Wednesday, October 21, 2015

George W. Bush kept us safe,... right?



As ridiculous as he is, Donald Trump is... not wrong about this. George W. Bush kept us safe... if and only if you ignore all the ways he did not keep us safe.

It wasn't just 9/11. We lost thousands of young men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq (not just soldiers, either, but civilian contractors who are conveniently left out of the statistics). How is that "safe"?

Fox 'News' is a complete joke. They're the propaganda arm of the GOP, nothing else.

Star Wars VII: The Racism Awakens


You have to laugh at this stuff, don't you? Is there any other valid response than ridicule?

It's pathetic. It's depressing. But you have to laugh.

The end of this clip was especially good, wasn't it?

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Hypothetical heroics


There's a lot wrong with Republican thinking about 9/11, but... George W. Bush "united our country"?  No, the Democrats united our country. Democrats came together to support America at a time of crisis, rather than engage in partisan obstructionism.

Note what happened during another crisis. In early 2009, our economy was collapsing in the worst economic crash since the Great Depression (and, of course, we were still mired in two wars). A new president was coming into office at this time of potential disaster, taking over from the Republican who had led us into all of these messes.

Did Republicans come together to support America? Did they put aside partisan bickering for the good of the country? On the contrary. Republican leaders met together before Barack Obama had even taken office and agreed to do nothing the new president wanted, no matter what it might be. And they held to that.

Even when the Democrats adopted the Republican health care plan, in an attempt to be bipartisan, every Republican in Congress immediately turned against it - their own plan!

George W. Bush did not unite our country. After 9/11, it was the Democrats who united our country, by putting America above partisanship. Personally, I think they went too far at that, letting Bush get away with far too much. And maybe that was timidity, as well. I don't want to give them too much credit.

Nevertheless, we have a recent example, a clear example, from both the Democrats and the Republicans on how they responded to a crisis threatening America. The Democrats worked to unite us. The Republicans worked to divide us. And they're still doing that.

Anyway, the Nightly Show segment continues here:


I love his point about "hypothetical heroics." Any such claim should be met with complete ridicule. But note his point about blame, too.

You can't blame Barack Obama for Benghazi, where four people died, without blaming George W. Bush for 9/11, where nearly three thousand people died (let alone the Iraq War, where hundreds of thousands of people have died - including 4486 American soldiers).

Republicans want it both ways because it's entirely about politics for them.

PS. Note that Trevor Noah, on the Daily Show, had a segment about this, too:


Sunday, October 18, 2015

Planned Parenthood faces domestic terrorism

From TPM:
The president of NARAL, a prominent national abortion rights group, issued a blistering statement on Friday criticizing the press for devoting insufficient attention to a string of recent arson attacks at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. ...

Hogue’s full statement is below, courtesy of Media Matters.
Make no mistake: we are witnessing acts of domestic terrorism at health care facilities across the country, targeting women who seek medical advice and the doctors who are brave enough to counsel them--in the face of repeated, violent attacks and daily threats. But, instead of treating these incidents as the real and present danger to innocent civilians that they are, Congress is inviting anti-abortion extremists to testify at hearings, the Department of Justice has yet to announce a full investigation, and the news media remains silent. Where is the outrage?

Women can and will continue to make their own decisions about their bodies and their lives, despite murders, bombings, arsons and intimidation by those who will stop at nothing to deny women legal abortion services. We have to remember that just six years ago a doctor was gunned down in the pews of his own church in the name of this extremist movement and against a backdrop of tolerance for the radical views.

The media need to report these incidents as what they are: domestic terrorism. By staying silent or failing to discuss this new wave of attacks on health clinics in the context of anti-abortion extremism, the media is giving extremists the cover to regressively and violently attack women, their access to health care, and the medical professionals who provide it. We call on the DOJ to investigate the recent arsons, showing that our legal system will not tolerate and further assault on women, clinic escorts, security personnel or medical staff, and the news media to hold the government accountable for keeping Americans safe from harm.

Why don't the media cover Christian terrorism the way they cover Islamic terrorism? Maybe it's that Islamic terrorism is both financially rewarding and politically beneficial to many Americans?

Saturday, October 17, 2015

CIA torture doctors sued



Sadly, this isn't as funny as my last post. But torture rarely is.

This still makes my blood boil - not just that my country tortured prisoners-of-war, which is bad enough, but that no one was ever held accountable. And many Americans still defend it! Oh, don't get me started...

