Louis Gohmert doesn't need evidence. He doesn't need proof, or sourcing, or the ability to back up a claim with anything other than the vitriol in his voice and the consternation in his gut. All he needs is an idea, and a microphone, and away we go.
Gohmert's idiocies idiosyncrasies have brought plenty of poor repute to his Tyler-based district, comprising 12 counties that have been as satisfied with Gohmert's run as a dung beetle is with the massed, messy ball it enjoys rolling around. And Gohmert's latest outburst -- alleging that the Obama administration isn't simply kowtowing to the Muslim Brotherhood, but that they've actually infiltrated his rank -- fits wonderfully within his trend of head-in-the-sand statements that make people wonder why anyone would choose to actually live in Texas.
It's a shame that Gohmert won't be around when future textbooks remind children of how studiously stupid you can look when you fail to corroborate claims with attendant evidence. However, with this list of the five most imbecilic things Gohmert's ever asserted, here's hoping he may have some taste as to how future generations will view both him and those who've decided to reelect him ad nauseum:
5. While discussing the putative reality that caribou, for some reason that only a rural Texan representative could fathom, enjoy the warmth of an oil pipeline: "So when [caribou] want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline. ... So my real concern now [is] if oil stops running through the pipeline ... do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?"
I'm pretty sure that the only thing we'd need a follow-up study on, Mr. Gohmert, is whether you have cracked a lone biology book within the past few decades, or if you'd like to cite, I don't know, a single study purporting to back up the notion that a warm pipeline -- a warm pipeline -- will expedite the mating rituals of ungulates. (Or have you ever even encountered the word "ungulate" before?) Fortunately, George HW Bush had a thought along the same lines, saying, "The caribou love [the pipeline]. They rub against it and they have babies." Fair enough, Mr. President. Whatever you say.
4. After the massacre in Aurora, Colo., Gohmert determined that the cause of James Holmes's rampage wasn't, say, mental health issues, or some form of social trigger -- but, rather, that he didn't have the appropriate fear of a vengeful, unforgiving God:
"You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place. ... We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed ... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present."
Right, Louie. I'm sure your God took such great offense to being taken out of the valedictory remarks that he let 12 people get gunned down. I'm sure your God is such an egoistic priss that he decided to get back at us for not being the sufficiently pious nation we once were -- what, like when we legally sanctioned Jim Crow? or when your state employed human chattel? or when we snapped every antebellum treaty signed with a Native American tribe? -- that He said, No, fine, James, this is all you, whatever you want. I'm sure that's how your Judeo-Christian God works. He has feelings too, you know.
3. When nominating Florida Rep. Allen West as Speaker of the House ... after West had already lost his reelection bid. (Louie didn't so much say as anything terribly heinous this time around, but it was certainly one of the most moronic moves he's yet made.
West, well-known for being nearly court martialed for firing a gun past an already-held suspect's head in Iraq, was one of the scummier politicians recently in the House. Gohmert couldn't get enough of him.)
2. Last week, Gohmert went to WorldNetDaily, one of the only conspiracy sites giving Alex Jones a run, to spout, once more, a belief that the enemies have already reached our shore: "This administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America."
"So many," he says. This administration, this claque pushing into a second term the predominance of the American people demanded, has "so many Muslim Brotherhood members" within it. Not that he'd like to name any other than, say, Huma Abedin, the former Hilary Clinton aide that Gohmert and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann determined was a mole last summer. Ted Cruz has already grabbed the mantle of Modern McCarthyism, so Gohmert has to conduct a few House hearings before he can threaten Cruz's position. But he's on his way. Proof is for the weak. Slander is for the successful. And it's high-time the administration of the B. Hussein Gang is revealed for the anti-American, pro-Allah clique it is.
1. Much like Houston's own State Rep. Debbie Riddle, Gohmert is convinced, all evidence otherwise, that there are terrorist organizations -- somewhere, somehow -- concocting schemes to send their pregnant Black Widows to our American shores, spawning natural-born terrorists, and then using them and their US Citizenship Cards, decades on, to decimate the land we call home: "[The children] could be raised and coddled as future terrorists [and] twenty, thirty years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life."
As before, Gohmert seems interminably incapable of citing any forms of evidence. The man's rhetorical devices are as hollow as they are unbearable; he'd be laughed out of any courtroom and debate society the nation over. Fortunately, we have video evidence of Gohmert squaring against his dearth of evidence, and if you'd like to spend 10 minutes of your life gnashing your teeth while Louie provides ample fodder for future Americans to continue mocking Texas's 1st District, it is available:
Rep. Gohmert's Record For Stunning Technological Ignorance Is Broken By... Rep. Gohmert
My goodness. Earlier we posted about Rep. Louis Gohmert's incredible, head-shakingly ignorant exchange with lawyer Orin Kerr during a Congressional hearing concerning "hacking" and the CFAA. In that discussion, Gohmert spoke out in favor of being able to "hack back" and destroy the computers of hackers -- and grew indignant at the mere suggestion that this might have unintended consequences or lead people to attack the wrong targets. Gohmert thought that such talk was just Kerr trying to protect hackers.
