Does Donald Trump deserve credit for peace between North and South Korea? Not so much.

After this admittedly historic meeting, Donald Trump was quick to jump in and snatch the credit.

After a furious year of missile launches and Nuclear testing, a historic meeting between North and South Korea is now taking place. Good things are happening, but only time will tell!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2018

KOREAN WAR TO END! The United States, and all of its GREAT people, should be very proud of what is now taking place in Korea!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2018

But is it credit that he deserves?

What do you think?

Courtesy of The Independent:  

In a historic and opulent ceremony, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met in the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) to sign the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula during the Inter-Korean Summit and officially ended the war that began when the north and south split in a battle over communism and democracy that began on 25 June 1950.

Dr TJ Pempel, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley told The Independent while Mr Trump “deserves some credit but not as much as he’s taking”. While the United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang involved the US push from Ambassador Nikki Haley, that is “hardly the whole story”, Mr Pempel said. “China’s agreement to the sanctions was far more important,” he noted. 

The important point to note, he said, was that North Korea developed its nuclear programme considerably after Mr Trump took office. “The North is convinced that it has the upper hand in negotiations because of its nuclear and missile testing successes; the US thinks it has the upper hand because it believes Kim is negotiating because of the sanctions. It’s the combination that has triggered the North’s willingness to sit down”.

That is likely part of the explanation for Kim Jong-un's sudden cooperativeness, but this next story is likely an even bigger factor.

Courtesy of Forbes:  

North Korean president Kim Jong-un recently announced his country has halted its nuclear testing program. While it is unclear whether this is a political move in preparation for meeting with the United States president Donald Trump, recent evidence suggests the country may have been forced to halt testing. 

A recent study by a group of geologists discovered that the mountain used by North Korea for its nuclear bomb testing has collapsed as a result of the explosions. The collapsed mountain is raising concerns about radioactive fallout, which could make its way into China. 

Scientists from the University of Science and Technology of China believe this could be the true reason North Korean President Kim Jong-un announced the halt of their nuclear testing program.

So Kim Jong-un is not negotiating because he is suddenly all reasonable and shit, it's because he realizes that he needs to change tactics before his bluff is called and his enemies recognize that he is not the nuclear threat that he has made himself out to be.

He's like a thief who attempts to rob a liquor store, realizes that he forgot to load his gun, and then suddenly says "Look, Just give me a bottle of vodka and I will leave without taking your money. Deal?"

Donald Trump has a history of taking credit for other people's work, and this looks like one more example.

Ex-Forbes writer recalls how Donald Trump called him posing as "John Barron" and then lied to get on the Forbes 400 list.

Courtesy of Mediaite: 

“No one could imagine the unimaginable,” said writer Jonathan Greenberg Friday on CNN. “No one can imagine someone would do this, call as their own PR person.” 

But it happened, of course. And Greenberg was one of those duped by President Donald Trump into believing he was talking to The Donald’s PR flack, “John Barron” — when, in fact, he was talking to The Donald. Greenberg was reporting for Forbes in 1984, helping to compile the magazine’s Forbes 400 List. As part of a piece for the Washington Post Friday, Greenberg shared audio of his calls with Barron, and recalled how the mogul tried to convince the magazine he was worth more than he actually was. 

'Although Trump altered some cadences and affected a slightly stronger New York accent, it was clearly him. “Barron” told me that Trump had taken possession of the business he ran with his father, Fred. “Most of the assets have been consolidated to Mr. Trump,” he said. “You have down Fred Trump [as half owner] . . . but I think you can really use Donald Trump now.” Trump, through this sockpuppet, was telling me he owned “in excess of 90 percent” of his family’s business. With all the home runs Trump was hitting in real estate, Barron told me, he should be called a billionaire.'

Greenberg also referred to Trump as  the "consummate con man." Which is something that I think is more than obvious to most of us.