Cenk Uygur makes a good point here - well, several good points, but one that I haven't heard much about. Our enemies used torture to make prisoners lie. That works, because you'll say anything to get torture to stop.

It's a completely different thing to expect to get the truth from torture. Did Dick Cheney not know that? From what I've heard, we tortured prisoners-of-war not to get useful intelligence from them, but to justify invading Iraq.

Certainly, we didn't get useful intelligence from them. But I'm not sure the Bush Administration got any useful lies, either. So I just don't know.

What Bernie Sanders says and Republicans hear



Funny, isn't it? One of the commenters on this video claims that Donald Trump's speeches are written by The Onion. Could be. It's hard to parody the right-wing these days, since you still end up sounding more reasonable than they do.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Fox News 'expert' arrested



Surprise, surprise, huh? But at Fox 'News,' you don't have to be real. You don't have to be truthful. You don't have to know anything at all. You just have to hate Democrats and push right-wing talking points.

Fraud? All of Fox 'News' is a fraud.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Planned Parenthood, how can you be this dumb?



Jebus, I get furious with this stuff!  I'm with Cenk Uygur on this. I promise you that he's no more angry than I am that liberals never seem to learn this stuff.

How stupid can you be? You're accused of something you didn't do, so you back down and think that will placate the people who are attacking you for political reasons anyway?

I am so sick of that kind of behavior. When you give in to bullies, that just makes it more likely you'll be bullied. Stand up for yourself, for chrissake! Stand up for what you believe in!

God damn I'm sick of this kind of behavior from liberals. When are they going to learn?

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Selling America to the highest bidder



How's that for selling our country to the highest bidder? More than half of all political donations have come from 158 wealthy families. Note that there are 320 million people in America.

Is it any wonder that the rich keep getting government help to get richer, which everyone else struggles to stay afloat? This is why America has socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

Thanks to the five Republicans on our Supreme Court, money is now considered "speech," which makes bribery perfectly legal. (For all of their faults, the four Democrats on the court disagreed with the Citizens United decision. Unfortunately, thanks to terrible decisions in past presidential elections, the Democrats are in the minority.)

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Cataclysm: a very bad day, with zombies


Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead is a free zombie survival game, developed and maintained by volunteers. Yet it's become one of my all-time favorite games. Every year or so, I'll install the latest version and play it again. (See my previous posts here for the details.)

I've been playing it a lot in recent weeks, but I got to the point where my character didn't really need anything else to survive. By that point, he was highly skilled, with good weapons, tons of useful items, and several secure hideouts.

Note that the gameworld is procedurally generated and nearly infinite in size, and there are many, many dangerous locations, even for an advanced character. And the content is just incredibly varied. I had all of the equipment I needed, but not even close to everything the game has to offer. And after years of play, I've never even seen most of the special locations in the game.

But I had all I needed to survive, and from a role-playing perspective, I couldn't see putting myself at risk for no reason. I'm a role-player. Why would I do something like that, in a zombie apocalypse? Well, I always get this way. The early part of the game is always more fun for me.

You see, a zombie survival game is all about a desperate struggle for survival, and Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead does that perfectly. You start out with almost nothing and with few, if any, skills. With the default start, you're not immediately at risk, but you're forced to put yourself in harm's way in order to survive.

After all, you won't survive without food, clean water, warm clothing, shelter, weapons, tools, and other items. And the vast majority of those critical necessities are found in buildings, usually in towns, and that's where the zombies are. (There are other dangers elsewhere, but this is the main issue at the start of the game.)

Hunger and thirst will kill you just as surely as zombies will, if not as quickly. So you have to explore. You will not survive without taking risks. That's the brilliance of the game.

And nearly everything is useful. (I admit it, I love loot in role-playing games!) At the start of the game, in particular, you need everything. You may not be able to carry what you find - one critical necessity at the start of the game is to find items to increase your carrying capacity - but nearly everything can be used (often to craft other items).

But towns are very dangerous for a beginning character. You're a mouse in a roomful of cats. If you find a weapon, even an unskilled character can probably destroy a lone zombie (at least, if it's not one of the more dangerous types). But if you're injured, pain will slow you down. And a mouse that can't run away from cats may find himself in big trouble, especially since the house is full of cats, and if he hopes to survive at all, he can't stay away from the litter box.