I thought perhaps Rep. Gohmert was just having a bad day. Maybe he's having a bad month. In a different hearing, held yesterday concerning ECPA reform, Gohmert opened his mouth again, and it was even worse. Much, much worse. Cringe-inducingly clueless.
The short version of this is that he seems to think that when Google has advertisements on Gmail, that's the same thing as selling all of the information in your email to advertisers. And no matter how many times Google's lawyer politely tries to explain the difference, Gohmert doesn't get it. He thinks he's making a point -- smirking the whole time -- that what Google does is somehow the equivalent of government snooping, in that he keeps asking if Google can just "sell" access to everyone's email to the government. I'm going to post a transcript below, and because I simply cannot not interject how ridiculously uninformed Gohmert's line of questioning is, I'm going to interject in the transcript as appropriate.
Rep. Gohmert: I was curious. Doesn't Google sell information acquired from emails to different vendors so that they can target
certain individuals with their promotions?
Google lawyer whose name I didn't catch: Uh, no, we don't sell email content. We do have a system -- similar to the system we
have for scanning for spam and malware -- that can identify what type of ads are most relevant to serve on email messages. It's an
automated process. There's no human interaction. Certainly, the email is not sold to anybody or disclosed.
Gohmert: So how do these other vendors get our emails and think that we may be interested in the products they're selling.
Okay, already we're off to a great start in monumental ignorance. The initial question was based on a complete falsehood -- that
Google sells such information -- and after the lawyer told him that this is not true, Gohmert completely ignores that and still
asks how they get the emails. It never seems to occur to him that they don't get the emails.
Google lawyer: They don't actually get your email. What they're able to do is through our advertising business be able to identify keywords that they would like to trigger the display of one of their ads, but they don't get information about who the user is or any...
Gohmert: Well that brings me back. So they get information about keywords in our emails that they use to decide who to send
promotions to, albeit automatically done. Correct?
NO. Not correct. In fact, that's the exact opposite of what the lawyer just said. Gohmert can't seem to comprehend that Google
placing targeted ads next to emails has NOTHING to do with sending any information back to the advertiser. I wonder, when Rep. Gohmert turns on his television to watch the evening news, does he think that the TV station is sending his name, address, channel watching info, etc. back to advertisers? That's not how it works. At all. The advertisers state where they want their ads to
appear, and Google's system figures out where to place the ads. At no point does any information from email accounts go back to
anyone. And yet Gohmert keeps asking.
And not understanding the rather basic answers. Unfortunately, the lawyer tries to actually explain reality to Gohmert in a
professional and detailed manner, when it seems clear that the proper way to answer his questions is in shorter, simpler sentences
such as: "No, that's 100% incorrect."
Lawyer: The email context is used to identify what ads are most relevant to the user...
Gohmert: And do they pay for the right or the contractual ability to target those individuals who use those keywords?
Lawyer: I might phrase that slightly differently, but the gist is correct, that advertisers are able to bid for the placement of advertisements to users, where our system has detected might be interested in the advertisement.
Gohmert: Okay, so what would prevent the federal government from making a deal with Google, so they could also "Scroogle"
people, and say "I want to know everyone who has ever used the term 'Benghazi'" or "I want everyone who's ever used... a certain
term." Would you discriminate against the government, or would you allow the government to know about all emails that included
those words?
Okay, try not to hit your head on your desk after that exchange. First, he (perhaps accidentally) gets a statement more or less
correct, that advertisers pay to have their ads show up, but immediately follows that up with something completely unrelated to that. First, he tosses in "Scroogled" -- a term that Microsoft uses in its advertising against Gmail and in favor of Outlook.com --
suggesting exactly where this "line" of questioning may have originated. Tip to Microsoft lobbyists, by the way: if you want to put Google on the hot seat, it might help to try a line of questioning that actually makes sense.
Then, the second part, you just have to say huh? The lawyer already explained, repeatedly, that Google doesn't send any information back to the advertiser, and yet he's trying to suggest that the government snooping through your email is the same thing... and Google somehow not giving the government that info is Google "discriminating" against the government? What? Really?
Lawyer [confounded look] Uh... sir, I think those are apples and oranges. I think the disclosure of the identity...
Gohmert: I'm not asking for a fruit comparison. I'm just asking would you be willing to make that deal with the government? The
same one you do with private advertisers, so that the government would know which emails are using which words.
