You'll love this. Yesterday Glenn Beck interviewed Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Osama bin Laden unit under Clinton and Bush II. He's so distraught over the final domino tumbling (60 Democratic Senators in Congress, Yippee!!!) that he wishes the terrorists would attack the USA.

"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."

Think for a minute if someone from the liberal side of the aisle said something like that. What words would be used to describe them?

Traitor?
Scum?
Terrorist-appeaser?
Anti-American?

Yup. All of those and more. Apparently IOKIYAR*

Watch it and weep.



*It's okay if you're a Republican.

I'm just sayin'...

Such good, good news. Norm Coleman did the gracious thing by bowing out after a scant eight fucking months of court challenges. What a righteous dude.

Fucker.

Watching this makes me feel all better, though.



I'm just sayin'...

This kind of thing is why I don't go to church anymore. No, most churches aren't this asinine, this completely oblivious to how far away from the true Word of Jesus Christ they are. But the fact that organized Christianity has this element in it makes it all too clear just how much a false construct the church is.

Pastor Urges His Flock to Bring Guns to Church
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Ken Pagano, the pastor of the New Bethel Church here, is passionate about gun rights. He shoots regularly at the local firing range, and his sermon two weeks ago was on “God, Guns, Gospel and Geometry.” And on Saturday night, he is inviting his congregation of 150 and others to wear or carry their firearms into the sanctuary to “celebrate our rights as Americans!” as a promotional flier for the “open carry celebration” puts it.

“God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” Mr. Pagano, 49, said Wednesday in the small brick Assembly of God church, where a large wooden cross hung over the altar and two American flags jutted from side walls. “I don’t see any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”
...
The bring-your-gun-to-church day, which will include a $1 raffle of a handgun, firearms safety lessons and a picnic, is another sign that the gun culture in the United States is thriving despite, or perhaps because of, President Obama’s election in November.

Source

It's true, "not every Christian denomination is pacifist." However, it also very true that not every Christian denomination is actually Christian in the sense that they are following His teachings. This one right here? It's one that doesn't.

Jesus was absolutely a pacifist.

Arrrggghh...

I'm just sayin'...

As you're probably aware by now, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled in the RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL case, overturning a decision by Sonia Sotomayor. I'll leave it to others to debate the pros and cons, goods and bads of this decision - I don't have enough knowledge of the law in this area to express an opinion. You might try this, this, or this for more analysis.

What I found positively amazing (even though I should know better) is that pundits on the Right have turned a 5-4 decision into a 9-0 decision in less than half a day.

Seriously.

Via Media Matters:

Less than an hour after the Ricci decision was announced on June 29, conservative Ed Whelan wrote a post for National Review Online's Bench Memos blog headlined "9-0 Against Sotomayor." Whelan noted that Ginsburg did say "if final adjudication by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party." Linking to Whelan's post, NRO's Kathryn Lopez tweeted: "9-0 Against Sotomayor."

Similarly, Laura Ingraham tweeted: "Re. the SCOTUS Ricci opinion...ignore spin that case not impt bc 5-4...it was 9-0 on Soto's summary judgment of firefighters claims!"

Shortly after noon, Rush Limbaugh claimed on his radio show: "If you read Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you'll find out it's a nine-zip decision because even those in the minority found that the 2nd Circuit botched this totally by not even having a trial.

I understand the frustration experienced by conservatives right now. We progressives have been there, we've felt that feeling that nothing ever seems to go right for us. But the conservatives pretty much WON on this one. Nearly every right-wing, conservative group, pundit, blogger or politician that has weighed in on this case was hoping it would be overturned.

And it was.

So why go through this ridiculous charade of saying it was 9-0? It wasn't. They are twisting the words of those that dissented to make it look as if the dissenters were somehow forced to rule in her favor (in their judicial minds) but that they felt in their heart of hearts that she was wrong. Or something. I don't get it.

Ed. Kathryn. Laura. Rush. Dudes, you won. You don't have to exaggerate it. You won. Get it? SCOTUS ruled the way you wanted them to. Are you so twitchy lately, so bereft of any sense of self-esteem that even in victory you have to puff yourself up to appear more powerful, more victorious, more RIGHT???

I wonder if you realize how positively pathetic and lame that makes you look.

I'm just sayin'...

Cross-posted at The Daily Kos.

Yesterday I participated in our local Organizing For America (OFA) National Health Care Day of Service in the Ypsilanti/Ann Arbor area. Our event was a health care fair where we brought together various agencies in the region to help people without health care find resources to help them with their situation.