Anyway, I reached the point where my survival seemed assured, unless I started exploring very dangerous places for no real reason. And that didn't sound appealing, because it didn't seem to make sense. Of course, I could build a cabin in the forest or along a river and spend my time hunting and fishing. I could even start farming.

All of those things, and more, are possible, but... just didn't appeal to me. I love the early part of the game, where survival is a desperate struggle against hunger, thirst, the elements, and pretty much everything that moves in the game. So I started over in a new world.

This time, I chose the Very Bad Day scenario, the most difficult beginning in the game. My character started out drunk "to the point of incapacitation," depressed, with an infected injury, and sick with the flu, wearing only a wet towel (the Shower Victim profession) in the middle of a city full of zombies.

Note that it's also freezing cold,... and the house is on fire.

Note that I'm no longer drunk or sick here.

I started in the living room of a house, and the fire was small. But I'd had previous experience with fires in Cataclysm! The nearest door - to the kitchen - was only two steps away. I made it through the door, but before I could even close the door behind me, the ceiling of the living room caved in. Yeah, you don't want to mess around in a house that's on fire!

At first glance, there was nothing in the kitchen, but I didn't even bother to check the cabinets. My wet towel didn't have any pockets, anyway. The door to the bedroom was nearby, so I went that way, and on my way to the north window, I found a robe.

Funny, but I don't ever remember seeing a robe in this game before that, but even after playing Cataclysm for years, I'm still finding new items. In this case, a robe was far better than a wet towel, both for warmth and because it had pockets. So I quickly slipped it on, although fire was already eating through the east wall of the room. No time for anything else, so I opened the north window and jumped out.

Most homes in this game have (open) curtains on the windows, but the curtains in this house had been closed. Thus, although I started in a town full of zombies, they couldn't see me until I left the house. They could hear the roof of the house collapsing, though, and noise will also attract them. So will scent, though I'd just taken a shower. Heh, heh. (Actually, my character had the Weak Scent trait, so I was harder to track that way.)

I needed to get to the edge of town, but being drunk, depressed, injured, cold, and sick all lowered my movement speed. Until I recovered, anything would be able to catch me. And that low movement speed - even more than my complete lack of a weapon - meant that I'd have no hope of fighting anything, either. I wasn't just a mouse in a roomful of cats, I was a slow, weak, sick mouse in a roomful of cats.

But luck was with me - remarkable luck, in fact. There weren't any zombies to the north, and only a couple of zombies even saw me before I made it to the nearest house in that direction. As slow as I was, I could smash a window and dive into the house before they got there, then close an interior door on the pursuit. (Zombies can smash through a window fairly quickly, but it takes longer to beat down a door.)

And there were useful things in that house - boots and clothing that actually fit me, for one thing. I moved through the house, looting what I could, then slipped away to a neighboring house, where I repeated my actions. Each time, when I spotted a zombie - one time, inside the very house I was looting - I was able to close a door on them and gain enough time to escape.

My luck was just unbelievably good. I made it to the north side of town without any zombies following me and with a remarkably good start on equipment - all of the clothing I needed to keep from freezing to death, plus a backpack full of food and drink. And a needle and thread, and a steak knife, and several magazines with sewing and cooking tips. (Let me tell you, sewing is a critical skill in the zombie apocalypse, and cooking is quite important, too.)

I was in a house with no zombies, on the edge of town, and I could finally relax. My infection had even healed up. Remarkable luck. Only,... I wasn't tired, so I couldn't sleep. Otherwise, I would have slept until I was sober again. And the weather had changed to thunderstorms, so it was too dark to read my magazines.

But there weren't any zombies around, that I could see, so I decided to try for the house to my east (also on the edge of town). Bad mistake! Halfway there, a moose killed me.

Moose aren't normally hostile unless you get too close to them. But this one had apparently been fighting zombies. They're big, they're strong, and they're fast. Even if I'd been healthy, I wouldn't have been able to run away from it. As it was, there was just no chance. And no chance to kill it, either, even if I'd had a better weapon. (I'd picked up a stick.) I was just dead. Game over.

Oh, well. Twice more, I tried that Very Bad Day start, with results more like what I expected. Both times, I was killed before I'd even made it to the next building. I was just too slow to get away from anything that saw me.

