God is to blame

Indignant Bible thumper and fierce advocate for "the family" and "family values" Mark Souder (R-IN) was caught a few weeks back carrying on affairs with someone who was not his wife or the Lord. He resigned. It was a tremendous shock to everyone. I mean a moralizing blowhard being hoisted on his own petard and being revealed as a gross hypocrite? Hardly ever happens. Especially not to right wing religious fundamentalists. Actually, it was kind of shocking that he wasn't a closeted gay guy like about 90% of the others.

Not content to slink off in shame and not embarrass himself in public any further, Souder decided he needed to let everyone have another go around and mocking him.

"I prayed multiple times a day, sang hymns with emotion and tears, felt each time that it wouldn't happen again, read the Bible every morning. . . . So how in the world did I have a 'torrid' (which is an accurate word) many-year affair?"

Is it because you seemingly expected an invisible bearded man in the sky to get up off his golden throne, teleport down to earth, and zip your pants up for you? That you sang songs about Hos-an-na in the high-est instead of focusing on not fucking another person or dealing with emotional or marital problems you were having? That you never realized that prayer is easily defeated by bare breasts?

No, clearly God is to blame here. He failed to stop you after you clearly said His magic words and sang His magic songs. Maybe He did hear your cries, it's just that in the immortal words of Frank Zappa: Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk. Maybe you were confusing Yahweh by yelling "Oh God! Oh God!" during the various affairs.

Anyway, He clearly let you down, Mark. Expect a handwritten apology letter to appear in a torilla in Juarez sometime over the summer.

Don't use the M-word

Ahh, consider the fate of America's crotchety old grampa, John McCain. Once the standard bearer of his party's shitty standard he is now forced to duke it out in a GOP primary against a man who might be more retarded than the woman he picked to be his VP running mate. Which is saying something.

So now as he's forced to duke it out in a primary with a man who believes Obama is a Kenyan, the man/horse marriage is a grave threat, and was driven from office because of his ties to Jack Abramoff. And he's in danger of losing to him. So Grampa Walnuts is doing the kind of thing that only a man of his incredible integrity and dignity can do: tack as hard to the right as possible and virulently disavow the brand you've spent the past decade annoyingly cultivating. RIP Maverick.

John McCain — who built his political persona and his 2008 presidential campaign around the claim that he’s a “maverick” — told Newsweek recently: “I never considered myself a maverick.”

When POLITICO asked McCain about the contradiction at the Capitol this week, the Arizona Republican grew visibly irritated and snapped: “I’ve been called a thousand things. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

He said 48 percent of the homeowners in his state are underwater on their mortgages. He said he’s always “done what’s best for my state and the nation.” Then he said it again, adding, “People can consider me whatever they want.”

And then he darted into the Senate chamber without explaining himself further.

That principle: getting elected by any means necessary while getting as much TV and media face time as can possibly be stained for himself and basking in the media adoration of being called a maverick. Which you aren't allowed to call him anymore.

Furthermore, he's not sure why anyone would even use that term to refer to him. I mean it's as if you go and spend the better part of several years, including a Presidential campaign, calling yourself that, calling your running mate that, noting how you're a team of that forbidden word, and constantly referring to yourself with that word so much that it became a running joke... well it's almost like people will keep using that word to describe you. The outrage! Don't they know he's not a maverick and has never heard the word before? He's a dyed in the wool Republican who would never shun the party for his own shallow political goals.

We'd just like to salute Senator McCain for hitting that final low point. We thought it came when he tarnished his entire reputation as a man of integrity an honor by running a third rate, gutter dwelling, half-witted campaign. No, it was when, in an attempt to beat a blithering idiot in a primary, he renounced the word and principles he practically tried to get people to use instead of his name.

Maybe there's a lower point, like running with Sarah Palin again or attempting to get votes by barking like a dog or being part of a County Fair dunktank in full clown make-up, but I don't see that happening. Unless JD Hayworth really looks like he's going to win. Then McCain might try to call himself the Original Hayworth and claim he has proof of Obama's Kenyan heritage. It's a complex process being the Man With The Most Integrity In Washington. The pressure is apparently getting to him. Let's hope he goes crazy in a more entertaining way than this.

Chuck did it

Now that health reform is truly and finally over, no take backsies and no do overs, we're finally starting to see some of the GOP messaging form for their election campaign later in the year. Aside from all the veiled calls to violence and apocalyptic musings, the main message is centered around repeal.

To which the Democratic response has been "Sure! Which part do you want to argue for repealing in an election: the parts about preexisting coverage, the parts about covering children, the parts about discrimination, the parts that cut the deficit, or the parts that make health care cheaper?" The President almost peed himself laughing at the thought of it. Some of the more honest Republicans have admitted that repealing the bill is pretty much impossible as long as Obama is in the White House and that this is all effectively a big circle jerk in an echo chamber. Even the phony lawsuits, mostly filed by state AG's trying to run for higher office, are centered on the one same main theme: getting people riled up and angry without any real intent to do what you say you're going to do.