I spent part of the day canvassing the neighborhood, letting people know about our fair and asking them to sign onto President Obama's Three Principles (more on that in a bit.) I spoke to one young guy who has availed himself of county health coverage program. But he refused to sign onto the Three Principles. Why? Because, he told me:

"I don't believe that health care is a right."

We had a beautiful day for our event. It was hot and sunny and clear. Several agencies participated and we had a number of neighbohood folks stop by. Here's the entrance to our event:



Here is a group of folks discussing single-payer health care and debating whether it should be pushed instead of the plan being put forth by the president right now:



During my canvassing, which took me back to last summer and fall, beating the pavement for the Campaign for Change, I talked to a number of people, primarily college students attending Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti. Nearly all of them knew someone without health care coverage and some face the loss of their own coverage when they graduate at the end of the summer or next year.

If these students who stand to lose their insurance coverage when they graduate were certain they were going to get a job when they graduate, they'd still go through the normal anxieties that graduating seniors go through:

What job offer should I accept?
What's it going to be like being on my own?
What will it be like to live in a new city where I have no family or friends?
Will I succeed in my new job?

But, with the economy the way it is right now and the prospects of landing a job after graduation much less certain, now young Americans have an additional anxiety:

What will I do without health care insurance?
What if I get sick?
What if I'm injured?
How will I pay for my medical bills and my college debt?

Suddenly this national issue is confronting young people in a more profound way than any other issue today.

A couple of the people I talked to told me they had friends from England or New Zealand or Canada and they just could not believe the wealthiest country in the world doesn't provide health care to its citizens as a manner of course. They just shake their heads and laugh at the absurdity of it.

I spoke to several people yesterday who participate in a very unique health plan offered by Washtenaw County called the Washtenaw Health Plan (WHP). It's an affordable program for County residents only and, according to their website covers:

• Doctor/Clinic Visits


• Outpatient lab and X-ray tests


• Prescriptions from pharmacies if on the list of covered drugs


• Limited mental health services


• Hospitalization at University of Michigan Hospital or St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Washtenaw County


• ER visits for true emergencies

However, at our health care fair, I learned that the County has 9,000 applicants for this coverage but only 6,000 spots. Which is why, when you go to the website, you will see this notice:



About 30% of the folks taking advantage of another program in the county actually have health coverage but still can not handle the financial burden, the so-called "under-insured". Most of these people work in the auto industry. As you know, in Michigan, the auto industry is rapidly disintegrating so additional strain is being put on the systems and programs already in place.

One of the people I spoke with was a twenty-something guy sitting on his porch with his laptop on his lap. I introduced myself as being from OFA and asked if he or anyone he knew had troubles getting the health care they needed.

"Nope, I'm covered," he said. "I've got WHP through the County."

"Ah," I said, "One of the lucky ones! So, another thing we're doing is asking people to sign a petition in support of the president's Three Principles for health care reform. Would you be interested in signing my petition?"

These three principles (you can read them HERE [pdf]) are:

• REDUCE COSTS — Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals, and families, and they must be brought under control


• GUARANTEE CHOICE — Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor – including the choice of a public insurance option


• ENSURE AFFORDABLE CARE FOR ALL —All Americans must have quality and affordable health care

"NO!" Twenty-something Guy said. "That's too much like socialism!"

"What do you mean?" I asked him.

"That'd be like Canada or something. And Candians come HERE for health care, that's how messed up their system is."

I thought for a second, pondering the fact that he had his and was perfectly content with that.

"So what do you say to the millions of people who don't have insurance?" I asked him.

He mumbled, "Well, there's Medicaid and stuff. There's things out there..."

And then he said:

"I just don't think health care is a right."

I really didn't have much else to say to this young man but, in retrospect, I wish I had engaged him a bit more. And if I hadn't had more houses to visit, I would have asked him some more questions. Like:

"Why are you okay with paying for police and fire protection for your community but not health care?"

"Isn't good health an essential component to Life and The Pursuit of Happiness, three of the inalienable rights?"

"Since we're all already paying for the health care of the uninsured and under-insured through higher costs of health care, wouldn't it benefit everyone if we provided health care to the whole country?"

What the whole experience made me realize is that there's a fundamental conversation that we as progressives need to be having with our friends and neighbors and coworkers and anyone who will listen. It's the fundamental question about whether or not health care coverage is a right or a privilege, something to be earned rather than something we can expect from society. Because while some people think we have a right to have guns, a right to free speech, a right to assemble and the rest, they very clearly do NOT see health care as something that's a right and until most people do, serious and effective reform will be very difficult.

So I urge you to think about this and to have some good answers about why health care in this country SHOULD be a right rather than a privilege. Because as long as it's a privilege then only the privileged will have it. And that makes us a poorer country.