True, I didn't die immediately, in either start. There were wrecked cars nearby, and zombies aren't smart enough to go around obstacles, so I avoided them for awhile. But I was surrounded by zombies, and I couldn't get them all smashing into a vehicle. Not for long, at least. Not long enough to get to, and into, a house.

When I tried a fourth start, it seemed at first to be just as hopeless as the previous two. I did make it to a neighboring building, but there was just nothing there. In fact, even after the second house, I was still wearing my wet towel (and it was snowing). There was a business very close to my north, but the windows were barred, so I couldn't go that way.

I'd started right in the middle of the city, too. On the map, I could see the outskirts of town to the east and the west, but they were equidistant, with a lot of buildings in between. There were zombies on all sides of me, and no other building was even close. It really looked hopeless.

A mansion, with my stash of loot. (Note that these three screenshots are from later in the game, since I keep forgetting to take screenshots as I play.)

I wasn't willing to give up without a fight, though, so I tried to lure zombies into the house with me, then escape from a different room (closing the door behind me). That worked for a couple of the zombies, but not all of them. I was just too slow.

But I did make it to some vehicles in the street and, again, I tried to lose them that way. There were two vans (neither one drivable), but when I moved into the back of the first one, I discovered that it was a mobile meth lab - with some low-grade meth already prepared! Ah, aren't drugs great? :)

Yes, meth has dangers even when you're healthy, let alone when you're already drunk, sick, and infected. But zombies were going to eat my brain, so what did I have to lose? So I ate some and doubled my speed. (Admittedly, that was from an unusually low level, but I ended up half again as fast as I would have been fully healthy.)

Now I could run away from everything - at least, for a time. Certainly, I could make it to the next house, and then the one after that and the one after that. I didn't find much - I was still having quite poor luck in that respect - but I was alive. And I made it to the edge of town, then lost the zombies following me as I ran into the open field to the west.

I was still freezing. And as I started to come down from that meth high, I became completely exhausted. I went south to a house on the outskirts, hoping to be able to rest there. There was a zombie - a 'boomer' - inside, and I still had no weapon (or any ability to use one). But the meth hadn't completely worn off, so I was fast enough to stay away from it. I lured it outside, away from the town, and threw rocks at it until - finally - it died.

I was still drunk, still sick, and still injured (though I'd disinfected my wound), and with meth withdrawal on top of that, I thought I'd pass out before getting inside the house. Despite my exhaustion, I could only sleep for a short while before hunger woke me. I ate everything I had, tried to sleep again, woke hungry again, and explored the house for anything I could eat.

I was still exhausted when I woke the next time - again, because I was starving - but it was night. So I went across the street and looted a couple of houses for food (luckily, without encountering any monsters). I ate what I found, slept again, and the next time I woke, I was only 'very tired,' not exhausted. Of course, I was hungry again. (Mostly, that was because of meth withdrawal, I suspect. But my character also has the Heavy Eater trait, so he needs more food than most characters.)

It was still dark, and I was able to loot a grocery store this time. It was a very small grocery store - disappointingly small, in fact. But in addition to food, there was a shopping cart there, only slightly dented. So I could haul everything I looted.

I went back to bed after that - it was lucky nothing found me, especially since I'd smashed the window beside the bed in order to get inside - and slept until morning. I was sober. I was straight. I was healthy. Even my flu had gone away (and usually, flu hangs on like... well, the flu).

In effect, I was in the same situation as a normal starting character. OK, I did have a shopping cart. And a few other items, too. It wasn't that bad. But the only way I kept from freezing was by wrapping the blanket around me as I slept. And I couldn't use most of the stuff I'd looted from the grocery store, not yet. (Raw macaroni doesn't make a very good meal.)

I was still unskilled and poorly equipped. Yet, the difference was just incredible! I could move again. I could run away, if I had to. And I was on the edge of town - a very large town - so I had lots of options. Well, assuming that a moose didn't attack me, or a cougar, or wolves. But although the countryside isn't safe, it's usually a lot safer than cities.

Yesterday had been a very bad day, with zombies. Today? Well, today still had zombies, and it was still cold, and I wasn't at all prepared to take on the world,... but I was optimistic. I was sure I could survive the day, and that made it a heck of a lot better than the previous day. :)

I love this game!
___
PS. My other posts about Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead, and other computer games, are here.

