Welcome to Buster's Blog

Irregular commentary on whatever's on my mind -- politics, sports, current events, and life in general. After twenty years of writing business and community newsletters, fifteen years of fantasy baseball newsletters, and two years of email "columns", this is, I suppose, the inevitable result: the awful conceit that someone might actually care to read what I have to say. Posts may be added often, rarely, or never again. As always, my mood and motivation are unpredictable.

Buster Gammons















Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Two-Point Nutshell Analysis Of Eric Cantor's Stunning Defeat


Dave Brat's campaign manager?
1.  When only 12% of voters turn out for an election, anything can happen.  This is why the far-right prefers low voter turnout and modern-day voter suppression laws.  They know the nut-job zealots will always show up to vote (they have nothing else to do), and the low numbers improve their odds and make them look more influential than they really are.

2.  Evidently, in rural white Virginia, hating Mexicans is still a thing.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Political Brat Defeated By Actual Brat


The loonies are on the loose in Virginia!  And they vote!

In a huge surprise, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) has just been defeated in the state's GOP primary.  Cantor, a whiny, ambitious political brat, lost to an actual brat -- an unknown Tea Bag college professor named Dave Brat.

Cantor, a 7-term Congressman assumed to be the heir-apparent to House Speaker John Boehner, outspent Brat 40-to-1, but still Brat took 55% of the vote by claiming Cantor was for "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, and was just not conservative enough.

This is a mind-blowing, historic upset.  The incumbent House Majority Leader has never, ever been defeated in a primary before.

Don't know who the D's are running for this District, but the win by the ultra-right Brat could represent a good opportunity to pick up a seat in the House.

I mean, c'mon Virginians!  You don't wanna be represented by a Brat, do ya?

Global Warming Proved By Underwear!



A Little Perspective On The VA


The Veterans Administration is dealing with a well-publicized problem.  Some of our servicemen and women requesting medical appointments are experiencing unusually long wait-times before the appointment is granted.  New findings show that 57,000 veterans have waited at least 90 ninety days before seeing the doctor.  And several VA offices have falsified their wait-time records.

It's unacceptable and embarrassing.  I just don't understand why a person must wait 90 days to see a doctor.  We owe our vets better than that.  It's easy pickins for talking heads and cartoonists, but it's not some sinister conspiracy, as the scandal-mongers would have you believe.  It appears to be a case of middle managers retroactively fudging some dates to make their offices, and themselves, look better.

Worked like this:   Today, someone requests a medical appointment immediately/ASAP, but for some reason, things are slow and the appointment doesn't occur until 60 days from today.  After the fact, a VA clerk re-opens the file and changes the appointment request date from what it was -- immediately -- to when it actually happened, making it appear that the individual requested an appointment 60 days hence, got it, and -- voila! -- no wait time.  Aren't we efficient?

No, we're not.  But we're not horrible, either.  The VA handles most of its business in a fairly satisfactory manner.  True, there are 57,000 applicants waiting "long-term".  Who knows why?  But last month the VA processed 6 million appointment requests.

It's too slow and it's not right, but those waiting long-term represent less than one percent of the total.  Not much, but still too much.

"Oh, And Here Are Two More Things We're Against."


The list of things they oppose is lengthy:  civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, Social Security, Medicare, health care for everyone, environmental regulation, safeguards against gun violence, immigration reform, etc., etc.

Now the Party of No has added two more things they don't like -- healthier standards for school lunches, and any sort of student loan relief.


Michelle Obama led the push for improved school nutrition standards, including less fat and sugar, and more protein and whole grains.  It was passed into law in 2010.  But ever since, House Republicans have been trying to unwind it and delay its implementation.  Their stated reason for opposition?  Compliance is "too costly" and kids won't eat the new menu items.  The real reason?  The Republicans are up to their eyeballs in high-fructose corn syrup.  They've taken decades of campaign cash from the likes of ConAgra and PepsiCo, and have promised to do their bidding.

Barack Obama just signed a Executive Order permitting student loan repayment to be limited to 10% of one's income.  Elizabeth Warren just introduced a Senate bill which would allow student loans to be refinanced at lower interest rates. Student loans are notoriously hard to get rid of if you can't repay.  Warren wants to improve the odds of repayment with lower rates, which mean lower payments.  She would fund the refi effort with a minimum tax on incomes over $1 million.  (You know the GOP hates that!)  Republicans are opposed, saying both Obama's Executive Order and Warren's bill fail to address the core problem, which is the high cost of college tuition.

College tuition is expensive.  One of the primary drivers of ever-increasing costs is the proliferation of proprietary "schools" like Strayer, Phoenix and Full Sail.  These for-profit colleges have ridiculously high tuition and pathetically low graduation rates.  Student loans are a big part of their business plan -- saddle unsuspecting kids with tens of thousands of dollars of debt right out of high school, and if the kids can't hack it academically or financially, well, too bad.  The school made its money up front.  Republicans have long been championing this sort of racket as the free-market version of higher education, so they are wary of anything that might upset the for-profit-college apple cart.  And as for a Buffet Rule automatic tax on a million bucks or more,well, that's just out of the question, whatever the purpose.  Mustn't ask our job creators to invest a nickel in education.

The GOP may be against damn near everything, but there's one thing they're always for:  lower taxes on rich people.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Will The Right Call The Millers "Terrorists"?



Good riddance!  Should have killed yourselves sooner. 
Jerad and Amanda Miller are the Las Vegas killers who murdered three people, including two cops, before offing themselves.  They draped the dead bodies with swastikas and "Don't Tread On Me Flags."  They were racist Tea Bag assholes obsessed with violent overthrow of the government.  They were chicken-shit bastards, loads theirs mothers should've swallowed.

Their Facebook page was full of hatred, paranoia and insanity.  Among their FB "likes" and "shares":

Freedom Works, Generation Opportunity, Americans For Prosperity (Dick Armey, Tea Party, Koch bros.), American Crossroads, American Center For Law and Justice, Newsbusters.Org (Karl Rove, and two heavy Fox News contributors), NRA, Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Heritage Foundation (yeah, them too.)  You like that sort of stuff?  Think it's smart?

Will any of these fine patriotic groups call out the Millers for what they were -- stupid, delusional terrorists?  Will Fox News say it?  (Benghazi!)

Not a chance.

The GOP and their toadies refuse to denounce these lunatics because they desperately need every last nut-job to vote for them.  Beyond that, they don't much care.

You say that's not you?  That's not your Republican Party?  OK, if you really mean it, then get real and don't vote for the bastards ever again.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Mountains Of Horse Crap


In a recent post about the EPA's carbon emissions proposal, I wrote that "energy policy is undergoing a natural evolution born of knowledge and necessity,"  and gave a couple analogies.  My brother-in-law just sent me an article about another surprising illustration of the principle -- the adoption of the automobile.

The dawning of the Age of the Automobile was more than 100 years ago.  What was the impetus behind the newfangled horseless carriage with its internal combustion engine?  Innovation?  Convenience?  Fun?  Sure.  But the automobile was also a reaction to a world-wide pollution problem of that era -- too many horses.

Here are a few excerpts, followed by the link to the full article.  It's a good read.  Thanks, Mic!
____________________________________________

"In 1898, delegates from across the globe gathered in New York City for the world's first international urban planning conference.  One topic dominated the discussion.  Horse manure."  

"In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure."

"Vacant lots in New York were piled 60 feet high with horse manure."

"A fallen horse would be shot on the spot and abandoned.  Carcasses rotted in the streets."

"At the time, the private automobile was widely hailed as an environmental savior."

http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf