Bob and Chez Show Radio Show

The Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show 2/21/13


MSNBC Hires Gibbs and Axelrod; MSNBC Makes Bob Look Bad; Right Wing Talk Radio Versus the Liberal Internet; Is it constitutional to sell guns for a profit; Bring a Gun Get a Discount on Pizza; State and Local Politics; Ellinger and the Assault Weapons Ban; Racism and Republicans and Joe Ricky Hundley; and much more. Brought to you by Bubble Genius and the Amazon Link.

There’s more political talk in this week’s After Party! Friday at Noon eastern time. If you’re not a member, subscribe already. Only $6/month, cancel any time.

Listen and subscribe on iTunes (it’s FREE!)
Download the mp3 (54 minutes, 23mb)
RSS Feed
Listen on your smartphone via

Bubble Genius

  • mrbrink

    By the way, I think it’s awesome you guys are meeting up, even if it is BYOB in Tennessee. “I’m going up in the country babe, don’t ya wanna to go…” I don’t know. I always think about that song for any wind of road-tripping. Remember this. You are both handsome, brilliant, bona fide, and ready for hot orgy love. Cheers!

  • GrafZeppelin127
  • Victor_the_Crab

    I’m having a goddamn fucking hard time accesing the After Party. My PayPal account was on hold because some fucking asshole tried to access it. The result was that my account setup to the After Party was put on suspension and I have no way of fixing it. I’ve had to cancel my subscription in order try and activate a new account with no luck. Bob, anyone, please help me out here because I don’t know what the fuck is going on here.

    • I’ll see what I can do. Stand by.

      • Victor_the_Crab

        Thanks Bob, I appreciate it.

        • 1933john

          Could be the Chinese fucking with you.

        • I think it’s fixed. Try again if you wanna.

  • MrDHalen

    Not to overly beat the MSNBC story with a stick, but I’ll withhold judgement on the two new hires until I see them in action. For me personally, I’d like to hear what these two guys have to say about the 2014 midterm campaigns. If they’re used to analyze what Obama is doing, yea, they’re most likely in the tank, but these guys talking about upcoming campaigns is useful, because they were actually apart of two very successful campaigns.

    Chez, you’re right out about people living in California vs. people living in Alabama. Liberals are overflowing in California and our state government represents it and the same goes for Conservatives in Alabama. Not much we Californians can do to change how Alabamians treat other Alabamians.

    • I’m with you on MSNBC, Dan. I am always happy when a liberal POV is represented in the media.

      It would be different if the media actually did its job in a non-partisan manner, but that isn’t the way it is. And, not only does a non-partisan media not exist in this country, Fox does exist as an arm of the right, and we need something to balance the info lies it spews daily.

      All the hair pulling over MSNBC’s new hires strikes me as a little over the top. And definitely counter to our best interests.

      • mrbrink

        “I am always happy when a liberal POV is represented in the media.”

        Me too. And I don’t care if Axelrod and Gibbs pull their punches with the Obama administration. You can call them biased, but you can’t necessarily call them liars and frauds. They’re both ground-game bona fide professionals. if they have any say in the nurturing and sculpting of candidates down the road the country will be in much better shape. They’re free agents, of sorts. My only beef is that this kind of move means that the network is looking at programming in terms of more punditry when they could hire 100 journalists and bring smoking back to live broadcasts.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    Great show!
    I agree that Thom Hartman would be a hell of a lot better choice as a Liberal voice on msnbc than Gibbs or Axelrod. Jebus, what’s wrong with their producers.
    I was thinking Stephanie Miller, Bill Scher, Driftglass and Bob or Chez would all bring more perspective to the broadcast than these two strategists plucked directly from the administration.

    • But, no one was bothered by Stephanopoulos going from the Clinton White House straight to ABC to become a political analyst.

      No one cared becuase the RW machine was not muddying the waters on this particular issue, back then. The RW has made liberals too sensitive to the charge of being hypocrites. Now, liberals are going overboard to show that they can criticize wrong doing on their side too.

      But, this “Fox and MSNBC are the same” BS is not the issue to do it on. Look how MSNBC covered the drone stuff a couple of weeks ago. Was there ever an unpleasant topic for the Bush administration that Fox news covered with the same kind of tenacity?

      Stephanopoulos was named Chief Washington Correspondent in December 2005. Previously he was an ABC News correspondent and joined ABC News in 1997 as an analyst for “This Week.”