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The best 8 seconds of Bill Nye



Best of all, the whole video is only 22 seconds long. Well, it doesn't take Bill Nye long to respond to this kind of thing.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Elizabeth Warren vs the NRA



Great, isn't she? I wish she were my senator.

Of course, Congress will choose the NRA over children, every time. But it doesn't have to be this way. And I'm certainly glad that someone is still fighting back.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Mystery Faith






Interesting stuff, isn't it? I'd always just assumed there was a historical Jesus, but the more I hear of these arguments, the more I have to wonder.

Of course, it doesn't matter much to me. One human being, more or less, wouldn't be too remarkable, one way or the other. Certainly, there's no reason to believe the magic stuff, either way.

Incidentally, Richard Carrier mentioned his examples of evil done by the god of the Old Testament. If you're interested, here's the link.

Frankly, as bad as that is, it's not everything. If anything, it minimizes the evil (nothing, for example, about burning priest's daughters alive for having sex outside of marriage). I do not see how anyone can read the Old Testament and remain convinced of a loving god.

Feel safe yet?


Wednesday, October 7, 2015

The cult of the 2nd Amendment


From Ed Kilgore at TPM:
Nowadays this revolutionary rationale for gun rights [that the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to keep open the possibility of revolutionary violence against the U.S. government] is becoming the rule rather than the exception for conservative politicians and advocates. Mike Huckabee, a sunny and irenic candidate for president in 2008, all but threatened revolutionary violence in his recent campaign book for the 2016 cycle, God, Guns, Grits and Gravy:
If the Founders who gave up so much to create liberty for us could see how our government has morphed into a ham-fisted, hypercontrolling “Sugar Daddy,” I believe those same patriots who launched a revolution would launch another one. Too many Americans have grown used to Big Government’s overreach. They’ve been conditioned to just bend over and take it like a prisoner [!]. But in Bubba-ville, the days of bending are just about over. People are ready to start standing up for freedom and refusing to take it anymore.
...

Perhaps the most surprising statement on this subject from a Republican presidential candidate was by a rare figure who dissents from the right-to-revolution talk, per this report from Sahil Kapur at TPM a few months ago:
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz's argument that the Second Amendment provides the "ultimate check against government tyranny" is a bit too extreme for potential 2016 rival and fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

"Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn't go down that road again," Graham said, in an apparent reference to the Civil War. "I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the streets."

Graham joked about this, but liberals generally are not amused by the suggestion that “patriotic” Americans should be stockpiling guns in case “they”—it’s not clear who, of course—decide it’s time to start shooting police officers and members of the armed forces in defense of their liberties, which in some cases are perceived to be extremely broad. Indeed, a lot of Second Amendment ultras appear to think the right to revolution is entirely up to the individual revolutionary. Here’s Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, the darling of the GOP Class of 2014, talking about this contingency in 2012:
I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter, and it goes with me virtually everywhere...But I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family — whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

You can wonder, as I often do, how people like Ernst would react to such rhetoric if it were coming from a member of a black nationalist or Islamist group. But clearly, there’s no point in progressives seeking any “compromise” with them on gun issues. They can only be defeated by a true mass social movement supporting reasonable gun regulation. But it’s important to understand that according to the Cult of the Second Amendment, opponents of gun measures have every right to fire back, literally.

So who decides when a police officer needs to be shot and killed, or a president, or any other government official?

In 1776, we didn't have a democracy. No one had a democracy. Today, we do. Today, we can vote. If you lose a vote, is that when you decide that police officers should be killed? Or politicians, elected by the majority of voters, whom you dislike?

And how is this different from ISIS? What makes Christian terrorists any better than Muslim terrorists?
___
PS. That picture above? You've probably seen it before, I'm guessing. It was popular for awhile. But I never heard the sequel, myself. Holly Fischer, that right-wing Christian gun nut who bragged about her morals and integrity, was later found cheating on her husband.

Because nothing says "moral Christian" like adultery, right?

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Making history fit the Bible



Funny, isn't it? Of course, reality doesn't matter to the faith-based, even when it's this easily demonstrated.

Where were you when the world ended?



What were you doing September 23rd, when the world ended? Oh, you didn't notice? Me, neither. Huh! I'm not surprised I wasn't raptured, but I wonder why I didn't even notice the asteroid strike? I'm not usually that absent-minded. :)

This is why a prophet should never be too specific. Of course, it won't make the slightest bit of difference to the faith-based. Failure never does. They'll still believe what they want to believe.