Seriously? I recognize that there are no requirements on intelligence to get elected to Congress, but is there anyone who honestly could not comprehend what he meant by saying it's "apples and oranges"? But, clearly he does not understand that because not only does he mock the analogy, he then repeats the same question in which he insists -- despite the multiple explanations that state the exact opposite -- that advertisers get access to emails and information about email users, and that the government should be able to do the same thing.
Lawyer: Thank you, sir. I meant by that, that it isn't the same deal that's being suggested there.
Gohmert: But I'm asking specifically if the same type of deal could be made by the federal government? [some pointless rant
about US government videos aired overseas that is completely irrelevant and which it wasn't worth transcribing] But if that same
government will spend tens of thousands to do a commercial, they might, under some hare-brained idea like to do a deal to get all
the email addresses that use certain words. Couldn't they make that same kind of deal that private advertisers do?
Holy crap. Gohmert, for the fourth time already, nobody gets email addresses. No private business gets the email addresses. No private business gets to see inside of anyone's email. Seeing inside someone's email has nothing to do with buying ads in email. If the government wants to "do the same deal as private advertisers" then yes it can advertise on Gmail... and it still won't get the email addresses or any other information about emailers, because at no point does Google advertising work that way.
Lawyer: We would not honor a request from the government for such a...
Gohmert: So you would discriminate against the government if they tried to do what your private advertisers do?
No. No. No. No. No. The lawyer already told you half a dozen times, no. The government can do exactly what private advertisers do, which is buy ads. And, just like private advertisers, they would get back no email addresses or any such information.
Lawyer: I don't think that describes what private advertisers...
Gohmert: Okay, does anybody here have any -- obviously, you're doing a good job protecting your employer -- but does anybody
have any proposed legislation that would assist us in what we're doing?
What are we doing, here? Because it certainly seems like you're making one of the most ignorant arguments ever to come out of an
elected officials' mouth, and that's saying quite a bit. You keep saying "private advertisers get A" when the reality is that
private advertisers get nothing of the sort -- and then you ignore that (over and over and over and over again) and then say "well
if private advertisers get A, why can't the government get A." The answer is because neither of them get A and never have.
Gohmert: I would be very interested in any phrase, any clauses, any items that we might add to legislation, or take from existing legislation, to help us deal with this problem. Because I am very interested and very concerned about our privacy and our email.
If you were either interested or concerned then you would know that no such information goes back to advertisers before you stepped into the room (hell, before you got elected, really). But, even if you were ignorant of that fact before the hearing, the fact that the lawyer tried half a dozen times, in a half a dozen different ways to tell you that the information is not shared should have
educated you on that fact. So I'm "very interested" in what sort of "language" Gohmert is going to try to add to legislation that
deals with a non-existent problem that he insists is real.
Gohmert: And just so the simpletons that sometimes write for the Huffington Post understand, I don't want the government to have all that information.
Rep. Sensenbrenner: For the point of personal privilege, my son writes for the Huffington Post.
Gohmert: Well then maybe he's not one of the simpletons I was referring to.
Sensenbrenner: He does have a Phd.
Gohmert: Well, you can still be a PHUL.
Har, har, har... wait, what? So much insanity to unpack. First of all, Gohmert seems to think that people will be making fun of him
for suggesting that the government should "buy" access to your email on Google. And, yes, we will make fun of that, but not for the reasons that he thinks they will. No one thinks that Gohmert seriously wants the government to buy access to information on Google.
What everyone's laughing (or cringing) at is the idea that anyone could buy that info, because you can't. No private advertiser. No
government. It's just not possible.
But, I guess we're all just "simpletons."
Seriously, however, we as citizens deserve better politicians. No one expects politicians to necessarily understand every aspect of
technology, but there are some simple concepts that you should at least be able to grasp when explained to you repeatedly by experts. When a politician repeatedly demonstrates no ability to comprehend a rather basic concept -- and to then granstand on
their own ignorance -- it's time to find better politicians. Quickly.
The voters in Texas and the voters in the 6th district of Virginia owe it to humanity to not elect fools to be their representatives in Congress.
Senate Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act For Third Time
Mitch Leads Filibuster
Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Wednesday to open debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold employers more accountable for wage discrimination against women. The Senate voted 53 to 44 to move forward on the bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
The bill would prohibit retaliation against employees who share their salary information with each other, which supporters say would eliminate the culture of silence that keeps women in the dark about pay discrimination. It would also require the Department of Labor to collect wage data from employers, broken down by race and gender, and require employers to show that wage differentials between men and women in the same jobs are for a reason other than sex.
All Republicans present and one Independent, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), voted against proceeding to debate the bill. All Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) voted in favor.