I'm just sayin'...

Cross-posted at The Daily Kos.

For several days now I've been expressing my disgust at Governor Mark Sanford. According to his wife, Jenny, they were in a trial separation to help "strengthen their marriage" and then, less than a week later, off he goes to Argentina to be with his squeeze. Chances of their marriage succeeding after he pulls that little stunt? Oh, I'd say about ZERO percent.

Turns out that Ms. Sanford knew about the affair for several months and, according to her, "He was told in no uncertain terms not to see her."

"I was hoping he was on the Appalachian Trail. But I was not worried about his safety. I was hoping he was doing some real soul searching somewhere and devastated to find out it was Argentina. It's tragic."

The Associated Press interviewed her this week and there are some interesting new details in his interview.

To whit:

South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford sat in her oceanfront living room Friday, recalling how her husband repeatedly asked permission to visit his lover in the months after she discovered his affair.

"I said absolutely not. It's one thing to forgive adultery; it's another thing to condone it," Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press

I'm trying to imagine this and, well, it's pretty easy. My ex-wife did pretty much the same thing to me. I discovered her in an affair with a good friend and she repeatedly asked to go see him. I thought it was an aberration, that she was unique in being so clearly unbalanced enough to ask such a thing of me. Well, either she's not unique or Governor Sanford is equally unbalanced.

In the interview, she goes on to say:

The Sanfords had separated about two weeks ago. She said her husband told the family that he wanted some time away to work on writing a book and clear his head. The first lady said, "I had every hope he was not going to see her."

"You would think that a father who didn't have contact with his children, if he wanted those children, he would toe the line a little bit," she said.

Yes, you would think that, wouldn't you? You would think a man so vocally judgmental of others' moral position would have enough self-control to try to work through his fuck-up and keep his family together. This is, after all, the family he mentioned all the time when he was slamming others for their indiscretions and when he ran for office. But no. On Father's Day weekend he makes the ultimate Booty Call, half a continent away.

Turns out his paramour isn't exactly Ms. Morality, either. She was dating another man at the same time she was carrying on with Mark Sanford and "the other man" was, according to the New York Times, apparently the one who leaked Sanford's steamy emails to the The State newspaper:

Last December, the executive said, Ms. Chapur was dating a young Argentine a few months after her affair with Mr. Sanford began. The man happened to see the e-mail messages being exchanged between the governor and Ms. Chapur, said the executive — who said he had direct knowledge of the situation — and hacked into her e-mail account to see the rest.

Infuriated, the man sent the messages to The State, the newspaper in South Carolina’s capital, Columbia.

I feel sorry for Jenny Sanford. Like my situation, she found out about the affair when she came across some emails:

Sanford said she discovered her husband's affair early this year after coming across a copy of a letter to the mistress in one of his files in the official governor's mansion. He had asked her to find some financial information, she said, not an unusual request considering her heavy involvement in his career.

That's a tough moment. What's tougher is hearing the promises to quit having the affair only to see them broken. In Ms. Sanford's case, she has the much more excruciating pain of having the entire sordid affair played out in the national spotlight.

Here's my message to Ms. Sanford: You may feel like a bit of a fool right now but you are handling this the right way. You threw his ass out when he wouldn't give up trying to see his mistress. You didn't stand next to him during his ridiculous confessional press conference. And you are behaving with dignity and respect now. It's tough. There will be days when you feel like the biggest chump around. But know this: you will be glad later that you held you head up high and didn't embarrass your four sons.

Meanwhile, Governor Sanford, resign. Leave the office and don't come back. You clearly don't have the judgment or temperament to be a leader. For the same reasons you judged others so vociferously, you yourself must now exit stage left, never to return. And take your hypocrisy with you. Maybe, just maybe, if you do the decent, moral thing now, your sons will glean some semblance of a positive lesson from all of this.

That is the least you can do.

I'm just sayin'...

Burger King is the place to go if you want to get (your mind) blown.

Ad text:

"Fill your desire for something long, juicy and flame-grilled with the NEW BK SUPER SEVEN INCHER. Yearn for more after you taste the mind-blowing burger that comes with a single beef patty, topped with American cheese, crispy onions and the A1 Thick and Hearty Steak Sauce."

Perfectly subtle. I love that.

(H/T: Deus Ex Malcontent)

I'm just sayin'...

NSFW but fun without being gratuitous.


I'm just sayin'...

I came across a press release put out today by the Republican Study Commission. It's titled "10 Questions for the President on Health Care" and in it is a list of questions for President Obama on his plans to reform the healthcare system.