But former Gang of Six GOP negotiator and death panel aficionado Chuck Grassley is deciding to take another road.

In the memo send out to reporters by his staff on on the Senate Finance Commitee, Grassley claims that the bill will ensure that "Congress, the IRS, and the public will now
have additional tools and information to ensure that charitable hospitals act charitably."

There's a reason the bill is so good when it comes to hospitals, Grassley's staff writes -- bipartisanship.

"The health care legislation signed into law yesterday includes provisions Grassley co-authored to impose standards for the tax exemption of charitable hospitals for the first time," his Finance Committee press staff writes.

Yeah, he's praising the bill and trying to take credit for it. Uh-oh, looks like someone is going to be put in crosshairs on Sarah Palin's Facebook page. RELOAD!

You know I think this is going to go the way of the stimulus. Republicans decry the measure as not working and then go home to stand in front of big checks and tout jobs that they and they alone have brought to their district and state by means of the magical incantation of STIM-HYOO-LUSS and the waving of a wand. I guess Grassley thinks this think might be popular once the talk of killing granny and defiling her corpse out of the equation. We'd just like to congratulate Chuck on the new land speed record he set for backtracking. I hope he didn't get any severe whiplash or neck injuries from the sudden directional change. Ahh fuck it, he's got health care, it doesn't matter.

Not getting it

Karl Rove is a busy man. Not only does he have the time to do commentary for Fox News, write a book, cut a bloody swath through the fact-checking community, give Stephen Colbert new ham based material, engage in the black arts that keep his 3,000 year old body alive for one more 24-hour period ,take pride in torture, and poison the area gopher population for free around his local community, but he also has time to make extremely loaded statements that show little to no self awareness of that administration he was in and that President he served.

Take it away, Turd Blossom.

ROVE:...they let a cowboy president try to act in an extra-constitutional way to violate a fundamental principle in the Constitution, all without having done their homework in advance.

What's Karl talking about? Is that a reference to himself letting Bush and Cheney run wild? Is he trying to blame other staffers for the mistakes and crimes of the Bush Administration? Is he trying to place blame on Congressional Democrats and Republicans for failing to utilize their oversight on the White House?

No, he's attacking the Obama Administration for not sitting back and allowing a military coup overthrow the democratically elected President of Honduras. Of course he is. You know maybe we should take him at his word on this. I mean if anyone could deadeye a cowboy President violating the Constitution at 100 paces, it's Karl Rove. Hell he studied at the feet of the master for nearly eight years. He could teach the course.

On the other hand, he clearly doesn't understand what's in our Constitution, so how can we expect him to know what's in Honduras' Constitution or even where Honduras is?

But the man is an expert on homework. I mean how could you accuse your opponent of fathering a black lovechild out of wedlock if you hadn't done the research to learn that they adopted a Bangladeshi child ahead of time?

No, he's an expert. We should listen to him. Obama: let military coups go through! We all saw what wonders it did for Haiti. Remember to send that thank you note to Bush, Cheney, and Rove.

I like the sound of this

It seems that this might be the week that Democrats finally get off their asses to begin taken the steps to considering having the House vote on the Senate bill and the Senate using reconciliation to pass the conference committee changes to the health care bills that they already passed.

But that second part, the reconciliation part, has some of our friends on the GOP side screaming bloody murder. See, reconciliation isn't supposed to be used to pass things like health care, it's supposed to be used to pass things like tax cuts for the rich that add $1.8 trillion to the deficit. And even then, only Republicans are allowed to do it. But Sen. Lamar Alexander, not only sees the danger of reconciliation, he's warning us of possible horrible horrors that await.

"But the difference here is, that there’s never been anything of this size and magnitude and complexity run through the Senate in this way. There are a lot of technical problems with it, which we could discuss. It would turn the Senate, it would really be the end of the Senate as a protector of minority rights, the place where you have to get consensus, instead of just a partisan majority."

Wait, so not only would this country improve it's health care and coverage systems... it would also end the Senate? Theoretically end, fundamentally end, or end in a fiery explosion that sends flame covered blowhards from Tennessee cartwheeling through the sky and into the Potomac? And it's it's the third one, can the Senate end that way by the weekend and can we get extensive HD coverage of it?

I just want to know how the four previous times Alexander voted for reconciliation didn't end the Senate. Maybe it's a cumulative thing.

I wonder why Democrats would have to take this extraordinary, Senate murdering step to trample over the "minority right" of the GOP to completely halt any attempt at governance? Could perhaps an unrelated news article explain it to me?

