Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Curious Case of Evolution

According to scientists, about 4 billion years ago, a soupy mixture of non-living protein based enzymes spontaneously and miraculously sprang into a form of life known as prokaryotes. From this soupy goop, man did come, evolving first into a monkeyish form with an affinity for climbing trees, scavenging for food, and busy racing to the top of the food chain. Fast forward a couple of billion years to the current state of American politics, and the argument that man is speeding down the highway of de-evolution possesses more credibility than it does kookiness.

But, if humans are still evolving, especially in intelligence, as some scientists state, then in a purely simplistic, anecdotal, and basic Darwinian approach, it could be presumed, for example, that the difference between a Harvard educated lawyer vis-a-vis the crew of gentlemen who pick-up and dispose of your garbage every Wednesday, and disregarding extraneous factors such as family wealth, societal positions, affirmative action, etc., is the result of natural selection of intelligence. And I do apologize if I have offended any garbage collectors by mentioning their vocation in the same sentence as Harvard lawyers.

Every once in a while, something so dramatic, so scientifically astonishing comes along that it gives purist Darwinians and their natural selection theorem great pause and discomfort. But this stupefaction does lend much more credence to Kropotkin’s cooperation theory as a survival mechanism in human societies. In layman’s terms, large groups of stupid people can survive with the aid of mutual cooperation, thus eliminating their abysmal chances of competing and surviving on their own.

Now along comes Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who slipped through the evolutionary stupid net, and is the poster child for Kropotkin’s cooperation theory.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Congresswoman from Florida, and the Chair of the Democratic National Convention, has singlehandedly confirmed Kropotkin’s survival by cooperation as a scientific fact rather than theory. Schultz was elected by the majority of a league of humans who share the same defective cerebral traits and characteristics that would not be conducive for individual survival, and a large league of politicians who anointed her to the current position as their leader, who also share the same defective cerebral traits.

A list of the manifestations of Debbie’s defective and individually unsurvivable cerebral shortcomings:

  • Senior citizens will die under Paul Ryan’s budget;
  • Federal judges should be appointed based on their ability to feel people’s pain rather than their judicial qualifications;
  • At the peak of the Obama-extended recession, she stated that the economy was turning around as GDP, unemployment, foreclosures, and every other economic indicator demonstrated that the economy was tanking;
  • She has stated that she represents one of the largest African-American Jewish gay populations in the U.S., which happens to be in south Florida;
  • She stated that her Florida district will be covered in salt water if we don’t stop global warming now;
  • She blamed the Democrats for being soundly thrashed from the local to federal levels in the 2010 election cycle by “not articulating their accomplishments, to the voters” [sic];
  • Regarding Obama’s $1 billion dollar stimulus package that was needed to prevent the jobless rate from rising above 8%, and thus promptly rising to over 10%, she stated, “The mantra that the Recovery Act did not work is such baloney.”

For the sake of brevity, the list was judiciously forced into truncation, as its bounds are mathematically incapable of being determined, and the need to focus on the current state of Debbie Wasserman Schultz is scientifically imperative. Ensuing is an excerpt of Debbie Wasserman Schultz being interviewed by Gretchen Carlson regarding the current state of the record-breaking string of 34 months of unemployment over 8% since 1948. Debbie was gasping for breath during the interview, as she had been jumping and jumping, leaping and leaping, and trying her best to reach the bottom rung of the intelligence food chain ladder:

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he (Obama) took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on…

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because…

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office…

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

This exchange is the unfortunate result of always staring above from the bottom of the intellectual food chain. Now if Debbie had a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears, this is what she would have said:

As you know, Gretchen, Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. The number of unemployed Americans on that fateful date was 7.8%. The number of people with jobs on that fateful day, in thousands, was 133,563.

Then our President, Barack Obama, proceeded to grift this nation of cowards, with no discernible evidence, demanding that he needed to pass a $1 billion dollar stimulus package to prevent unemployment from cresting 8%. This stimulus package was passed, then the unemployment rate accelerated to 10%, dragging his stimulus package with it.

Just last month, the beguiled government calculus for determining the unemployment rate presented to the uninformed public, and my league of evolutionary challenged liberals, led to the good news that the unemployment rate dropped from 9% to 8.6%, despite setting a record high joblessness length of 41 straight weeks. An integral part of the government’s calculus is to dissever the workers who quit looking for jobs, and those whose unemployment benefits have run their course. Now Gretchen, of course any non-progressive or liberal knows that the undeniable unemployment rate is around 16%, but when you can manufacture a mathematical calculus that does not count 315,000 workers who gave up looking for work, or those whose unemployment benefits have run their course, of course you can get an 8.6% unemployment rate. In fact, Gretchen, I am not surprised that the Obama administration did not come up with an unemployment rate of 1.7% considering the endless opportunities of eliminating certain factions of the unemployed.

Keep in mind Gretchen, that this November, this past November of 2011, almost three years since Obama took office, the number of Americans employed is, in thousands, 131,708–a drop from 133,563 employed on the day Obama was inaugurated. Gretchen, can you reconcile that number with the claim by Obama that the unemployment rate has dropped? I can’t. Or from another angle, the number of Americans not in the labor force when Obama took office was, in thousands, 80,554, and the number currently not in the labor force, in thousands, 86,558.

Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies are adding about 100,000 jobs per month; the United States currently has 13.3 million unemployed. Now here is the math, Gretchen: At the current trajectory of adding jobs, it would take 11 years to employee the 13.3 million jobless Americans, and this would have to include the impossibility that nothing changes, and something always changes. Also, Obama and the Democrats are the proud owners of GDP growth of 1.9% in the first quarter of 2011, 1.3% in the second quarter, and 1.8% in the third quarter. Now Gretchen, as you know, it takes a GDP growth rate of a minimum of 3% to keep unemployment from trending up, and a minimum of a 125,000 newly created jobs per month just to keep pace with our population growth. Obama and the Democrats will need at least a GDP growth rate of 5% to have a significant impact on the unemployment rate. When Obama is overcome with jubilation, and dancing about on Pennsylvania Avenue about his increase of 100,000 jobs, keep in mind that 100,000 jobs does not even keep up with our population growth. With an average GDP growth rate of 3.28 since 1947, our economy needs at least a 3-3.5% GDP growth rate to be healthy, and Obama and the Democrats’ policies are producing an average GDP growth rate under 2%, well you do the math.

Remember also, Gretchen, that two quarters of negative GDP growth rate is technically a recession, but the impact of a recession starts with several quarters of a slowing GDP growth rate. Barack Obama and the Democrats’ policies have caused the GDP growth rate to decline from a high of 3.5% in 2010 to a consistent and steady drop for the past six quarters.

Wow, Gretchen, where is your shredder? I’m shredding my official Democratic Party membership card now, live on the air.

Of course this is all silly, as we know that Debbie does not have a fully functional and evolutionary updated cerebral apparatus between her ears. But if she did, she might want to ponder this question: Was the country better off under Bush’s recession with unemployment at 7.8%, or Obama’s miraculous recovery with an unemployment rate of 9.0%?

There is one important accolade I must bestow upon Debbie Wasserman Schultz: however intellectually defective she may be, however far down the intellectual food chain she is, she can comfortably look over her shoulder and know that the Republican Party, and its presidential primary process is several steps behind her, showing characteristics of prokaryotes.

One Response to “Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Curious Case of Evolution”

  1. L. Dupler says:

    I am sitting at my laptop, head down, eyes closed and laughing. I need this.

Leave a Reply

What is 8 + 13 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)