I expected them to dumb. That's what the Goposaurs are best at these days. And they were, for the most, really dumb. What I didn't expect was that they would compare the nation's healthcare system to McDonalds, Major League Baseball and the neighborhood babysitter.

But they did.

The press release starts out like this:

In light of today’s collaboration between ABC News and the Obama administration on the topic of health care reform, there are a few questions we’d like the President to answer.

Here are the questions and some commentary from moi on each of them:

Question 1: During the debate on the so-called stimulus package, your estimates on future unemployment and economic recovery proved to be wildly off-base. Why should Americans now believe you that they will not be forced out of the private coverage they enjoy, as basic economics would dictate?

Wildly off-base? Nice try. The president's team has been quite candid during the debate and also said if the stimulus didn't have the desired impact, they'd change it so that it did. But the part I really don't understand is how "basic economics" dictates that Americans will be "forced out of the private coverage they enjoy". That simply makes no sense.

Companies will endeavor to remain competitive. In order to attract the best talent, they will offer the best healthcare coverage they can afford to provide to their employees. A public option will help to keep down costs and this will help businesses to provide good private insurance, not encourage them to discontinue it.

That's a little something I like to call "basic economics"

Question 2: Despite your assertions that health care reform will save money, the reality is that plans proposed by Democrats would cost taxpayers between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. How does this save money and how will you pay for this?

This is a fair question but it's ironic that you would ask it given that you put forth a plan of your own that has no numbers in it and no explanation of how it will be paid for. Pay attention. Go to his website. The information is there, you just have to pull your fingers out of your ears and quitting shouting "NO! NO!! NO!!!" as loudly as you can.

Question 3: If, as you claim, a government-run option is essential to maintaining honest competition in the health insurance market, why is it not also true that we need a government-run competitor in the fast food industry, neighborhood babysitting, or Major League Baseball?

Really? No, really. Really???!!! I'm almost without a response to inanity like this. Can it possibly be true that the Republicans don't realize that we don't have a National Fast Food Costs Crisis? Or a National Neighborhood Babysitter Costs Crisis? Or an effing Major League Baseball Costs Crisis? Do they think that affordable healthcare coverage for ALL Americans is as trivial and OPTIONAL as having a Big Mac or a Whopper or getting a babysitter for the night or going to a baseball game? REALLY???!!!

Jay-zuss...

Question 4: Proponents of a government-run option, you included, claim that it will compete on a level playing field with private insurance providers. In that case, will your government-run plan operate under a for-profit model and be forced to pay all applicable state, federal, and local taxes?

First of all, the healthcare itself isn't going to be run by the government. Everyone with two brain cells to bang together understands this. It's the insurance that PAYS FOR the healthcare that will be government-run. And why on earth would a program run by the government be a profit-making venture? The idea here, in case you didn't get the memo, is to LOWER healthcare costs, not make a buck off sick people. That, of course, is the business model of the health insurance companies the Republicans are referring to.

Question 5: How do you expect to meet the growing need for physicians and medical professionals if the government-run plan pays lower than market rates to physicians while forcing them to participate or lose a majority of their patients and their livelihood?

I'll take this one, Mr. President. It's easy. Keeping healthcare costs low doesn't mean short-changing doctors. It means cutting out the profits that flow into the pockets of insurance company execs and their shareholders and using them to ... wait for it ... heal sick people. Crazy, isn't it? Can't imagine why nobody has thought of this before.

Question 6: If the government mandates that all Americans purchase health insurance, it must also define what qualifies as health insurance. Can you provide us your definition (with details please) and explain how this definition will not limit innovation and choice in health care?

I don't know the answer to this one but I would suggest that nuanced descriptions/definitions of what constitutes "health insurance" are probably a bit further down the road. Right now we're trying get past ridiculous roadblocks being put up by Republicans and some rather douchey Democrats and get the whole thing moved forward. Quit shouting "NO! NO!! NO!!!" and quit talking about "health care co-ops" and other disingenuous bullshit that thwarts progress and help reform health care for all Americans. We can quibble over the definitions later.

Question 7: According to the House Democrats’ plan, a family of four with an income of $88,200, four times the federal poverty level, would qualify for health insurance subsidies. In your view, is this a subsidy for low-income Americans or an effort to use taxpayers to put more health care under the purview of the federal government?

Dumb question, really dumb question, not worth an answer. Next?

(Actually, knowing our President, he'll answer them with a quick "What do YOU think?" Heh.)

Question 8: The new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is charged with determining what treatments should be offered to patients. Do you believe that these personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors, or by unaccountable bureaucrats?

