How Four Years Changes the Meaning of One Bumper Sticker

September 4th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Bumper Stickers | Election 2008 | Election 2012 | George W. Bush | Politics - (9 Comments)

Four years ago this month, the third most popular bumper sticker we sold read “I like Obama, but is America ready for a President with Brains?”

Red and blue bumper sticker on Barack Obama's identity as the first black president of the United States

At that time, there were many bloggers and pundits muttering or whispering or vaguely miming the idea that they liked Barack Obama, all right, but they just weren’t sure that America was ready for a black president. Some of them said it straight out: search for “Is America Ready for a Black President?” on Google and you’ll get more than 65,000 results.

The “is America ready for a President with brains?” bumper sticker was a retort to those who were focusing on the color of Barack Obama’s skin as if it were an insurmountable stumbling block on the road to the White House. Clearly, it was not. While the bumper sticker turned the subject back from trivial skin to more relevant considerations of capability, it made an implicit contrast with George W. Bush, who has been so derided and mocked for his bumbling performance that he was shut out of the 2012 Republican National Convention, just four years after leaving office.

Today, that same bumper sticker has a different meaning. “I like Obama” is a preamble that says what follows is nothing personal. The following phrase, “but is America ready for a President with brains?,” suggests that President Obama has been misguided or inept in his presidency.

This bumper sticker isn’t selling as quickly as it was four years ago, but it is selling, and that’s telling.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Candidate Barack Obama vs. President Barack Obama on Guantanamo and the Rule of Law

January 13th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Election 2012 | Homeland Insecurity | Politics - (3 Comments)

Candidate Barack Obama, February 27 2008, Columbus Ohio:

We will lead by having the highest standards, by setting an example of human rights and civil rights, due process and rule of law, which is why I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. And we will end torture and rendition because you will have elected a president who has taught the Constitution and believes in the Constitution and will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

All these things are possible if you are ready for change. But you can’t just sit back and wait for it. You’ve got to want it. You’ve got to work for it. You’ve got to go out and vote for it. There are people who are now saying, “Well, Obama may talk a good game, but he hasn’t been in Washington long enough.” That’s what they’ll tell you. And I’ve got to remind them, to remind them that I know they want to season and stew me a little while longer, boil all the hope out of me, but the American people understand we don’t need the same old folks doing the same old things, playing the same old games over and over again. We need something different.

President Barack Obama, Updated for 2012:

We will lead by having the highest standards, by setting an example of human rights and civil rights, due process and rule of law, which is why I will close Guantanamo I will not close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus I will not restore habeas corpus. And we will end torture put the power-drill interrogator in charge of procedural compliance and rendition while rendition will continue because you will have elected a president who has taught the Constitution and believes in the Constitution and will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

All these things are possible if you are ready for change. But you can’t just sit back and wait for it. You’ve got to want it. You’ve got to work for it. You’ve got to go out and vote for it. There are people who are now saying, “Well, Obama may talk a good game, but he hasn’t been in Washington long enough.” That’s what they’ll tell you. And I’ve got to remind them, to remind them that I know they want to season and stew me a little while longer, boil all the hope out of me, but the American people understand we don’t need the same old folks doing the same old things, playing the same old games over and over again. We need something different.

All these things are not going to happen. Never mind.

, , , , ,

Obama States: Futon Sale. McCain States: Toddler Cowboy Boots

June 21st, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Media | Politics - (0 Comments)
Top 20 Google Searches Most Concentrated in States won by Barack Obama in 2008

1. hip hop has saved my life lyrics
2. winter break
3. wedding name cards
4. futon sale
5. granada airport
6. khaled hosseini
7. miglia
8. kohler towel bars
9. the roots tipping point
10. lady is a tramp
11. tipping
12. is cracking your neck bad
13. enjoy your
14. oscar peterson
15. surname ethnicity
16. blood diamond
17. snuffles
18. cats cancer
19. operation ironman
20. naturtint

 Top 20 Google Searches Most Concentrated in States won by John McCain in 2008

1. hiccups in the womb
2. home decor
3. radiology tech
4. eagle clipart
5. eagle clip art
6. decorating with fondant
7. radiology techs
8. what to expect when
9. airplane bedding
10. how to upholstery
11. f150 owners manual
12. toddler cowboy boots
13. boy crib bedding sets
14. baby at 37 weeks
15. cute maternity
16. new dollar coins
17. scroll pattern
18. baby boy crib bedding sets
19. office decor
20. false pregnancy test

, , , ,

First Stop, Chinatown. Next Stop, the White House!!!

May 17th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Election 2008 | Moral Values | Politics - (1 Comments)

In 2008, Christopher Popham Smith ran for President of the United States under the auspices of his self-declared One America Party, and is promoting himself again to help “conservatives gain ground”, “to stop the liberals, progressives, socialists, communists”, and to “not let the far left, progressive and socialistic element of this country destroy our moral, social, religious and economic way of life.”