Oh, and did you notice the guy with the blackboard, giggling about the end of the world? Religious nuts just can't wait until the world is destroyed. How many of them would hurry it along, if they could?

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

The great mammogram farce

From Amanda Marcotte at TPM:
Over and over during the farce that was supposed to be a hearing on Planned Parenthood, Republican representatives attacked Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards because her organization does not provide mammograms as part of its core set of services. (They do sometimes pair with organizations for programs that offer them to low-income women.) Over and over again, the fact that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer mammograms was held out as some kind of proof that the organization doesn’t provide women’s health care.

Marcotte points out that most gynecologists don't do mammograms, but instead refer their patients to radiology centers or hospitals with mammogram facilities. (I don't want to copy all of her column here, so I'll keep this short.)

Also, mammograms aren't recommended for most women under 50, and Planned Parenthood is a family planning clinic. "Think 20s and 30s, not 40s and 50s. The overlap between the women who need birth control pills and the women who need mammograms is pretty small."

So why the big focus on mammograms at Planned Parenthood? Are Republican men just that ignorant about women's health?
This obsession with mammograms belies the real agenda here, which has nothing to do with “fetal body parts” or even abortion, but with delegitimizing health care that exists so that people, particularly women, can have healthy and safe sex lives. The implication was clear: Mammograms are real health care, and all those other services—contraception, STI testing and treatment, Pap smears—are not. After all, virgins can get breast cancer, but you aren’t going to get the clap or an unintended pregnancy if you don’t have sex.

Republicans are smart and know they can’t just come right out and denounce the use of health care services in order to have recreational sex, because recreational sex is a nearly universal behavior. Ninety-nine percent of women who have sex have used contraception. Ninety-five percent of Americans had premarital sex. So the slut-shaming is being done sideways, by focusing heavily on non-sexual health care—or prenatal care—while pointedly ignoring the health care people centered around having sex. The omission speaks volumes.

If you thought the religious right had given up on the mission to push abstinence-until-marriage, this hearing should be a reminder that they very much have not, and instead are eager to undermine any care for the non-abstinent out of fear that it gives permission to have sex. Abstinence-only programs haven’t gone anywhere, either. As Erica Hellerstein of Think Progress reported over the summer, most programs were just renamed something like “abstinence-focused” or even, falsely, “evidence-based,” but they are pushing the same message: The only legitimate life choice is to refrain from having sex until marriage.

Why they don’t think married women need contraception is another question entirely, but we are talking about politicians who think you need a mammogram machine in a family planning clinic that primarily serves women in their 20s. Expertise on what women actually need in their health care is not a strong suit.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The limits of crazy

Here's an excellent article about John Boehner's resignation as Speaker of the House of Representatives and why a room full of right-wing Republicans erupted in cheers and applause when it was announced.

Why such contempt for someone who's a right-wing Republican himself? John Boehner vigorously opposed everything Barack Obama has tried to do, whatever it was, even when America's economy was in freefall. (And even while America was - is - at war. Can you imagine the outrage if Democrats had done that during the Bush Administration?)
... numerous Republicans (even presidential candidates) list not only Boehner's (non-existent) failure to stop Obamacare, but also his supposed enabling of Obamacare. As Mike Huckabee explained, "When people sent [Republicans] here, they didn't send them to give the president more power on Obamacare[.]" Think about that: after total legislative obstruction, a government shut-down, more than 50 votes to repeal Obamacare, an ensuing presidential election, two Supreme Court lawsuits, and other pending litigation - - Republicans are livid with the belief that John Boehner has worked with the President to strengthen Obamacare.

No sane political observer could think that. So, what gives?

Let's go to John Chait:
Boehner has never supported any important aspect of the Obama agenda. Even at the outset of the Obama administration, with the president soaring in the polls and the economy plunging into the abyss, he rallied his entire party to withhold support from the stimulus and never seriously considered negotiating. He not only voted against Obamacare, but he repeatedly punctuated his speech denouncing it with shouts of “hell no!” The positive “accomplishments” of the Boehner Era were limited to avoiding a series of brinksmanship-induced catastrophes. The limits of conservative power extended to the ability to block all legislative progress or compromise. Boehner successfully delivered that. He even joined in several creative efforts to expand his institution’s power by using threats of shutdowns or debt-ceiling crises to coerce Obama into enacting portions of the Republican agenda, giving up only when Obama had beaten him back repeatedly.