I have to think at some point there will come a time when the people who voted for Donald Trump, and this might be a few years in the future, are really going to start hating themselves for being so fucking gullible.

Don't you think?

Or am I giving them too much credit?

Rachel Maddow is killing it.

Courtesy of Forbes:  

In March, The Rachel Maddow Show finished as the highest-rated show in cable news, with an average total audience of 3.058 million viewers--the show's best-ever performance in the 9 p.m. ET hour. FNC's Hannity was second, with 3.000 million viewers. Maddow also won among viewers 25-54, the demographic most valued by advertisers, finishing March with an average audience of 671,000 compared to Hannity's 616,000. CNN finished a distant third in the hour, with 382,000 viewers 25-54. 

MSNBC has been experiencing a dramatic rise in ratings, finishing the first quarter of 2018 as the only cable news network to grow compared to Q1 2017: MSNBC ratings were up 30%, while both Fox News and CNN experienced declines. 

In March, MSNBC's programming in prime time, daytime and total day all broke records for the network. The network's prime-time lineup averaged 2.398 million total viewers, finishing as the No. 2 network across all of cable TV. While Fox News continued its run as the top-rated network in cable news, MSNBC's prime lineup was up 8% from 2017, while both Fox (down 18 percent) and CNN (down 16 percent) were off year-over-year. 

The March ratings results suggest Fox News' unrivaled status as the dominant force in cable news may be facing one of the strongest challenges in years.

I know that people are starting to turn away from cable news, and looking for alternative information sources, but for my money MSNBC is consistently the highest quality news that you can get via television.

Their reporting is top notch, they have tons of contributors from the world of print journalism, and they deliver the facts in a straightforward manner.

Sure they lean left, but then typically so do the facts.

And Rachel Maddow is clearly the shining jewel in the MSNBC crown.

Even if I think I know a story that I have been reporting on all day, she will almost always add a different dimension to it, and dredge up facts that had not yet been reported.

By the way she also terrifies those on the Right, who constantly attack her, and Donald Trump, who takes great pains not to.

Stormy Daniels once revealed that during her affair with Trump she spanked him with a copy of Forbes magazine on the cover of which featured him with his family.

Courtesy of Mother Jones:

In early 2009, Daniels announced that she was considering challenging Sen. David Vitter, the Louisiana Republican who two years earlier had been snared in a sex scandal. Vitter’s phone number was discovered in the records of the so-called D.C. Madam, who ran a prostitution ring in the nation’s capital. Vitter, who now is a lobbyist, was a prominent social conservative who opposed abortion and gay marriage. Daniels, who grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, told reporters she wanted to highlight his hypocrisy. She offered up a potential campaign slogan: “Stormy Daniels: Screwing people honestly.” 

Daniels was serious enough about running that she embarked on a May 2009 “listening tour” of the state and held discussions with local political consultants. Those conversations included coming up with possible campaign contributors. According to a May 8, 2009, email written by an operative advising Daniels, who asked not to be identified, Daniels at one point scrolled through her cellphone contacts to provide her consultants with a list of names. The email noted that the potential donors included Steve Hirsch, the founder of an adult entertainment company; Theresa Flynt, the daughter of Hustler’s Larry Flynt; Frazier Boyd, the owner of a strip club chain; and Jenna Jameson, the so-called “Queen of Porn.” Also on the list: Donald Trump. 

This email was sent to Andrea Dubé, a Democratic political consultant based in New Orleans. In response, Dubé expressed surprise that Daniels was friendly with Trump. “Donald Trump?” she wrote. “In her cell phone?” 

“Yep,” the other consultant replied. “She says one time he made her sit with him for three hours watching ‘shark week.’ Another time he had her spank him with a Forbes magazine.” 

Dubé and the other consultant confirmed to Mother Jones they exchanged these emails. 

The campaign consultant who wrote the email to Dubé tells Mother Jones that Daniels said the spanking came during a series of sexual and romantic encounters with Trump and that it involved a copy of Forbes with Trump on the cover.

