Archive for Can it get any more obvious?

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno: “Maybe we have a bigger [sexual assault ] problem than I imagined.” Ya think?


ya think

Over two hundred generals and top non-commissioned officers were at the Army’s sixth annual Sexual Harassment/Assault Prevention summit at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno was there, stating the obvious.

Via Stripes:

...Maj. Gen. Michael T. Harrison, commander of Army forces in Japan, was suspended Friday by Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno for allegedly failing to properly investigate a sexual assault complaint.

Odierno would not discuss Harrison with reporters Friday, but suggested that some Army leaders haven’t seen the sexual assault problem clearly as it built in intensity.

“The amount of reports that are now coming out — people willing to go public, which I think is a good thing — has brought this to a head for me,” he said. “Maybe we have a bigger problem than I imagined.”

Only if you think 26,000 incidents of sexual assault in the military last year is a "problem." Or this: Military Rape Survivor: Decades Of Failure To Improve Sexual Assault Policies Has ‘Re-Victimized’ Me.


H/t: TPM


Dep't. of Duh: The Bush tax cuts did not work


duh so duh

Some posts don't really need to be written, but what the heck; occasionally it's entertaining to state the obvious. Yet sometimes stating the obvious still doesn't penetrate thick Republican skulls.

And thick Republican skulls refuse to allow even the simplest, most basic facts entrance into what's left of their Republican minds (assuming they didn't lose them completely decades ago).

One of those simple, obvious facts made its way into WonkWire at Roll Call in a very short piece that ends with this quote from Bruce Bartlett, an American historian whose area of expertise is supply-side economics and who writes for the New York Times, Financial Times, Fiscal Times, and Tax Notes magazine. He served as a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a Treasury official under President George H. W. Bush.


“It is hard to find even a reputable conservative economist willing to say anything good these days about President Bush’s tax and economic policies.”


And yet, despite fewer identifying themselves as economic conservatives, the stubborn GOP insists on clinging to their austerity, tax breaky ways, because, to quote W's own mother, they still, stunningly, somehow believe that...

"This is working very well for them."


The poor favor Democrats, minorities do better under Dem administrations than Republican ones


Professor of political science and author Zoltan Hajnal and political science doctoral student Jeremy D. Horowitz wrote an op-ed for the L.A. Times that is chock full o' common sense conclusions.

They explain why, without question, minorities do better under Democratic administrations than under Republicans, and it's all backed up by raw data. Facts are facts, Republicans, no matter how you try to ignore or bend them.

Nor does it matter how many times Mitt Romney (who famously said, “It would be helpful to be Latino”) whispers to his donors at secret meetings how President Santa Obama handed out free gifts to all you not-white, not-wealthy, "illegal" people. There's a reason (or 12) why BigBucks McWrongerson lost the election, and it had nothing to do with socialist, Marxist, Kenyan handouts:

The data we analyzed show unequivocally that minorities fare better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones. [...]

Under Democratic presidents, the incomes of black families grew by an average of $895 a year, but only by $142 a year under Republicans. Across 26 years of Democratic leadership, unemployment among blacks declined by 7.9%; under 28 years of Republican presidencies, the rate increased by a net of 13.7%. Similarly, the black poverty rate fell by 23.6% under Democratic presidents and rose by 3% under Republicans.

The results for Latinos and Asians, though based on fewer years of data, show the same pattern. [...]

More important, these gains do not come at the expense of whites... These numbers show that economic condition need not be a zero-sum game pitting races and ethnicities against one another.

This also can't be rationalized by asserting that Democrats just happen to be in power when things are looking up, or because of the fiscal policies of Republicans who preceded them.

Additionally, the longer Democratic administrations are in office, the more minorities experience economic gains, but the opposite is true under Republican presidents. The authors attribute this to education, economic, and immigration policy differences between the two parties that benefit minorities, whose population numbers are growing... one more fact that scares the pants of the GOP.

Please read the whole piece for specifics. In fact, that might be a particularly wise thing for Republicans to do.


Stating the obvious


Willie Nelson was charged with pot possession in Texas.

In other news, MSNBC is no longer airing news on weekends.

Shorter version: Duh...


If it walks like a duck...



You know that new law, that says that students "should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people"?

Yeah, that one. Nobody should be taught to resent or hate other races, yet Arizona has enacted laws that promote something that looks and walks a whole lot like that proverbial duck.

The new law also "bans classes that might promote an overthrow of the U.S. government; that promote resentment toward a particular race or class; are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, or which advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Add that to the racial profiling "Papers Please" law, and you have some awfully resenty, hatey, racist policies.

Josh Marshall makes a good point:

But this isn't about law and order or undocumented status. But this is much more clearly a law ... to put it right out there, about white folks in Arizona who want the people in the Latino community to stop complaining so much. I mean, that's was this is about. [...]  It's about stopping local school districts with large Hispanic populations from teaching their history the way they want to in their local schools. The whole push gets you much more into the realm of explicit ethnic or even racial conflict.

This isn't about drugs smugglers or the criminal element any more. This isn't about being stopped because you're committing a crime or wearing the wrong shoes. This is blatant discrimination, and the climate is bound to get uglier. I can't see an entire community tolerating this kind of treatment for very much longer, and they shouldn't.

It's shameful.