It was not enough. Three quarters of Republicans believe, incredibly, that their party leadership has not done enough to oppose Obama. Three fifths feel “betrayed” by their party. “In the last seven years Barack Obama has successfully recruited, or corrupted, or hijacked — however you want to describe it — John Roberts of the Supreme Court; John Boehner, speaker of the House; Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate; and, some might even say, the pope,” ranted Rush Limbaugh the other day.

This discontent runs much deeper and wider than Boehner. It has driven much of the support for Donald Trump, whose “conservatism” rests in his affect, radiating power and contempt for Obama, rather than in his policies, which actually lie to the left of the party platform overall. Boehner had the misfortune of leading, or attempting to lead, his party in an era when it had run up to the limits of crazy, where the only unexplored frontiers of extremism lay beyond the reach of its Constitutional powers.

Republicans are faith-based. Reality doesn't enter into their thinking at all. When Fox 'News' held a poll, asking Republicans why their leaders failed to stop Barack Obama, the real reason wasn't even an option:
It finds that 60 percent of Republicans feel betrayed by their party, and that 66 percent of Republicans don’t think their party did all it could to block Obama’s agenda. The poll asks why respondents think their party leaders failed at this: they didn’t really want to stop Obama; they weren’t smart enough; they would rather fight each other. The Fox poll doesn’t even offer respondents the option of choosing the real reason — that Republicans structurally lack the votes! No wonder voters are easily seduced into thinking Trump is “telling it like it is.”

But again, Republicans are faith-based. If they accepted reality, they wouldn't be Republicans.

Back to that first article at Daily Kos:
It sounds crazy, I know, but this represents the true "dark side" of Boehner's resignation: it is another significant step in the Republican party's shocking withdrawal from our system of democratic governance. Specifically, it presages a doubling-down of the Republicans' intentions to assert "negative control," where government shutdowns, hostage-taking, and (the immensely dangerous) debt-ceiling fights threaten to become more determinative than electoral outcomes and a functioning government. As one Republican writer put it, the emerging Republican belief is that threats of government destruction combined with the inherent rightness of Republican beliefs "could be so strong (as Ted Cruz was of his proposal to defund Obamacare) that Senate Democrats, the Obama White House and the mainstream media would, for once, finally, this time, cave in and let the House Republicans have their way." (And the use of the words "for once, finally" means "rightly," "appropriately," consistent with the "true" distribution of power.) ...

What we have here is one of two major political parties increasingly disengaging from the democratic process. Did you know that President Obama is an illegitimate President because he is not a "natural born citizen"? Or that he won election by promising "free stuff" to minorities? That minorities and illegal aliens are engaged in massive voter fraud? Or, that popular elections of U.S. Senators should be taken away? That some "Boehner Rule" or "Hastert Rule" exists which neuters any Democratic House votes? Or that is OK for Republicans to filibuster every proposed law while in the minority, but the filibuster should be repealed now that Republicans have a Senate majority? Or that the Electoral College should be reformed to provide proportional votes only in "Blue States"? . . . or, that policy outcomes should not be determined by elections but instead by holding hostage the federal government or the "full faith and credit" of the U.S.?

Most importantly, did you realize that all of the above are necessary to enact the majority will of the people? Because - believe it or not - that is what the Republicans believe.

The conclusion of Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein has been widely quoted, but not sufficiently absorbed:
One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

I thought the Bush Administration was about as low as we could get. After that complete debacle, after than unending series of disasters and unmet promises, I figured the Republican Party would at least have to turn back towards sanity a bit.

Instead, they did just the reverse. Before Barack Obama had even taken office, when we were still at war and our economy was crumbling down around us, in the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, they agreed to do nothing that Obama wanted, no matter what it was, no matter what its effect on our country.

John Boehner did that. Mitch McConnell did that. But because they couldn't, as the minority party, prevent everything, they are despised by their own party.

Republicans are faith-based. Reality doesn't enter into their thinking at all. But they've got billionaires on their side, so they've got lots and lots of money. And they control the Supreme Court (thanks to previous bad presidential decisions). And now, unbelievably, they even control Congress.

What is wrong with my country? Are there any limits to crazy in America? Look at the Republican presidential campaign. And that's after the complete disaster that was George W. Bush!