Gee after we finally scrubbed the fact that Trump told Daniels that she reminded him of his daughter before banging her, now we have this to contend with.

There is not enough brain bleach in the world.

We also learned yesterday that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen used an LLC to transfer money to Daniels in order to keep her quiet:

As the Wall Street Journal reported, Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen created Essential Consultants, LLC. on October 17, 2016, and “then used a bank account linked to the entity to send the payment to the client-trust account of a lawyer representing” Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford. 

To “further mask the identities of the people involved in the agreement,” the payment from Essential Consultants to a “Peggy Peterson,” who the Journal‘s sources say is Clifford/Daniels. 

Delaware, the report noted, is known for housing limited liability companies because the state “doesn’t require companies to publicly disclose the names of their managers.” That October 2016 alone, “Delaware officials recorded 10,574 new limited liability companies.”

And keep in mind that according to Michael Wolff's book, Daniels is just one of hundreds whose silence Trump bought and paid for before the election.

If Russia even knows about a handful there is the kompromat that Christopher Steele wrote about in that infamous dossier.

Donald Trump blames his abysmal debate performance on a "defective" mic.

Gee if it was so defective how did it pick up every sniffle and snort that issued from his fat orange face?

It also was not so defective that it did not pick up on every lie that tumbled out of Trump's anus shaped maw either.

Courtesy of Forbes:  

During the first 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the Huffington Post kept a tally of the lies that each candidate told in their responses to Lester Holt’s questions. The final HuffPo tally? Donald Trump: 16; Hillary Clinton: 0. 

Although the media have made much of Clinton’s “trust problem,” data even beyond this debate tally suggest that Trump has a solid pattern of lying pretty much all the time, about any situation, especially those that might cast him in what he perceives as a negative light. 

His reputation is such that this debate, like no debate before it, had every news media outlet promising intensive fact-checking of every assertion. Fact-checkers have probably never before been this employable and may be the true winners in this election.

Actually the Trump lies came so hard and fast during last night's debate that anybody participating in that take a drink for every Trump lie drinking game would most likely have woken up in the morgue this morning.

The mic also picked up every time Trump interrupted Hillary as she was talking:

At Monday night’s presidential debate, by our count, Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton 25 times in the first 26 minutes of the debate. 

By the time the debate was over, Trump had interrupted Clinton 51 times — whereas Clinton had interrupted Trump just 17 times.

Trump's performance by every non-Republican bubble measure was extremely poor, while Hillary essentially landed devastating blow after devastating blow.

If this had been a boxing match Donald Trump would have ended up on the canvas crawling around looking for one of his eyes.

However let me say this.

After the debate last night I was feeling pretty good so I let my curiosity get the better of me and took a trip over to the Sea O'Pee. And to be blunt it was a shit show of reverse logic and magical thinking.

They celebrated every bad answer that Trump gave as positive, and found every one of Hillary's responses as somehow weak and misleading. In short it was the Bizarro version of reality.

Of course that is to be expected because those people are crazy.

However they also had a link to Breitbart, and a visit over there showed exactly the same point of view.

So what that says is that partisan opinions are baked in now, and none of these debates will change a damn thing among the faithful.

Really the only reason to even have any more of these debates is in the hopes that there are still a few folks out there who, for whatever reason, remain undecided and who still recognize a fact when they see it.

More on the Hillary Clinton e-mail "scandal."

Courtesy of Forbes:  

The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her. 

It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her.

The author then goes on to list five key takeaways from the report. I won't list all them all on this post, but here are a few highlights.   

First, and foremost, it is simply not about classified email. It is about regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unclassified email. Yet it is the classified email, not these messages, that are the focus of the FBI investigation of Clinton. In other words, the report does not, and cannot, talk about the most serious issues. It is about a sideshow.

It is, by the way, my opinion that the FBI investigation will not include anything substantial that damages Hillary either, and I join with others in hoping that they wrap up the investigation quickly.