Last year, the first of the 111th Congress, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the first two months of 2010, the number already exceeds 40.

That means, with 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple the old record.

Seems to me like that's the sort of thing that should be combated with the tyranny of majority rule. Majority rule, of course, being confined to measures that slightly modify already passed bills that only affects the budgetary process and does not add to the deficit.

So sure, I'd like it if we might get to have a semi-functional government again and get health care. But if it throws GOP Senators into a hilarious hissy fit and destroys the US Senate? Then I'm doubly for it. Triple even. Get destroying.

Why couldn't this be the Boehner that went missing in Vancouver?

Of all the complaints about the health care bill (socialism~!, it'll murder the fuck out of my grandma, liberal tyranny) one of my favorites was "this bill is just too long, too incomprehensibly long." Because what is a more valid complaint against health reform and for continued inaction than that? Bills comprised of laws, rules, regulations, and new agencies governing the health care for Americans should be short! Why all the unneeded complexity when dealing with the entirety of the health care system? Shouldn't a simple problem like our broken health care system have a solution that is one, maybe two pages tops?

It's logical. And boy was that health care bill long. So yesterday when Obama released his 11 page health care plan, you'd think conservatives would be jumping for joy, right? I think you know where this is going.

A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner today ridiculed President Obama's health care proposal because it's too short.

"The White House's 'plan' consists of an 11-page outline, which has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office or posted online as legislative text. So they want to reorganize one-sixth of the United States' economy with a document shorter than a comic book, and they're complaining that they can't find our plan on their own website? C'mon," said the spokesman, Michael Steel, in an email to reporters.

C'mon, this is serious business! Something as important and all encompassing as health care shouldn't be relegated to a minuscule 11 pages. Try taking government seriously for once, Barry. Serious governance involves no more than 230 pages, no less than seven uses of the phrase "fuckin' liberals", includes two plugs for glennbeck.com, refers negatively to either the "shambling golem of European socialism" or "the icy black hand of government sponsored kill squads", and doesn't in any way address the health care needs of Americans.

Sure, the Obama "plan" wasn't so much a plan as it was several, easy tweaks to the Senate bill to improve it, but.... shortness... bad! Longness... also bad! Goldilocks would not eat this health care porridge, for it is not just right and she is in imminent danger of bear attack.

So thank you Boehner, for proving once again that there is literally no way any Democrat can ever win with you. Thank God that health care summit is still on, because I'm sure you have lots of useful ideas on page length, margins, double spacing, and font choice that are absolutely integral to this health reform debate.

It's cold out

It's a banner season for climate change denialists. With God deciding to take a look at the Mid-Atlantic and go "what if the Great Flood was frozen this time!", that unequivocally proves once and for all that because it is cold and snowing in one area, climate change is a sad, deluded, clinically disproven myth. Except, you know, when the science says the opposite. But who listens to science?

But we already knew that the science for global warming dries up the second someone, somewhere feels slightly colder than usual. But what happens when places where it's supposed to be cold are warmer than usual during periods when it's supposed to be cold? Like places where they're supposed to be holding wintry athletic competitions in the outdoors? And these places are theoretically are having to push back events, refund tickets, and helicopter in snow because of seasonal temperature highs, rain, and melting ruining said wintry athletic courses?

What ever could be the reason? Tim Gayda, the vice president of sport for the Vancouver organizing committee, do you have any idea?

Warm, wet El Niño winds from Hawaii that occasionally bring unseasonably warm weather around the region are known locally as the “pineapple express,” but the effects rarely last more than a few days.
...
“We really shattered the all-time record,” he said. “It’s El Niño, and there’s something else that nobody understands at this point. It’s El Niño Plus.”

Yes. What ever could it be? I'm assuming the proper winter Gods were not placated, or perhaps Apollo was over placated. Anyway, while Vancouver might not understand why it's events are melting or why the Olympic Committee is now openly talking about having to take climate, temperature, and other planetary heating trends into account for the future, former Olympic Games host Utah knows what it isn't.

Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
...
The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".
...
By the time the final version of the bill came to a vote, cooler heats apparently prevailed. The bill dropped the word "conspiracy", and described climate science as "questionable" rather than "flawed".

It's all magic, unknowable weather, angry deities, or just patterns that somehow seems to mystically link up with the deluded conspiracy theories of crooked scientists looking to bamboozle the public and thieve money out of the lucrative endless cash pile that is climate science. Funny how it always works out that way.

I'm just glad we learned two important climate facts. Cold and snowy here means global warming is a myth no matter what actual science says. Unseasonably warm weather in a wintry place means... LOOK OVER THERE!!! *runs away*

That's different

Hey, remember back a few years ago when Richard Reid tried to blow up an airplane with his shoes and failed? Remember how he was arrested, put on trial within the American legal system, and sentenced to serve a life sentence in an American prison? And how all of this happened under the watchful eye of the Bush Administration and DHS Secretary Tom Ridge? Well, if you're remembering something like that, it's probably because someone has tampered with your memories. THAT NEVER HAPPENED, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THAT NEVER HAPPENED!