Fiercely proud of a proper blood lineage he traces back to the Mayflower and Queen Elizabeth’s court, Popham Smith dropped by Irregular Times last night to defend the nonsense notion that in two decades there will be enough Muslims in to elect their very own President of the United States. His explanation is that they’ll take over this country by starting in neighborhoods:

We are thinking that for the past 35 years, due to lax immigration laws and political correctness, there are many places in Europe that are predominantly Muslim, mostly ghetto-like communities. The Muslim populations have exploded in Europe, and in a scant few years, they will indeed be in a position to vote into office their own kind at the local and state levels. In twenty years, as the Muslim population of the U.S. grows, we too will be seeing Islamists elected to office more frequently. After all, there is a Muslim Congressman, and an appointee in the White House right now. Be very careful America. The European Muslim phenomenon will be here soon enough for your children and grandchildren to witness.
GOOD LUCK, AMERICA.

There are actually two Muslim members of Congress out of the 535 currently seated, less than is proportional to their 0.6% share of the U.S. population. But who’s counting? Popham Smith is counting, and he’s counted…

over 119,000 radical Muslim men and women throughout the United States, just waiting for the word to come down – to attack our cities and reduce our economy, possibly back to the 1950’s. We do not have the resources or manpower to address this dilemma. Out of the 119,000 only 12 have been deported!

And really, who wants to watch Leave It To Beaver reruns again? Or (I shudder) Father Knows Best?

But back to domination from ghetto: you know, that’s just how the Chinese and Koreans started off. They all aggregated in ghetto-like communities, and they elected local and state representatives, and now as you’re aware the Chinese and Koreans run everything in this country. The Jews also did that, and now they run everything too. Also, the Italians and Irish, Catholics hid sneakily among them, running all over the place, running out of their neighborhoods to live among us, running, running, running things, running everything. The blacks and the browns from the slave quarters and the barrios, the reds from the reservations. All of them starting off in segregated communities. All of them voting, fingering their social security cards like non-Protestant strings of prayer beads, touching the ballot with their roughened hands. None of them from Elizabeth’s court. None descended from the Mayflower. All of them running America.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Take a Tally: has President Obama kept or tried to keep all his Campaign Promises?

December 10th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Democrats | Election 2008 | Homeland Insecurity | Liberty | Politics | Questions - (2 Comments)

A rather testy President Barack Obama insists he wants you to evaluate him. The President has told you what you’re going to find:

Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.

The most powerful person on the planet should know that if he’s going to say something cocky like that, people are actually going to check and find out that this is not actually true.

Here’s just one example of a campaign promise that Barack Obama has not even tried to keep. In an official position paper during the 2008 presidential race, the Obama campaign wrote down and published this pledge regarding the FISA Amendments Act:

Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.

Has Barack Obama “eliminated warrantless wiretaps?” No. Has Barack Obama even tried to “eliminate warrantless wiretaps?” No. He’s pushed in the opposite direction, pushing to expand the use of warrantless wiretaps.

More specifically, has Barack Obama “updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees?” No. Has Barack Obama even tried to do so? No. Barack Obama has not taken any steps to even propose any changes to the Fisa Amendments Act.

Why would President Obama insist that he has either tried or succeeded in keeping every one of his campaign promises when that is demonstrably untrue?

It may be that he’s relying on you not to check. Don’t enable that kind of sloppiness. Check. Can you name any other campaign promises Barack Obama made as a presidential candidate that he has not even tried to keep?

, , , , , , , , ,

A Difference between Republicans and Democrats: Product Sourcing Transparency

November 12th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Democrats | Legislation | Politics | Republicans - (4 Comments)

Here at Irregular Times, we’ve been writing a lot of articles lately pointing out the numerous disappointments of the Democratic Party. Since the Democrats won the House, Senate and White House in 2008, they’ve squandered a number of opportunities for positive change and have more than occasionally mimicked Republican policy priorities. Sometimes, it may feel like there’s no point at all in electing Democrats rather than Republicans (and sometimes, as in the case of paleolithic Democrats like Bobby Bright, there actually is no point).

But it’s wrong to extrapolate from the many disappointments of the Democrats to claim that there is no difference at all between the Republicans and the Democrats. There are differences, and some of them are important.

Take, for instance, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. When I came upon a page chock full of Thermos brand products, all slapped with “Made in the USA” logos…

Many products emblazoned with a "Made in the USA" logo at Print-on-Demand manfacturer CafePress are actually made in China. We can determine this thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008

… it looked awfully suspicious to me. I hadn’t heard that Thermos had its goods produced in the USA, and it’s sad but true that the list of manufactured items made in the United States (where not coincidentally there are minimum wage laws and worker protection laws and environmental protection laws) is small. It’s so much easier for manufacturers to keep prices low by producing their goods in countries like China, where workers are routinely paid sweatshop wages and where even the U.S. government acknowledges child labor and forced labor are common.