However if the Right Wing hoped that his report contained a smoking gun, well it really doesn't.

I will skip through the next three takeaways and go directly to the last one, which I think is key.

Fifth, to the extent that she is criticized because “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report is making a legal judgment that is not particularly strong. Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies. 

A report that says so little new against Clinton, amounts to a vindication.

You may disagree with that very last sentence, but the paragraph before it is hard to refute.

In short she broke NO laws. 

In fact other news outlets far less sympathetic to Hillary have come to essentially the same determination, like the Washington Post for instance:

The department’s email technology was archaic. Other staffers also used personal email, as did Secretary Colin Powell (2001-2005), without preserving the records. But there is no excuse for the way Ms. Clinton breezed through all the warnings and notifications. While not illegal behavior, it was disturbingly unmindful of the rules.

Okay but WAS it "disturbingly unmindful of the rules?"  Or is there in fact an epidemic of individuals in the State Department flouting the rules and Clinton is simply being held to a higher standard than the rest of them.

Because it appears very much as if it is the latter.

I think now might be a good time to once again remind everybody that the State Department's e-mail system suffered one of the "worst hacks" ever.

Donald Trump files his financial disclosure with the FEC today. Did he not get the memo that his candidacy is just a joke?

Courtesy of Forbes: 

Donald Trump filed his personal financial disclosure with the Federal Elections Commission today, claiming 2014 income of $362 million dollars. His campaign also said that his net worth “is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” 

“Mr. Trump‟s net worth has increased since the more than one year old financial statement produced at his presidential announcement,” the campaign release states. “Real estate values in New York City, San Francisco, Miami and many other places where he owns property have gone up considerably during this period of time. His debt is a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest rates. As of this date, Mr. Trump‟s net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.”

Interestingly enough that ten billion number is one that Forbes disagree with:

Forbes continues to disagree with Trump about his net worth, and has, in fact, chopped the net worth valuation from $4.1 billion to $4 billion since Trump’s remarks about Mexican immigrants during his campaign launch speech caused an end to business deals with NBCUniversal, Univision, Serta Mattresses, and Macy's M +7.91%, as well as PVH PVH -0.81% Corp. and Perfumania, the manufacturers of his menswear line and fragrances, respectively. In the wake of these deals, we have dropped the value of his brand to 0 (previously, it was at $125 million).

Currently the personal financial disclosure form is not yet available on the Federal Elections Commission site, so we do not as of yet have a way of checking to see who is right on the numbers.

If it turns out that Trump is full of shit, I wonder how he will manage to blame the whole thing on Obama?

It should also be noted that currently Trump is leading in the polls among his GOP rivals: 

The Suffolk University/USA Today survey showed Trump getting 17% of the Republican vote, placing him ahead of Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's (R) 14%. 

David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University political research center, attributed Trump's rise to the ongoing controversy over his harsh rhetoric against illegal immigration. 

 "Trump is making daily headlines in advance of the primary season,” Paleologos said. "This has vaulted him to the top of the pack on the backs of conservative voters."

This has really irritated some of  those in the Republican party. In fact one Florida state congressman has outright stated that he believes Trump is nothing more than a plant by the Democratic party.

Well plant or no plant, it looks like Trump is now leading the presidential field. And if he is actually going through with the filing of his financial disclosures with the FEC then it might be time to stop seeing him as a joke for late night comedians, and instead see him as the embodiment of the joke that is now the Republican party.

Survey finds that Americans overwhelmingly want to get away from fossil fuels and move toward green energy sources.

Courtesy of Forbes:  

Americans “overwhelmingly” prefer solar and wind energy to coal, oil, and nuclear energy, according to a Harvard political scientist who has conducted a comprehensive survey of attitudes toward energy and climate for the last 12 years. 

Americans see natural gas as a bridge fuel that falls somewhere in between, offering some benefits over traditional fuels but more “harms” than solar and wind, said Harvard Government Professor Stephen Ansolabehere during a December appearance at the University of Chicago. 