In fact, despite the similarities between the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, even down to the explosive type, the fact that we're going to try Abdulmutallab in a court with laws and shit just proves that President Obama is a week-kneed weak weak-ass who is weakening the country with his weaky weaking on matters of national strongness. Letting this man into our legal system is a violation of all we stand for. Just listen to former DHS head and hypocrite Tom Ridge:

"I take a look at this individual who has been charged criminally, does that mean he gets his Miranda warnings? The only information we get is if he volunteers it?" Ridge said. "He's not a citizen of this country. He's a terrorist, and I don't think he deserves the full range of protections of our criminal justice system embodied in the Constitution of the United States."

Hell, even Former Vice-President Cheney came out to opine on the matter, grunting the same line of cliches he usually does out of whatever orifice it is he speaks out of these days:

"As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war.
...
But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war?"

Because he's a liberal pussy that hates America? I thought we were all clear on this.

But what is their response to the fact that when they had a crazy foreign Muslim come to this country and fail to blow up an airliner with a hidden cache of PETN, that they felt it OK to arrest him (the shame), Mirandize him (the horror), charge him in US courts (Constitution shattering), try him in US courts (shanking freedom in the gut), and house him in US prisons (retroactively negating America through a time-space wormhole)?

*crickets chirping* *silence* *off in the distance... a wolf howls*

I'm sure they meant to say "That never happened" or, if someone actually points out that it did happen, a nicely timed "Well, circumstances were different" ought to suffice. I just think it's a shame both of these guys couldn't come out a dramatically/hypocritically politicize this on the day it happened. We're five days past it. These guys must be slipping.

Nobel speechishness

Today our President got his Nobel Prize for Excellence in the Field of Not Being George W. Bush. He talked about humility, gratitude, and feeling he was not up to the standards of previous winners. But because some wags in the world community refer to this prize by it's alternate name, the Nobel Peace Prize, Barry was forced to discuss the fact that he's accepting an award for peace while escalating a war. Awk-waaaaaard.

“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth,” Mr. Obama said. “We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
...
“Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this,” Mr. Obama said. “The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”
...
“The goal is not to win a popularity contest or to get an award — even one as esteemed as the Nobel Peace Prize,” Mr. Obama said. “The goal is to advance American interests, make ourselves a continuing force for good in the world — something that we have been for decades now.”

Ah yes, going in front of the Nobel Committee to declare that, sure, war is bad, but you're different because, unlike all those other assholes, you're fighting a "just war." Nicely played, I'm sure only everyone who ever started or escalated a war in the entire recorded history of man would make that argument. At the very least it, this speech must have set the record for most saber rattling during a humanitarian award speech, narrowly beating out Gandhi's declaration that he'd "beat the fuck out of any Englishman who looked at him cockeyed" after his 1937 nomination to the Nobel short-list.

But one must appreciate the balls of the President to go to the Nobel ceremony and call them all naive for not believing enough in the power of war and military action to make peace. And what better example than America? Other than most of the wars in the post-WWII period that were fought for political reasons to the benefit of no one and discounting nearly every action of the CIA, America has certainly been the shining example of peace through military might. The sooner they understand that the sooner they stop snickering when you mention that you're going to throw more billions and thousands of lives down a hole in order for little obvious gain.

So Barry got his award, justified the seeming disconnect between peace and war, and the Nobel committee achieved their goals of being photographed next to the hip black guy. On the bright side, his award acceptance speech probably vaulted him to the front of the list for the George Orwell War-is-Peace Prize. I can't wait for that speech.

The last honest man

If you didn't already really, really hate Joe Lieberman with the fire of a thousand suns, our great newspapers have taken it upon themselves this week to try and take that loathing and crank it up into the two or three thousand sun range.

First there was the Wall Street Journal's epic paen to Joe, in which thousands of words are spent memorializing and lauding self-aggrandizing narcissism, hypocritical self-interest, inflated egotism, spite vendettas, and self commissioned statue building. The story really should become the dictionary definition for fellatio, or at least "media fellatio."

The Washington Post took a different angle, showing why everyone hates Joe Lieberman and attempting a pushback on the large bullshit parade he attempt to lead any time he opens his mouth. It's a nice catalogue of grievances, but at the end of the story, while discussing his disdain for the public option, it drops this little nugget:

“He keeps saying over and over that we can’t afford the public option, but the question is whether we can afford the subsidies,” said John Holahan of the Urban Institute.