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Thanks very much for the shout-out, Bob, and for the compliment.

    It seems my friend over at HuffPo has finally gone off the deep end and resorted to anger, hostility and categorical insults, which wingnuts tend to do when they’re intellectually cornered. [“That’s the liberal mindset shining through” is my favorite.]

    To his credit, he didn’t fall into any of the other various traps I set for him along the way, but in avoiding those traps, consciously or unconsciously, he failed to make a principled distinction between conditions and restrictions on gun ownership imposed by law and those imposed by “market forces.” He kept saying that “cost is passive,” meaning it simply exists and can’t be helped or controlled by anyone, whereas gun control (i.e., the law) is “active,” meaning it’s consciously, purposefully, deliberately and wrongfully imposed on virtuous, heroic people like him by a big bad mean nasty imaginary Golem named “The Government” (or the other big bad mean nasty imaginary Golem named “Liberals”). In fact, both characterizations are wrong. The law is no more or less “passive” or “active” than the market. Both are the result of the ongoing cumulative effect of the innumerable individual acts and decisions of an entire society.

    I think it’s fairly obvious, if you read the conversation, that the only organizing principle in his mind that distinguishes the law from the market in terms of infringing gun rights is that he’s personally OK with the latter but not the former. He doesn’t mind being prevented from owning a particular weapon by the manufacturer or seller, but he objects to being prevented from owning the exact same weapon, whether he can afford it or not, by law (meaning, by the aforementioned Golem). He pointed out that those who produce goods should be paid for them (which is true), and claimed at the end that everyone pays for their guns, even the military, and understands that they must be paid for, and that I seem to be “the only one with this problem.” However, all that proves is that the cost of guns is an infringement he, and apparently everyone else, is willing to tolerate and allow, not that it isn’t an infringement to begin with.

    And that’s where we run into trouble. He couldn’t make a principled distinction because doing so would require him to admit things he did not want to admit. Two in particular:

    (1) Gun ownership is not a natural right. After all, how can it be a “natural” right to own something artificial? Let alone that you have to pay for?

    (2) That certain “infringements” are permissible when other rights and interests prevail. That would include, inter alia, the right (unenumerated, of course) of gun manufacturers to be compensated for the goods they produce and the expertise that goes into producing them.

    He never explicitly went there; never said, “his right to be compensated for his goods and labor trumps your right to have those goods,” and I never explicitly said the opposite. But he couldn’t say that, because saying that means acknowledging that it’s possible for other rights and interests to trump your individual right to have the particular weapon you want. Gun nuts can’t do that, because it torpedoes their entire case.

    And, if the cost of guns is not an infringement at all, because one person’s right to be compensated for his goods and labor trumps another’s right to bear Arms, then any measure taken in recognition of any other right that trumps gun ownership is also not an infringement.

    Something else I thought of during the conversation that I never brought up: Guns (i.e., “Arms”) are the only consumer product that the Constitution expressly gives people a “right” to have. All other consumer products must be paid for, because of “market forces,” but there’s no other product that anyone can buy, the ownership of which is an explicit constitutional right.

    Remember when Rand Paul said that if health care was a right, then he as a medical doctor would be effectively enslaved? Meaning, that anyone who got sick or injured could come to his house with armed police to “conscript” him, and “force” him to treat that person for free? Well, apply the same reasoning to the right to keep and bear Arms. Since owning guns is a right, I should be able to “conscript” and “enslave” any gun manufacturer or seller, or even any individual gun owner, and “force” them to either give me, or make for me, the exact gun that I want, free of charge.

    One other thing I thought of that didn’t come up: Does the right to bear Arms include the right to bear, e.g., a Star Trek phaser or a Star Wars blaster, or for that matter a photon torpedo or a TIE fighter, or that scepter that Loki had in The Avengers? I’d say, yes. Why? Because the Second Amendment, according to gun fans, was absolutely intended to include weapons that do not exist. Firearms could not be mass-produced in 1790. No gun at that time could be fired more than once or twice per minute. No ammunition at that time contained and combined the projectile, explosive and catalyst (pellet/cannonball, gunpowder, flint/fuse) in a single modular unit (i.e., a modern bullet). Yet the Founding Fathers™ specifically and expressly intended the Second Amendment to include a right to guns that could be mass-produced, that could be fired multiple times per second, whose ammunition was a single module. Therefore the right to bear Arms gives me the right to imaginary and nonexistent weapons.