“Americans want to move away from coal, oil and nuclear power and toward wind and solar,” said Ansolabehere, introduced as “the leading energy political scientist in the world” to climate scientists, physicists, economists and public-policy experts at The Energy Policy Institute of Chicago (EPIC). Ansolabehere described solar and wind energy as “hugely popular, overwhelmingly popular.” 

So popular, in fact, that they easily cross the partisan divide that polarizes Americans on so many other issues. About 80 percent of Americans said they want solar and wind energy to “increase a lot,” and another 10 percent or so want it to increase somewhat. 

“In order to get 90 percent, that means a lot of Republicans like solar and wind—more than coal. Everybody likes those sources. This is non-partisan.”

And yet virtually every Republican politician is voting against renewable energy and arguing for more exploration and continued reliance on coal. 

Gee it's almost like somebody is buying them off or something.

President Obama's administration has presided over the best private sector job growth in American history. I know, right?

Courtesy of Forbes:  

Bob Deitrick – “President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’ 

As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan. 

President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration. 

We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.” 

Damn! That is going to make a lot of conservatives tear their hair out before slipping quietly into the soothing embrace of denial.

Now as interesting as I found this data, and boy did I find it interesting, I was also pretty amazed by this tidbit in the same article. 

Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew. 

Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.

What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the 8 years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.”

In other words that whole "Real" unemployment that Fox News talks about as being people who have "just given up" and are no longer seeking employment, is NOT the result of lazy ass millenials who are discouraged by a lack of jobs and are now sitting on their asses playing X-Box all day and eating Cheetos, it is due to the Baby Boomers retiring and dropping out of the job market permanently.

Despite attempts to change her brand, Sarah Palin will forever simply be a kook.

Courtesy of Forbes: 

The previously unknown Alaska governor quickly became a new breed of working mother. A strong conservative woman. An unlikely but believable candidate to shatter the glass ceiling. A rallying force for the Tea Party and other right-wingers. A maverick, a rebel, a politician unafraid of speaking her mind—and who cared if it was uninformed or inappropriate? 

With John McCain (who is so not a kook that I can’t understand how his brand ever got commingled with Her Kookiness, because brands are judged by the company they keep), she tried her best to give Obama a run for his money and earn that erstwhile place a heartbeat away from the famous 3 a.m. phone call. When that didn’t work out, she traded politics for much-more-lucrative punditry and remained a force that shaped the American conversation, for better or worse. 

Last week she launched the online Sarah Palin Channel. “Join us as we discuss the great issues of the day and work toward solutions,” it says on the site, which includes posts ranging from her mother’s Word of the Day to a video called “The Truth About the War in Israel.” Even with this new development, Palin is in danger of becoming irrelevant, a punch line, a blooper in the historical record. 

That’s the danger of choosing kook as part of your personal brand. It gets attention, but it has an inherently limited shelf life. Eventually the novelty, controversy and “maverickness” of it wear off, then you have to amp it up and do something even kookier in order to remain in the public consciousness.

The author goes on to list a few of Palin's kookier moments, and then sums it up thusly:  

Thirty years ago, Geraldine Ferraro cracked the glass ceiling with dignity and grace, and she remains positively regarded by many Americans, whether or not they shared her politics. Her respectable brand endured, and she didn’t become a historical punch line. For 20 years, Hillary Clinton has been chipping away at it, making more cracks even as she endured scandals and cruel judgments. 

But the latest woman who was poised to reinvent American politics is now just coming off as cracked. Forget the ceiling. She needs a quick brand reinvention just to pick herself off the floor.

Oh yeah, I love reading things like this from what is ostensibly a conservative magazine about  Granny Grifter, and knowing that the rest of the world has finally come around to seeing Palin as most of us have all along. As a talentless political opportunist, with the ethics of a street hooker, and the intelligence of a garden slug.