Confronted with the cost-saving assessments of a strong public option, Lieberman concedes the point, but he says an aggressive government-run plan would put undue pressures on medical providers and force them to shift costs to private insurers. Put simply, he opposes the public option in any form, regardless of whether it reduces costs.

That's right, his "principled" opposition to the public option fully concedes that it would save money. If he knows that, he knows the stronger a public option is, the more money that it saves. Yet still he opposes one. Yet God is still refusing to hit him with a flaming rock from the sky.

So there, just mull that one over as you get to read over and over that the public option was just removed from the Senate health reform bill. Swish that one around the 'ole palate. Push the rage deep down inside and save it for another day, so when you see the inevitable news story praising him for his "contributions" and "action" during the health care debate you can explode out with an emphatic "THATFUCKINGSONOFABITCH", perhaps directed at a loved one or small child. As you think over how hard this man worked to take money out of your pocket and degrade your health care options, one thought will rattle around in your head: "Thanks Connecticut. Thanks for electing him." They're welcome.

Ignore what we said yesterday

It's official. We've reached that point in the health care debate where blind opposition to various aspects of health care has degraded to the point where you aren't even going to be required to stay consistent on an hour-to-hour or day-to-day basis. I'm disappointed, I had $100 bucks on this happening a month ago.

But, as MediaMatters illustrates, it's better late than never. From the assorted press releases from the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Dec. 6: Cutting Medicare is not what Americans want

And despite the inherent bullshit involved in that lie, when it became clear that, as a compromise, that Democrats were discussing the possibility of opening up Medicare to people at age 55 plus some other things in lieu of a public option, came this:

Dec. 7: Expanding Medicare ‘a plan for financial ruin’

So....do nothing? Or is there a press release also attacking Democrats for doing nothing?

Gentlemen, do you see what happens when you try to make an actual policy argument? You contradict yourself and look like asses all within a 24 hour period. Just stick to " is going to kill grandma". It works if they're going to cut benefits, keep benefits the same, or add people into the system. All could potentially kill grandma. In horrifically painful ways. Don't get into the merits of this idea or that idea, just focus on highlighting what has worked thte best: the Democrats unending obsession with liquidating pensioners.

She just doesn't get it

What is it with some of our lawmakers trying to challenge commonly held ideas in our government? First it was David Obey trying to convince people that war wasn't free. Now it's Barbara Boxer trying to convince people that someone other than old, white conservative men from rural states are the best judges of what to do with a woman's body. Furthermore, she's trying to do it by noting obvious hypocrisies in what Ben Nelson's abortion bill allows for women and what the current bill allows for men.

BOXER: There’s nothing in this amendment that says if a man some days wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider. I wouldn’t support that. And they shouldn’t support going after a woman using her own private funds for her reproductive health care. Is it fair to say to a man you’re going to have to buy a rider to buy Viagra and this will be public information that could be accessed? No, I don’t support that. I support a man’s privacy, just as I support a woman’s privacy.

Babs, I think our government had been extremely clear about one thing: lady parts are icky, boners are awesome.

I know you might think that it's somewhat hypocritical that we have bills to regressively restrict actual medical procedures for women, co-sponsored by what looks like the roster for Satan's baseball team, while we deem it OK for hard-on pills to get covered. But that's probably because your ladybrain got confused as to whether you have dominion over your own body and the extent to which hard-ons are radical. Don't let it happen again.

This makes too much sense

Another day, another person who just doesn't understand that military spending doesn't count because war is free. This time the uneducated sap is Rep. David Obey (D-WI), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He thinks, get this, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing us too much money. So much so that when the President announces his Afghanistan troop increase, he's going to suggest and try to make it so that the cost of that escalation is bidget neutral and doesn't add to the deficit. Ha! Deficit neutrality is only reserved for things that might help the American peasant class, Dave. This is about blowing up brown people what good, so not only is it free, but you make the baby Jesus cry if you vote against it or impede it in any way. Seriously, a war tax?

"There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News. "If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it."

Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam, Obey said that both were long-standing civil wars and that, in each case, the United States found itself with an unreliable partner on the ground.

"On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement," Obey said. "But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don't, if we don't pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy."

"If we have to pay for the healthcare bill, we should pay for the war as well," Obey said, "by having a war surtax."

Taxing our elite to raise billions to pay for a war? My good man, the only word for that is class warfare. Sure it makes good sense, is deficit neutral, and forcing government to pay for our military shenanigans by taking it out of all of our pocketbooks with a big bolded line on our paycheck that says "WAR TAX!" would actually force this country to pay attention to things politicians do in their name, but these are also the reasons it will never pass. Instead it will be relegated to the "too good an idea to ever be made into a law" pile with single payer health care, comprehensive financial sector regulation, and a "No Texans" policy in government.

