Why does VoteVets hate America? (With Update) VoteVets hates teachers and cops, even Veteran ones.

Got back from Vegas last night (having lost 10/12 bets, and the two I won were for other people) and the first thing I am greeted by is this piece of shit television commercial from VoteVets. Please watch it at least twice, and try to figure out what this numbnuts is talking about:

Just off the top of my head, this commercial is completely assinine for a number of reasons.
1) You didn’t take a “pledge” before you deployed to Iraq, you took an Oath to support and defend our country. You only changed it to “pledge” to try to make a dopey argument that doesn’t even work on its merits.
2) “Richard Mourdock sees pledges differently.” Dumb, unsupported by facts. See #3.
3) Um, Mourdock didn’t take a pledge to save all Indiana jobs. If you had him making such a pledge and breaking it, that would be a commercial.

Let’s look at how idiotic such a pledge would be. Back in the mid 1700’s and early 1800’s, Massacusetts streets (Boston, other cities) were lit by Whale Oil lamps. Each night dutiful employees of the Commonwealth would set out and light these things so that shady characters couldn’t do nefarious things in the night. Now, what happened to those whale oil lamp lighters? Do you mean to tell me that all the people engaged in that occupation in Massachusetts have been let go? Are you kidding me? We put all those people out of jobs? Why does the Mass State Gov’t have a historical hatred towards their workers?

Well, it was no longer financially efficient to use whale oil lamps. We went with lightbulbs. Is this idiot really saying that Mass should still employ the same number of lamp lighters?

What about carriage folk? Should Mass have banned the automobile so that these hard working homosapiens and their equine coworkers could still have jobs?
4) Mourdock opposed the Chrysler bailout because when you look at the cost/benefit of it, we come out in the red. Why have people working in occupations that on the whole end up costing money for the society?

During the evenings of late I have been listening to the book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright. (Highest recommendation for those interested in history and social science.) In it he talks about how the societies that adapted most quickly to new technologies were the ones that have historically “Won.” He talks about China and how the Ming Dynasty tried to shut itself off from the world, and they suffered for 400 years because of it. Once you are plugged in, unplugging will only lead to your demise as a society. China has played catch up ever since.

Now, if other cars can be made or purchased for less money, relieving the stress on the purchaser, but putting some folks out of work, wouldn’t it stand to reason that society as a whole should figure out the most cost effective way to get those people employed? If Japan can fish for 1/2 of what it costs Australia, and Australia can produce wood for 1/2 of what it costs Japan, doesn’t it make sense for Japan to import wood and export fish? (Just an example, I am not an Australian import/export specialist).

If Chrysler is losing money hand over fist, and taking the taxpayers with them, why the hell should we continue on? Isn’t the economy dynamic enough to find something else that these people could do?

Isn’t that what the free market all about?

I was initially ambivalent on the Indiana Senate Race. I wanted Lugar gone, because I just find him to be wretched. I don’t much care for my other GOP Senator either. But this ad is so idiotic and panders to morons that Mourdock just locked down my vote.

Yes, Veterans need jobs. But we aren’t training them to light whale oil lanterns because that doesn’t serve the purposes of the country. How about we find occupations that have some viability in the long term for these folks, instead of shoving them into a business that is costing the American taxpayers money?

This article makes my point for me. Wonder how many Vets were employed making batteries no one could afford.

UPDATE: Shame on me for not looking up VoteVets’ crappy research. Here is the article they use as a source on their claims. I’ll highlight part of it:

State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is reviving his dormant effort to call the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings into question.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a June bid by three Indiana funds to block a deal that Mourdock, a former Vanderburgh County commissioner, said would break from ordinary process and cost Indiana funds millions of dollars.

On Thursday, Mourdock’s office asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the questions he raised about the federal government-backed sale of the bulk of Chrysler’s assets to Italian automaker Fiat.

Mourdock, a Republican, argues that Chrysler’s sale was unfair to secured creditors, such as Indiana’s Major Moves transportation fund and state pension funds for teachers and police officers, which his office estimates lost $6 million in value in the sale.

Instead, unsecured stakeholders, such as the United Auto Workers union, received more value.

So, there you have it. Mourdock was being a steward of the public funds, and trying to get that money for actual Hoosiers like me who pay their taxes, and instead VoteVets goes after the unemployed veterans (number unknown.) Here’s an idea, how about spending the money that went to the UAW on veterans training instead? I assume VoteVets would fight against that as well, because let’s be honest, they care much less about veterans than they do doing attack ads against Republicans.

How do these guys get away with claiming they are non-partisan?

Category: Politics