At this point Palin really cannot do anything to repair her reputation, and the choices she IS making only further demonstrate her lack of credibility and her inability to participate in an actual conversations about politics or world events.

The woman has now become so frightened of being called out for her ignorance, that she is reduced to filming uninformed soliloquies where there is no one to correct, criticize, or request clarification from her. (And you know there is somebody who goes through those comments for her so that she is never confronted with a negative response to the stupid things that she says.)

She is like the woman who tries on a two piece bathing suit in the mirror, deems herself breathtaking, yet lacks the courage to wear it on the beach for fear of hearing a dissenting point of view.

Forbes Magazine lists the 100 most powerful women. No quitters allowed.

Courtesy of Forbes: 

Our annual snapshot of the 100 women with the most impact are top politicians and CEOs, activist billionaires and celebrities who matter. In roughly equal measure you’ll find next gen entrepreneurs and media mavens, technologists and leaders in philanthropy — all ranked by dollars, media momentum and impact. 

We’ve selected women that go beyond the traditional taxonomy of the power elite (political and economic might). These change-agents are actually shifting our very idea of clout and authority and, in the process, transforming the world in fresh and exhilarating ways.

On this list are politicians, entrepreneurs, business women, entertainers, and activists. Easily a list of the most impressive women on the planet.

Here are the first five:

  German Chancellor, Angela Merkel

President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff.

Melinda Gates,  Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Michelle Obama, well she needs no introduction.

Hillary Clinton, and neither does she.

The entire list can be found here.

Many prominent Democrats and Obama administration members are on this list such as Janet Napolitano, Nancy Pelosi, and Kathleen Sebelius, While the number of prominent conservatives is not so well represented. (Though Greta Van Sustern DOES show up as number 97.)

And as you may have gleaned from my title there is NO mention of a certain disgraced former politician and Fox News contributor, even though she once held a fairly prominent spot on that very same list.

Nice to see that the most powerful and influential women on this planet are far more visionary, and progressive than some of those listed in times past.

Is is also nice to see that Hillary and Michelle are listed in the top five, since I think that indicates good things for America moving forward.

Forbes Magazine asks, "Could Obama be America's best President?" Ooh, this is going to piss off a lot of people on the Right!

Here is a sampling form the article courtesy of Forbes:

Interview with Bob Deitrick, co-Author “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” (BBBB): 

Q- Bob, how much credit should Americans give President Obama for today’s improved equity values? 

BBBB – Our research reviewed American economic performance since President Roosevelt installed the first Federal Reserve Board Chairman – Republican Marriner Eccles. We observed that even though there are multiple impacts on the economy, it was clear that policy decisions within each administration, from FDR forward, made a clear difference on performance. And relatively quickly. 

Presidents universally take credit when the economy does well (such as Reagan,) and choose to blame other factors when the economy does poorly (such as Carter.) But there was a clear pattern, and link, between policy and financial market performance. 

Although we hear almost no one in the Obama administration taking credit for record index highs, they should. Because the President deserves attention for how well this economy has done during his leadership. 

Q- To which President would you compare Obama’s economic performance? 

BBBB- By all measures, President Obama has outperformed every modern President. The easiest comparison would be to President Reagan, who’s economic performance was superb. 

Reagan had the enormous benefit of two major factors: 

1. a significantly better economy than Obama inherited, even if afflicted by inflation 
2. and his two terms coincided with the highest performing demographic years of the Baby Boomer generation. 

Today’s demographics have shifted dramatically. The country is much older, with fewer young people supporting a much larger near-retirement age group. This inherent demographic fact makes creating economic growth monumentally harder than it was 30 years ago. 

Q- Bob, President’s Obama detractors liken the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) to an Armageddon on business, sure to kill economic growth and plunge the country back into recession. Do you agree? 

BBBB- To the contrary, ACA levels the playing field and will be good for economic growth. Where previously only large corporations could afford employee health care plans, in the future far more employees will have far more equitable coverage. Further, today employees frequently are unable to leave a company to start a new business because they would lose health care, which in the future will not be true. 