So, nice try Mr. Obey, you came up with a good idea that makes a lot of sense and seems to have some support. Unfortunately it makes a little too much sense, as well as forcing hundreds of members of Congress to confront their absolutely hypocritical double standard on deficits and spending. So sadly the halls of Government will echo with people laughing at you and calling your idea "gay". But it was a nice try, Dave, it was a nice try.

Kristof, you poor naive bastard

Ahh, Nick Kristof. Nicholas, Nicholas, Nicholas, what to do with you? You're a good man, write good columns on important things, and you seem to be respected. But Christ are you naive. I bet you thought you were pretty damn clever when you pointed out the eagerness of celebrity seeking political degenerates like Joe Lieberman to spend hundreds of billions and thousands of lives in pointless wars, but unwilling to spend billions on health care and saving thousands of lives. Hell, I've made that point a few times here on the Internet's only political commentary and fake news blog, These Bastards.

While I am accusing you of stealing my thoughts and a lawsuit is forthcoming, where your fault lies is in the fact that you actually expect a reasoned answer for the disconnect and think that by pointing out this seeming incongruity you can somehow shame our elected betters, or mainstream media betters, or apathetic voters into noticing and punishing those who transgress this hypocrisy. You poor poor bastard.

So if President Obama dispatches another 30,000 or 40,000 troops, on top of the 68,000 already there, that would bring the total annual bill for our military presence there to perhaps $100 billion — or more. And we haven’t even come to the human costs.

As for health care reforms, the 10-year cost suggests an average of $80 billion to $110 billion per year, depending on what the final bill looks like.
...
On the other hand, the health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

My God, what is this? Is it your first year covering politics? Doesn't this seem odd? No, it seems perfectly normal. You want to know why we're so eager to spend a trillion dollars a year on defense spending and wars? Because that money doesn't count. Yup, no matter how much money we spend on blowing up brown people and building aircraft carriers, it never, ever, ever counts as spending money. In fact there is no logic ascribed to any dollar spent on defense. I mean that's why President Obama can cut the rate at which military spending increases and still everyone pretends like he's actually cut military spending. That's why $100 billion more for a war that's already costing hundreds of billions a year is perfectly fine, while $90 billion a year for health care is a crippling debt that we're foisting on our children, who'll have to give 5 cent handjobs in alleys to Chinese businessmen just to pay off the interest. The same principle works for tax cuts for the rich. Those don't count either, no matter how much they increase deficits.

But this is the key reason that politicians love spending on wars but hate spending on improving the lives of people, Nick: there is no part of the health care bill that will make a politician feel like his dick is huge or that he is, in fact, the manliest, burliest fucking manly man on the planet. Even the smallest defense appropriations bill does that a million, or should I say trillion, times over. You ever tried to chestbump a dude after cutting heealth care costs for Americans? Awwwwkwaaaaard. On the other hand nothing is better than a high five after a predator drone wipes out some mountain village.

The reason people like the world's greatest man, Joe Lieberman, won't vote for decent health care reform, I mean besides petty spite, is because it just doesn't get their cocks rock hard. No one gets their cocks hard over health reform, except maybe Ron Wyden, he's.....a little weird. This is the biggest failing of the health reform movement. Obama never walked around talking about the wood he got when he thought of saving 45,000 lives a year. There were no high fives and screams of "Boo-yah" when CBO estimates came in projecting a decrease in the deficit, and the fight to improve people's health was never described in terms of an comprehensive international effort to wipe out brown terrorists that live inside our bodies.

So I'm sorry Nick, this is just standard operating procedure. It is the way things will always be: fiscally irresponsible. Now I only hope we can spend the $90 billion we would have used on health care to fund some even larger TOW missile that shoots out a giant fireworks explosion in the shape of a large dragon every time we hit a suspected terrorist. That, and only that, would show the fiscal seriousness of our Senate.

Stay classy, Pat

Man of God with thighs of steel, televangelist and canola oil hater Pat Robertson, on how God's true calling for him is to shamelessly exploit tragedy in the name of the baby Jesus, especially when Muslims are involved.

“Islam is...a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination. ...So you are dealing with not a religion. You’re dealing with a political system. And I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherences as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group."

Pat, how Godly of you to take the Ft. Hood tragedy and use it to advocate for religious persecution. Shame you didn't think to follow through on that belief when Tim McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, George Tiller was murdered, or Eric Rudolph was blowing up all those abortion clinics and the Olympics. Ah well, most people don't tend to advocate for their own Government organized subjugation.

I'm sure your decrying of Islam as a political system didn't come between various pleas to your audience to vote a certain way, support certain politicians, or oppose certain legislation. I wonder if this is also your message when you meet with GOP leaders and political action committees to discuss strategy, outreach, and political operations? Maybe you're just mad they're encroaching on your territory. I'm just confused. I thought all this terrorism stuff was happening because of God's hate of the gays the the ACLU, not because Islam is a fake religious political party run by Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Or is it both? Like I said, I'm confused. Luckily God has blessed us with Pat Robertson, so he can explain it all to us.