    Yes, this is all ridiculous and absurd. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid argument or that it’s not logically sound, provided one accepts as base principles the arguments typically made by right-wing gun enthusiasts.

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

      Brilliant GrafZep!
      I really like your argument.
      Gonna use it to mess with the heads of two paranoid gun nuts I know…..;-)
      I can’t wait to hear what they’ll come up with as a response.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Take a look at the conversation thread to get some ideas about what they’ll come up with. I suspect they’ll come up with some of the same faulty, subjective arguments, and false, inapt analogies, particularly the latter, that my friend johnm76 came up with over there.

        The best he could do was the whole “cost is passive” thing, meaning that (a.) we just take it as a given that you have to pay for things, and (b.) people who make and sell products don’t directly or deliberately control what they cost. (a.) is pretty much a given, and (b.) has something to it also, although I always responded by arguing that a manufacturer or seller could just as easily choose not to demand money (which would obviously make no sense for him).

        The other argument you’re likely to hear is that manufacturers and sellers have a right to be paid for their goods and the labor that goes into making them. And that’s true. The counterpoint to that is threefold: (1) the Second Amendment does not condition the right to keep and bear Arms on the ability, or willingness, to pay for them; (2) no part of the Constitution says, “the right of the people to be paid for their goods and labor shall not be infringed,” and (3) if my right to have the particular Arms that I want does not trump the manufacturer’s right to be paid for its goods, then that must mean that other interests can trump the right to keep and bear Arms. The question then becomes, if the right to be paid for one’s goods trumps the right to keep and bear Arms, why does the right to not be shot or killed by Arms not trump the right to keep and bear Arms?

        Good luck and let me know how it goes.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        One thing they’ll definitely say that you can dispense with right away, and keep coming back to it if you have to, is that the Second Amendment only prohibits “the government,” not private businesses, from infringing on gun rights. But that’s wrong; the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…,” but the Second is phrased in the passive: “…shall not be infringed“, i.e., it doesn’t say by whom.

        If they press you on this point, and insist that the Amendment can’t be construed to apply to private actors, mention that if you take your rightful firearm from the manufacturer or seller (or owner) without paying, they can and will use the government (law enforcement and the courts) to either make you pay for it or punish you for not paying for it, so it is “the government” that ultimately forces you to pay for your rightful gun.

  • muselet

    Bob, are you nuts? Never say you just jiggled a cable. You ran a quick diagnostic on your equipment and tweaked some settings.

    Wikipedia informs us that the gin-soaked Bob Beckel is “a graduate school professor of politics at the George Washington University.” I do hope students get a deep discount on his classes.

    FNC can’t hire an effective liberal for its shows because the Righty hosts would get trounced. (Steve Doocey against Thom Hartmann? It’d be the intellectual equivalent of Gallipoli.)

    I don’t understand why any news organization would hire people straight out of the White House, any White House. Well, I tell a lie, I do understand the reasoning (it’s the same reason the children of influential people get hired), I just don’t understand why a news organization would potentially damage its reputation like that.

    Internet activism is about as effective as emptying a swimming pool with a teaspoon. It could be effective if enough people got involved but as you guys rightly point out, our collective attention span is too short. It would also be helpful if people on our side got off our arses and voted!

    Chez, the way I motivate myself—and shame nonvoters—is to say, “If you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain.” It’s not about staying immersed in politics and it’s not about anger and outrage, it’s about securing your right to piss and moan afterward. Maybe it’s because I grew up reading newspapers—and still do read the local fishwrap and the smoldering remains of the once-great LA Times—that I feel comfortable dipping in and out of local and state politics and don’t feel burned out except at the end of a presidential campaign, when I just want it to stop. Or maybe it’s because I’m old enough to remember the world pre-internet.

    Hey Bob, look on the bright side: if you’re ever in Virginia Beach and get a hankering for pizza, you know where not to go.

    Chez, it does seem unlikely but at least one news piece I saw said at least one other person on the plane heard and saw Hundley’s behavior. (I also saw his mug shot, and he looks like someone who’d casually drop the N-word and slap a kid.)


    • Yeah — my fault for not reading the updated story and checking out the mugshot. Looks like Joe Rickey there was drunk and, as much as I hate to be a little prejudiced myself, he definitely looks like the kind of resentful, aging asshole who’d do something like that.