"At a time when the Obama economy is already hurting women so much, this legislation would double down on job loss, all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the vote. "In other words, it's just another Democratic idea that threatens to hurt the very people that it claims to help."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized McConnell's caucus for opposing the bill.
"Are they so repulsed by equal pay for hardworking women that they'll obstruct equal pay for equal work?" he said Wednesday before the vote. "I'm at a loss as to why anyone would decline to debate this important issue."
The bill is part of the Democrats' larger policy push, ahead of the November election, to increase economic security for women, which includes proposals to raise the minimum wage, allow workers to earn a certain amount of paid family and sick leave and expand affordable childcare and pre-Kindergarten for working parents.
"This is not just an issue of fairness," President Barack Obama said in a speech on Tuesday. "It’s also a family issue and an economic issue, because women make up about half of our workforce and they’re increasingly the breadwinners for a whole lot of families out there. So when they make less money, it means less money for gas, less money for groceries, less money for child care, less money for college tuition, less money is going into retirement savings."
U.S. Census Bureau data shows that women who work full-time earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn in a year. When you compare women and men with the same education and experience levels working the same jobs, the pay gap shrinks, but there is still an unexplained gap of 7 to 9 percent, economists estimate, suggesting persistent pay discrimination against women.
Most Republicans in Congress object to all of the Democrats' proposals related to women's economic security. Senate Republicans have blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act twice before, claiming that it will only result in more lawsuits against employers. GOP lawmakers slammed the Paycheck Fairness Act again on Tuesday, calling it "condescending" to women.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, said Tuesday at a press conference.
Equal pay advocates expressed their dismay after Wednesday's vote, suggesting the consequences will be felt in November.
"Today's vote is a disappointment for women and families across the United States. Considering the impact of the gender pay gap,
it's mystifying that the Senate can't even agree to debate it!" said Lisa Maatz, the vice president of government relations at the
American Association of University Women. "That's what happened today –- GOP senators essentially filibustered equal pay for women.
Given the size of the gender voting gap, Republicans are foolish to cede this issue to Democrats."
Amherst County Virginia Democratic News
ACVDN
Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Wednesday to open debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold employers more accountable for wage discrimination against women. The Senate voted 53 to 44 to move forward on the bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.
The bill would prohibit retaliation against employees who share their salary information with each other, which supporters say would eliminate the culture of silence that keeps women in the dark about pay discrimination. It would also require the Department of Labor to collect wage data from employers, broken down by race and gender, and require employers to show that wage differentials between men and women in the same jobs are for a reason other than sex.
All Republicans present and one Independent, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), voted against proceeding to debate the bill. All Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) voted in favor.
"At a time when the Obama economy is already hurting women so much, this legislation would double down on job loss, all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the vote. "In other words, it's just another Democratic idea that threatens to hurt the very people that it claims to help."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized McConnell's caucus for opposing the bill.
"Are they so repulsed by equal pay for hardworking women that they'll obstruct equal pay for equal work?" he said Wednesday before the vote. "I'm at a loss as to why anyone would decline to debate this important issue."
The bill is part of the Democrats' larger policy push, ahead of the November election, to increase economic security for women, which includes proposals to raise the minimum wage, allow workers to earn a certain amount of paid family and sick leave and expand affordable childcare and pre-Kindergarten for working parents.
"This is not just an issue of fairness," President Barack Obama said in a speech on Tuesday. "It’s also a family issue and an economic issue, because women make up about half of our workforce and they’re increasingly the breadwinners for a whole lot of families out there. So when they make less money, it means less money for gas, less money for groceries, less money for child care, less money for college tuition, less money is going into retirement savings."
U.S. Census Bureau data shows that women who work full-time earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn in a year. When you compare women and men with the same education and experience levels working the same jobs, the pay gap shrinks, but there is still an unexplained gap of 7 to 9 percent, economists estimate, suggesting persistent pay discrimination against women.
Most Republicans in Congress object to all of the Democrats' proposals related to women's economic security. Senate Republicans have blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act twice before, claiming that it will only result in more lawsuits against employers. GOP lawmakers slammed the Paycheck Fairness Act again on Tuesday, calling it "condescending" to women.
"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, said Tuesday at a press conference.
Equal pay advocates expressed their dismay after Wednesday's vote, suggesting the consequences will be felt in November.
"Today's vote is a disappointment for women and families across the United States. Considering the impact of the gender pay gap,
it's mystifying that the Senate can't even agree to debate it!" said Lisa Maatz, the vice president of government relations at the
American Association of University Women. "That's what happened today –- GOP senators essentially filibustered equal pay for women.
Given the size of the gender voting gap, Republicans are foolish to cede this issue to Democrats."
Amherst County Virginia Democratic News
ACVDN
No comments:
Post a Comment