Shaming

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is quickly becoming one of my favorite elected representatives in the health care debate. He fights for a robust public option, seems to understand obvious truths, tries to humiliate and shame liars in public forums, makes a hell of a lot of sense on the issues, stays within the realm of fact, and his last name is Weiner, which is of critical importance to someone as childish as myself. Now, he's also getting into the 'shaming Republican hypocrites' business, which is admittedly easy, but he still does a good job of it.

WEINER: It’s more another way of looking at this debate, this discussion about the public option, to put it in focus. We went, just out of curiosity, looked at how many members of Congress get the public option. And I know a lot of people have said, “Well under the new bill, how many of you members of Congress would choose the public option?”

Well there already is one; it’s called Medicare. And we found 55 Republicans and 151 members of Congress are on Medicare right now. So they’re already getting the same type of public option that we’d like people who are without insurance to be able to get. And I guess the purpose of this list was to kind of point out some of the hypocrisy of this debate.

Yes, he's done his own study, naming names on who is full of it on the health care debate. These 55 oppose a public option while they themselves not only have a public option, while they not only have government run health care, but are using single-payer government run health care in the style of the Socio-fascist League of Homosexual European Freedom Haters that they despise so much.

Now there is one critical flaw in Weiner's plan: he is trying to point out hypocrisy in politicians and shame leaders who have no capacity for acknowledging hypocrisy and had their sense of shame removed in a procedure paid for by Medicare. Plus he's doing it in a media environment that can't find time to give srious proponents of the public option interview time, but can find time to let Overlord McCain warble on and on about nothing for the millionth time. And why not, Gramps won so convincingly a year ago. Still Mr. Weiner (tee-hee), the effort is appreciated. Maybe next time you'll want to accuse the 55 leeches of seeking to kill health reform because they want everyone's grandmother to die bankrupt. It's pretty much the only way to get on TV nowadays. Unless you've got a precocious kid who is willing to hoax the media about a balloon mishap. Don't know how you'd tie that into the health care debate.

Broken News: Atheists propose new health plan for America

WASHINGTON—With the health care debate finally moving to the full Senate after yesterday’s 14-9 vote by the Senate Finance Committee, a concrete plan for health care reform seems to be on track. However, in an attempt to convince Congress to change its course, atheist organizations offered up a new plan that they say would cut costs, open up health care access to those who needed it, eliminate delays in treatment, and move the United States towards a more advanced society.

“It is not too late for Congress to act. It is not too late for Congress to choose a better solution. We think we’ve found it and we hope they’ll listen,” announced atheist Ken Hammond, the communications manager for the National Organization for the Gainsaying Of Deities.

“It’s simple: no health care or medical attention for anyone who belongs to a church or religious movement opposing reform. Now some might say that this just creates a larger system of uninsured than the one we currently have, but we maintain that our policy would give these people the best kind of care available: the care of the Lord. Christian Scientists are right, my friends. Follow their example. And the Lord’s. Please, just stop standing in the way.”

This press conference also served to mark the release of a policy paper written by the organization entitled Health Care in America: Let’s Crassly Wedge Religion into This Fucker, Too. The paper, which some are calling a landmark for the atheist movement, represents a rejection of atheist scholars' most common debate tactic, reasoned discourse, and replacing it with a new plan wherein they would debate religious and political policy intersections within a purely religious framework.

The thesis of the paper and this new health care push is the theory that all maladies are the brutal judgments of a vengeful Lord towards his disciples and that those disciples should accept God’s punishment. Furthermore, they should have to rely on God to cure the injuries and sicknesses Himself as part of a complete adherence to their faith, nothing that there are no Biblical references about preventative prostate screening, MRI's, or a host of other medical procedures, only prayer.

While health care experts agree that effectively shutting out tens of millions of Americans from any health care that doesn’t involve prayer will dramatically cut costs and applaud the atheist community’s attempts to further degrade the health care debate to its lowest possible level in an attempt to make a cheap point, they did note one flaw in NOGOD’s attempts.

“I can’t believe the atheists fell for it. Again!” observed heath care policy analyst Paul Fairfax. “Haven’t they learned by now not to argue using any form of discernible logic? Even this ‘clever’ plan to point out how religious groups opposition to health reform belies an internal hypocrisy with their religion’s tenets of social justice, let alone their hypocrisy in embracing science only when it suits them, is coached in the stink of logic. That they can’t realize it is the curse of the atheist movement.”

As if on cue, religious groups were quick to decry the proposed plan.