The better question to ask in light of our current system is "Do you believe that these personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors, or by unaccountable bureaucrats non-medical insurance company employees who are given bonuses and other incentives to deny coverage whenever possible in an effort to maximize corporate profits?"

Question 9: Why are there no actively practicing physicians included in the membership of the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research?

Probably because physicians with public health policy expertise are mostly not practicing medicine right now, they're helping to shape public policy. That's why they are experts. There are, however, nine M.D.s on the Council. Out of 15 members. That's [multiply by 4 ... carry the 2 ... take the square root ...] 60%!!!

Question 10: If the final reform proposal is controversial enough that it will not receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats have left open the possibility of using a procedural move to pass it with only 51 votes. Do you believe massive changes to such a vital area of American life should be pushed through in this manner with only 51 votes?

It only takes three words to answer this question:

Elections. Have. Consequences.

Deal with it. Just like we did when George W. Bush stole the election in 2000. And while you're at it, would you please solve the National McDonalds Crisis? 'Cause I'm hungry.

I'm just sayin'...

First it was tire gauges. Then it was tea bags. And now it's candles.

Really, the Republicans desperately need to hire some good PR people because their messaging lately has been positively comical.

Cap-and-Trade Candles? Really?

Cap-and-Trade Candles. Really.

...the RNC sent a candle to House members this morning with a note attached.

"If Democrats pass 'Cap and Tax,' this is all the energy American families and businesses will be able to afford," the note says. "Don't tax our lights out!"

They also put out one of their oh-so-awesome YouTube vids:


From The Hill's Blog:

In a PR blitz to kick off the week, the RNC released a web video and sent props to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, warning them to not "tax our lights out" by way of passing the Waxman-Markey bill.

The web video shows several people using appliances around their homes before the power goes out, and they have to light up a candle, after which they facetiously "thank" President Obama.

This is the kind of gimmickry that comes from a party with no fresh ideas or direction to lead in. Rather than offering legitimate alternatives to the Democrats' and President Obama's ideas, they simply stomp their precious li'l feets, shout NO! and then hand you some stupid trinket in a completely FAIL attempt at being clever.

I desperately wanted one of those tire gauges and actually wrote to Mike Rogers, my congressman at the time, to see if I could get one. I just knew they would be come collectors items, antique examples of how pathetic and lame a political party can become when it has no leadership and no ideas. I never got one. He was probably too embarrassed...

Think Progress points out that it's also a complete fallacy:

In reality, the Congressional Budget Office found last Friday [pdf] “that the net annual economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — or about $175 per household” — less than the cost of a postage stamp a day. The CBO analysis, done at the request of Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), found that the 23 million Americans “in the lowest income quintile — would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020.”

Strangely (or not), conservatives are still pushing the meme that cap-and-trade legistlation would, as the Wall Street Journal recently put it, "probably destroy the economy, reduce the dollar to junk status, and end the U.S. as a free and productive country as we know it."

Riii-iiight...

For instance, Nancy Thorner at American Thinker wrote just today:

There is massive deceit taking place among advocates of global warming through doctored data, misrepresented study findings, and flawed computer simulations that amounts to a government-created Ponzi scam that surpasses the shame of the Madoff scandal. As such global warming is not and never was the crisis so many politicians and activists claim it is. Fraud by investment gurus earn them jail and fines; no punishment awaits fraud on the public by government officials.

Efforts made to control emissions of greenhouse gases would not only be ineffective and completely pointless as carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant, but also extremely expensive. The net result of the Waxman-Markey energy bill would be to vastly expand power in Washington, D.C., while functioning as a tax on the American people by raising the cost of energy and the price paid for all goods and services.

This came out the day after the CBO's report. It ignores the CBO's findings and, more importantly, ignores the fact that there are actually economic benefits that were not addressed in the CBO report that would make the financial impact even less.

Paul Krugman weighs in the cap-and-trade bill on his blog The Conscious of a Liberal:

A while back ... I cited Robert Samuelson, who ridiculed the Environmental Defense Fund for suggesting that major action on greenhouse gases would only cost a dime a day per person.

Now comes the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the cost to households of Waxman-Markey in 2020 at $22 billion — which, given a projected population of 335 million, comes to 18 cents a day. Hah! EDH was being over-optimistic. Seriously, EDF was essentially right: the costs of cap-and-trade are very, very low.

So not only are they launching a completely childish and pathetic PR campaign to smear Cap-and-Trade (which they call "Cap-and-Tax", of course.) They are also, as usual, completely wrong and are pushing an "idea" that is based on false premise.

What a surprise.

Gonna have to see if I can get me one of those candles now.

I'm just sayin'...