that bad for our energy independence and bad for the environment, that’s bad for workers who, like construction industry workers, could end up competing for limited assistance resources. Yet again, but for GOP terrorism, some percentage greater than 0% of workers in the renewable energy industry will die.

Think the latest attempt at slashing $40 billion from food stamps was extreme? Heaven help you if you rely on that or similar public assistance if your state draws the short straw when it comes to timing. Yet again, but for GOP terrorism, some percentage greater than 0% of public assistance recipients will die.

Even vacationers, but more importantly, those who depend upon them, would feel the bite. With visa and passport processing being delayed, a great many, tens of thousands if history is a sufficient guide, will have to cancel plans. Those counting on tourism revenue will surely be adversely affected. Remember, all it takes is one layoff, one desperate soul pushed beyond despair. That’s a life and death risk the GOP is willing to take. Yet again, but for GOP terrorism, some percentage greater than 0% of tourism and hospitality workers will die.

All of that, all of those possible indiscriminate deaths that, but for GOP terrorism wouldn’t even be up for discussion, and their hostage-taking goal won’t even stop Obamacare thanks to the fact that the money that needs to be spent for the next stage in the rollout has already been spent. As pointed out in the article, at least this time we don’t have to worry about critical emergency services. We’ll just have to wait for America’s own Al Nusra Front as embodied in the current obstructionist GOP contingent to pull out their guns again when the next debt ceiling debacle comes into play.

Now, I realize that the temptation will be great to rebut with the claim that death is an unfortunate possible unintended consequence of even the most well-intended policies.  I submit that the difference here is quite stark and simple.  Faced with a failure to prevail in the election booth, terrorists hiding behind the GOP front are overtly threatening to harm our nation if their demands are not met.  As for my seemingly strident cry, again and again, that greater than 0% of affected populations will die, let me as you this.  What is more likely to be true, an absolute assertion that nobody will die as a result of this GOP threat (100% will survive), or that even one will will perish?  How does this differ from a madman pointing a scary rifle into a crowd and letting off ten rounds if he doesn’t get his way?  Would it even matter if all ten rounds miss?  The threat is all too horribly real.

To recapitulate, nearly verbatim, from the beginning of this post, terrorism is the application of violence or threat of violence to attain political goals. Repeal of the ACA is the obstructionist GOP contingent’s stated political goal. The threat of government shutdown which, as suggested above, almost certainly results in the death of greater than 0% of those affected, is, of necessity, a threat of violence in at least the same way that this particular politically partisan contingent construes taxation to be violence, although I contend that my claim is far more grounded in reality. GOP obstructionist radicals are, like Al Nusra Front, terrorists actively engaged, not only in threats of indiscriminate violence, in this case directly against the American people, for the attainment of political goals, but also in compromising America’s national security.   Perhaps its time we start treating them as terrorists.

To the extent that their efforts undermine national security, I would also argue that the GOP terrorist contingent lends aid and support to the enemy and should, as such, be charged and tried for treason.

—-

Image credits:

Al Nusra Front Executions. Image, as released by Al Nusra Front, posted at Threat Matrix.

Dice. Photo by John Morgan @ flikr.com.  Licensed under Creative Commons.

Scary Clown Face by Spider.Dog @ flikr.com. Licensed under Creative Commons.

Taxation is Force. Posted at thinksquad, unattributed.