“First off, Ezekiel 1: 15-19 clearly references some sort of rudimentary explanation of magnetic movement, so that was clearly God speaking out in favor of MRI’s,” explained Tony Perkins, spokesman for Focus on the Family.

“Second, I’m not sure this NOGOD group understands how the religious/political debate works in this country. Those who believe get to try to impose their faith-based policy ideas on those who don’t believe. In no way are non-religious types allowed to twist that logic back on itself in an attempt to use the Bible to get what they want. Besides, our research into Biblical texts reveals the God backs private insurance and opposes current efforts to reform the system. “

He finally added, “Also, that acronym is pushing it. They can’t just arbitrarily discount the ‘F’ and the ‘T’!”

When asked to comment on the debate, the Holy Host of Heaven was willing to concede the point made by NOGOD. Yaweh acknowledged that all disease and injury that befall the religious community was a judgment on anything from the individual's value as a human being to whether or not He liked the shirt they were wearing, depending on His mood. He also admitted that the only true way to rid oneself of these ailments was to pray for salvation or hope God noticed that new, nicer shirts had been purchased.

“Sure, they may be right, but they’re being dicks about it, as usual, so we’re not going to support them,” announced a shimmering cloud of pure joyous light, whilst a heavenly chorus sang in praise of He who sits most high. “We’re just going to sit back and let the United States chart out its own inadequate response to the problem. The Big Guy is just a little miffed that His attempt to influence the opinions of various political and religious leaders towards reason and logic early this year wasn’t met with success. Christ, those fuckers are intractable.”

“Besides,” the ball of light added, turning all the colors of the visible spectrum, bathing all who were near in the warm embrace of the Almighty. “I think it’s clear from the religious texts and various speeches the Lord’s given that he’s for single payer.”

Broken In Brief: Immigration officials arrest Lou Dobbs on questions of humanity

CNN anchor and xenophobic jackass, Lou Dobbs

EARTH—Immigration officials from the INS have arrested and begun deportation proceedings against CNN host Lou Dobbs over questions surrounding the TV and radio personality's status as a member of the human race. While Dobbs maintains a New Jersey residence and claims to have been born in Texas, the INS is reporting the discovery of evidence suggesting he is actually a native of the planet Vogsphere and therefore an undocumented immigrant.

This initial immigration sweep is part of the government’s newly unveiled Turnabout Is Fair Play (TIFP) initiative, wherein right-wing blowhards are subjected to the kinds of hearsay, fear mongering, half-assed conspiracies, deluded accusations, lack of intellectual rigor, and factual wastelands that they traditionally inflict upon the growing constituencies of their political enemies.

The evidence, first discovered on the internet and immediately dismissed as lunacy, claims that Dobbs is one of several alien Vogon agents posing as public figures while gathering intelligence on Earth and its people in preparation for the planet's complete destruction in order to make room for an interstellar highway. The documents go on to explain that Dobbs was cast out of Vogon society when, in 2006, the plump, pandering populist publicly distanced himself from the Republican Party. Nevertheless, he continues to monitor and occasionally influence news media.

TIFP team members were reportedly ecstatic at the revelation of this fraudulent material because it allowed them to charge Dobbs with being an illegal immigrant, a section of society the corpulent ape has railed against for years. What they were most excited about was the added benefit of charging him with being the member of a fictional species from a fictional solar system from a series of science fiction comedy novels, so as to more completely make a sarcastic point about the nature of his criticisms about President Obama’s country of origin.

Lawyers for Dobbs, who is said to be working on his third volume of poetry, did not return calls for comment on these charges.

Nuclear waste, blah, blah, blah

Oh that naive Barack Obama. He thinks there should be actual concerns about the storage of nuclear waste when you talk about building ten trillion new nuclear plants to finally wean us off foreign oil and to give us those irradiated super powers we always wanted. John McCain knows better: it's all just liberal bullshit.

"You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words. We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider, offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah."
...
I have news for Senator Obama, nuclear power is safe, we ought to do it now."

At least he praised Obama's speaking ability. But he's right, there should be absolutely no concerns about nuclear waste, because it's all safe now and every community would be happy to store it or reprocess it, right?

Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): “No, I would not. No, I would not.”

Oh, so nuclear is okay and totally safe and blah, blah, blah, but you don't want the waste to be even transported through your state on the way to another state. Because it's just so safe, I mean they use it on navy warships that McCain was on and it's not like he has, like, some constant history of cancer or anything. It's safe, just keep it the fuck away from Arizona. Apparently something about Arizona roads contaminate safe nuclear waste.

Only Bloomy can save us

Ever wonder how difficult it might be, in one of the country's most progressive cities, for 51 people to overturn two separate citywide voter referendums on behalf of a billionaire clinging to power?

Surprisingly easy, it turns out...