One leading indicator of the benefits of ACA might be the performance of healthcare and biotech stocks, which are up 20-30% and leaders in the current market rally.

So did you get that? President Obama has out performed all previous Presidents by ANY measure and his Obamacare is GOOD for economic growth despite hysterical ravings by the Right Wing to the contrary.

Now Forbes magazine is not exactly known as being Obama cheerleaders, so this article is significant coming from them. (I can already hear their phones ringing off the hook as conservatives call to cancel their subscriptions.  Oh well, most of them are dying off anyway.)

Now if that did not make you gain a little more respect for the President perhaps this article from his former speechwriter will accomplish that:  

The handwringers and bed wetters in the D.C. punditocracy should know that Barack Obama will never be on their timeline. He does not value being first over being right. He will not spend his presidency chasing news cycles. He will not shake up his White House staff just because of some offhand advice offered to Politico by a longtime Washingtonian or a nameless Democrat who’s desperately trying to stay relevant. And if that means Dana Milbank thinks he’s too passive; if it means that Jim VandeHei will keep calling him arrogant and petulant; if it means that Chris Matthews will whine about him not enjoying the presidency, then so be it. He’ll live. 

Barack Obama understands his own limitations and the limitations of his office. He has made mistakes and he will likely make more. But this is a president who has seen the nation through many serious and consequential crises, and he has done so without losing the core of who he is or why he ran for this job in the first place. In the end, those are the qualities that will serve him well—the qualities that will serve us well—in the months and years ahead.

So, according to these two articles, President Obama has done an extremely impressive job thus far, and there is every indication he will continue to do so in the future.

Sounds good to me.

100,000 blueprints of the 3D gun downloaded in two days. Does anybody want to bet that not ALL of these represent a "good guy with a gun?"

Courtesy of Forbes:  

If gun control advocates hoped to prevent blueprints for the world’s first fully 3D-printable gun from spreading online, that horse has now left the barn about a hundred thousand times. 

That’s the number of downloads of the 3D-printable file for the so-called “Liberator” gun that the high-tech gunsmithing group Defense Distributed has seen in just the last two days, a member of the group tells me. The gun’s CAD files have been ten times more popular than any component the group has previously made available, parts that have included the body of an AR-15 and the magazine for an AK-47.”This has definitely been our most well-received download,” says Haroon Khalid, a developer working with Defense Distributed. “I don’t think any of us predicted it would be this much.”

Apparently the State Department has now demanded that the 3D gun files be removed from the site:

On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable “Liberator” handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group’s website Defcad.org. The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson’s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.

Of course that is a 100,000 downloads too late.

I don't know what this means to the gun debate, but if this technology continues without any ability to control access, I have to wonder just what ELSE might show up to be 3D printed in the not too distant future?

I think marks the first time in a long time that I have been less than enthusiastic about new technological breakthroughs.

Forbes names President Obama "The World's Most Powerful Person." Do you hear that Republicans?

"Who's the bad ass? Why I'm the bad ass, thanks for asking.

Courtesy of Forbes Magazine:  

To compile the list, we considered hundreds of candidates from various walks of life all around the globe, and measured their power along four dimensions. 

First, we asked whether the candidate has power over lots of people.  

Next we assessed the financial resources controlled by each person. 

Then we determined if the candidate is powerful in multiple spheres. 

Lastly, we made sure that the candidates actively used their power. 

U.S. President Barack Obama emerged, unanimously, as the world’s most powerful person, for the second year running. Obama was the decisive winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, and now he gets four more years to push his agenda.The President faces major challenges, including an unresolved budget crisis, stubbornly high unemployment and renewed unrest in the Middle East. But Obama remains the unquestioned commander in chief of the world’s greatest military, and head of its sole economic and cultural superpower. 

Oh yeah!