I wanted to find out for sure where Thermos produced its big drink container and its plastic food and drink “FunTainers,” and thanks to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, I can. It requires manufacturers like Thermos to post information about health and safety certifications online where consumers can verify those certifications. Such certifications also include country of origin information, which previously could be difficult to obtain in online research.

It turns out, thanks to the legally-mandated certifications you can read here and here, that these items are indeed made in China. Without verifiable certifications of working conditions (which to my knowledge Thermos does not provide) we cannot confidently conclude that these Thermoses were produced in humane circumstances. The “Made in the USA” logos placed on these items at CafePress.com are conclusively bogus — and again, we have the legal requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act to thank.

When the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 came up for a roll-call vote in the Senate, every Democrat who cast a vote cast a vote for the bill. This useful and consequential bill passed thanks to the Democrats.

13 Republicans in the Senate, on the other hand, voted against this bill. For some reason — you’ll have to ask them — they didn’t want publicly-chartered corporations to have to share this information. The Republicans who voted against this utterly reasonable transparency in manufacture were:

Wayne Allard (R-CO)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Democrats are disappointing when it comes to worker protections and transparency of information, yes — but the Republican Party’s record is worse. There’s a reasonable argument to be made for finding a third party or independent alternative, and a very strong argument to be made for creating more of these alternatives. But when a voter only has a choice between a Republican and a Democrat, there’s often some good to be done in voting for the Democrat.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Income Inequality Review: How Much Does the Richest 0.1% Control?

September 16th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Economy - (0 Comments)

Two days ago, I prepared for today’s release of new 2009 Census income inequality data by looking at the record historically, namely the average household income of each income quintile from 1967 to 2008:

income inequality data from the Census for 1967-2008 for income quintiles

The top quintile is the fifth of the population that earned the highest income in 2008; the lowest quintile is the fifth of the population that earned the lowest income in 2008. The chart can be interpreted by considering that in a state of absolute income equality, each quintile would have the same income as any other (20% of the total). The amount of departure from this hypothetical state is the amount of income inequality — and the amount of concentrated power in the United States.

Yesterday, the U.S. Congress’ Joint Economic Committee issued a report revealing the pattern of growing economic inequality in greater detail. How much of all income was gained by the top 1% in income (the top hundredth)? By the top 0.1% in income (the top thousandth)? An extracted figure:

Share of Income in the United States by the top 1% and top 0.1% in income

One thousandth of the U.S. population raked in 10% of all U.S. income in 2008. Think about that. Think about what kind of power that much income brings.

The Joint Economic Committee gets one thing wrong in that figure. They refer to “wealth,” but this is just a pattern of annual income. Wealth is different: it is income that accumulates over time. At the bottom of the money pyramid, people spend all their income every year just to get by. In the middle of the money pyramid, some saving might be had in good years, but often savings are dipped into in the middle years. At the top of the money pyramid, it is actually a challenge to think up ways to spend all the money that comes in, and so a great share of income is accumulated as wealth. If we were to look at the share of wealth accumulated by the most wealthy 0.1% of the U.S. population, we’d see that the portion of all American wealth held by that group is quite a bit higher than 10%.

, , , , ,

Yes, Virginia, Barack Obama’s Warrantless Wiretapping is a Broken Promise

August 5th, 2010 | Posted by Jim Cook in Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Homeland Insecurity | Liberty | Politics - (3 Comments)

Sometimes Democrats get upset with liberals who criticize Barack Obama’s warrantless wiretapping programs. As president, Obama has maintained George W. Bush’s regime of warrantless wiretapping against people neither accused nor suspected of crime. More than that, President Obama is currently striving to expand the warrantless surveillance regime with new powers to study even our web browsing habits with none of the prior judicial approval required by the 4th Amendment to that ratty piece of paper called the Constitution.

Democrats sometimes get upset when we mention these matters, telling us we ought to have expected this from Barack Obama. But no, no, we oughtn’t to have expected this. In an official position paper during the 2008 presidential race, the Obama campaign made its promise explicit:

Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.

Barack Obama has not “eliminated warrantless wiretaps.”
Barack Obama has not updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to do anything, much less provide “greater oversight and accountability.”
Barack Obama has not even appointed the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board he is legally required to staff. Its job: providing “greater oversight and accountability” by collecting information on Obama administration surveillance activity and reporting to Congress on whether such activity has been constitutional. Under Barack Obama, this board is merely hypothetical, and there is no oversight.

Candidate Obama made us a promise. President Obama has broken it. It matters.

, , , , , , ,