I think we should send this article to every obstructionist teabagging Republican politician in Washington and remind them that THIS is the man that won the election, THIS is the man with all the power, and THIS is the man to whom they better start showing some damn respect!

No more obstructionism, no more yelling "You lie" when he addresses Congress, and no more of this kind of shit:

The man has earned a second term, he demonstrated his ability to do the job, and he has earned the respect of the entire world.

Forbes Magazine chooses the 100 MOST powerful women. Hmm, is somebody missing?

Angela Merkel, Forbes magazine's choice as the number one most powerful woman.

So I was read this list from Forbes, and I was fascinated with the diversity of the women represented by this list. Everything from politicians, to journalists, to entrepreneurs, to activists, and much more are represented on this list.

Hillary Clinton, Forbes magazines' choice as the SECOND most powerful woman.

Now Forbes magazine is generally considered to be a fairly conservative magazine, so you would think that it's choices would be comprised mostly of woman who shared their ideology, but I did not find that to be the case.

Michelle Obama, Forbes magazine's choice as the seventh most powerful woman.

In fact, along with the First Lady,  both Lady Gaga and Nancy Pelosi made the list, and I would certainly NOT consider them favorites among the conservative class.

However as I was going down the list, I could not help but notice that there was somebody, who you MIGHT expect to have a place on this list, missing.

I racked my brain but for the life of me I could not figure out who it was.

I mean it was right on the tip of my tongue but I just could not seem to figure out who was not represented on this list.

Ooooh, that's right.  Well isn't THAT interesting?

The 2008 VP nominee, queen of the Teabaggers, shill for Fox News, reality show mainstay, Sarah Palin is NOT represented anywhere in the list of the top 100 most powerful women in the world?

Awesome.

You know all I have ever wanted was to help make this imbecile irrelevant. Mission accomplished.

Now if I can only help do the same for the entire Republican party.

P.S. Do you know what might be the unkindest cut of all for the Grizzled Mama?

That the woman who she undoubtedly sees as her personal Fox News interviewer/facilitator/gopher was named the 94th most powerful woman in the world.

I am SO looking forward to their next interview together.

Interview with Shannyn Moore in Forbes Magazine. Don't just sit there, read it!

Here are a few tasty tidbits to wet your appetite:

Forbes: What was your reaction to Gov. Palin personally identifying you as a target in a four-page legal warning?

Moore: A reporter friend of mine e-mailed me the news--I thought it was a hoax. When I found out it was true, I felt like Bridget Jones after she went down the fire pole with her panties showing, and said to myself, "Ooh, this is awkward." Palin's warning is just an intimidation tactic. I was like, "You want to shut me down on the Fourth of July?" It made me so angry.

Your blog, A Girl From Homer, has covered the Alaska state house and Palin administration since she was sworn in. Describe the Alaskan blogging community.

Some of the biggest stories of the Palin administration have been broken by Alaskan political bloggers. There are about six of us. In Alaska, there are no pro-Palin bloggers. Earlier this year, Palin nominated Wayne Anthony Ross for attorney general. He is a rampantly crazy, divisive character who drives a red Hummer whose license plate carries his initials, WAR. Bloggers became unglued, digging up huge amounts of information on him. I printed a comment from a woman who had been at a meeting with Ross where they discussed a proposal that would make it legal for a man to rape his wife. Ross said at the meeting, "Hey, if you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?" The woman who heard the remark testified to this under oath. Ross' character became an issue and he was defeated. It was the first time in history that a nominee for Alaska attorney general was not confirmed.

Hey wait, I am one of the "six"! Wow now I feel all important and stuff!

I am always so glad that Shannyn is the face of the Alaskan bloggers because she does such a good job of representing us. If I were interviewed I would probably get us lynched or something. (Okay just kidding. I HAVE been interviewed, and so far....no rope.)

Keep up the good work Shannyn!

(As usual if you want to read the entire article you are going to have to use that mouse thingy and click the title.)