News Roundup for 10/7/09

TX Rep. Louie Gohmert

-Headline of the day-
"Rep. Louie Gohmert: Hate crimes bill will lead to Nazism, legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality."

It'll also cause children to be born with horns, will curdle milk, and will cause crops to whither in the fields... It's witchcraft, I tell ya!

It all started when Democratic House members convened a session of floor speeches urging the president to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." Turns out that this was the worst thing ever. Texican Congresscritter Louie Gohmert called a repeal of DADT a "perverse... social experimentation," causing soldiers to be "held hostage by a sociological attack." It's all bullshit, sure, but once you get a wingnut rolling, you can't get them back into reality for a little while.

So, his raving went a little broad of the beam, finally including the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill, which is going to destroy America.

"If you're oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that's not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that," Gomer said. "Which means you'd have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you're oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions, [...] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition. [...] But people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms in order to gain economic stability. It happened in 1920 and 1930's. Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we're doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America."

Again, all horseshit -- and not the least horseshitty is the argument that Germany went all Nazi because Hitler gave more rights to gay people. Seriously, someone want to get Gomer here a history book?

Check to see if he can actually read first, though. (Think Progress)


-More fun with Republican dumbassery-
Last week, House minority leader John Boehner told reporters that no one wants a public health insurance option. Absolutely and literally no one. "I'm still trying to find the first American to talk to who's in favor of the public option, other than a member of Congress or the administration... I've not talked to one, and I get to a lot of places and I've not had anyone come up to me -- I know I'm inviting it -- and lobby for the public option."

Turns out that Rep. Boehner needs to get out more. Polls show that most support a public option, suggesting that Boehner's interaction with the people is a little Bush-like in it's bubbliness.

Anway, according to the report, "some of Mr. Boehner's constituents decided to take him up on his offer and rally outside his district office in West Chester, Ohio, delivering over 1,800 signatures of people in his district who support a public option."

Still, Boehner's not a liar, he's just an idiot. He didn't meet with these people. So he can still say he hasn't met anyone who supports the public option.

And he'll be able to keep saying it until he stops hiding from them. (Public Record, with video)


-Best four opening paragraphs in a news story ever-
From a Boston Globe article on little-known candidates for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat:


Adam Azia wants to be your next United States senator.

Perhaps you have never heard of him. You have almost certainly never seen his television show, aired on Somerville cable access, during which he wears a white brassiere filled with oranges, grapefruit, and other fruit.

If such antics disqualify him, to some voters, for service in the hallowed halls of the US Senate, Azia, a 36-year-old ad salesman from Arlington, does not seem to mind.

"If you don't want to vote for me because I was wearing a bra with fruit," he said, "go ahead."


Duly noted. (Boston Globe, via Fark)

Republicans, By Their Own Reasoning, Hate America

There are times I use the GOP's "insert political target here hates America" rhetoric against them. This is done (mostly) ironically, a jab at the ridiculous charge itself, as well as a dig at the hypocrisy of those who used it. McCarthyism and it's jingoistic cousins always come with a dose of hypocrisy -- it's one of history's great ironies that Sen. Joe McCarthy himself wouldn't have become a Senator if it weren't for the communist vote in Milwaukee. "They have the same right to vote as anyone else," he said when this was pointed out to him in 1946. Later, McCarthy would go on a witchhunt for communists in America -- both real and imagined, but all politically convenient -- which would do a lot more than suggest that he believed they didn't have the same rights as anyone else. Had McCarthy himself been anyone else, he would've been dragged before his own committee to explain what he did to earn all those commie votes. But he wasn't anyone else; he was Sen. Joe McCarthy, righteous defender against the Red Menace and, as such, above all criticism. His own connection to the Communist Party was forgotten and, with it, all evidence of his hypocrisy.

By the time George W. Bush showed up, few really gave a damn about communism anymore. The teabaggers seem to find some talismanic power left in the old accusation, but no one else seems especially freaked out by the charge. It's just an absurd anachronism, like accusing someone of being a witch.

So the right went with something a little broader. The new fear was terrorism, not creeping communism, and it was this that became the new tool of McCarthyism. At that point, Sarah Palin hadn't shown up yet, so no one had yet realized that there were people stupid enough to believe an accusation of actual terrorism. So they had to go with implied terrorism -- terrorists undoubtedly hate America, so you accuse political opponents of doing the same. And what was America? America was the president -- at that time George W. Bush. Criticize George W. Bush and you automatically hate America.

The example that pops into my head is that of a country music band in 2003.


[CNN:]

Music superstars the Dixie Chicks are finding out that criticizing President Bush's plans for war in Iraq can cost you air play, big time.

Country stations across the United States have pulled the Chicks from playlists following reports that lead singer Natalie Maines said in a concert in London earlier this week that she was "ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

Station managers said their decisions were prompted by calls from irate listeners who thought criticism of the president was unpatriotic.


The band's great crime was criticizing the president overseas in a time of war. It was treason. It was the worst thing since 9/11. It was proof that the Dixie Chicks hated America -- just like Bin Laden. People burned Chicks' CDs, ran them over with steamrollers in big protests, shot them skeet-shooting style with shotguns. This struck me as kind of a pointless protest; after all, if I'm selling CDs, what do I care what you do with them? You bought it, do what you want. In fact, if you want to buy a few more and light them on fire, I'd be more than happy to sell you all you need.

Keep in mind that this is just a band. All they really did was please the crowd (the war was incredibly unpopular abroad and in London especially). But George W. Bush was president, it was a "time of war," and that meant that the Dixie Chicks hated America.

So how are we to explain this?


[Talking Points Memo:]

An interesting pattern has been emerging in the Republican Party's handling of foreign policy: Individual GOP officials are now making a regular point of not only formulating an alternative foreign policy, to be presented to the American people and debated in Congress -- they're acting on it too, and undermining the official White House policies at multiple turns...


In other words, Republicans are going overseas to criticize the president in a time of war; i.e., the worst thing ever. And this isn't just some country band talking smack about the president, these are Republicans going overseas and actively undermining US foreign policy.

For example, Sen. Jim DeMint's trip to Honduras. Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was thrown out in an illegal military coup. But, since Zelaya is a leftist, DeMint supports the coup. The US government -- along with most governments -- don't recognize the junta in Honduras as a legitimate government, but DeMint has decided that he needs to go on a "fact-finding" mission to visit the junta and see what's up. It's a "fact-finding" mission on the taxpayer's dime.

"We understand that you received visitors from our Congress who represent the minority party, the Republican Party, who have expressed views that differ markedly from those of President Obama’s administration and the Democratic Majority in the US Congress," wrote six members of the House of Representatives to the president of the Honduran Congress. DeMint is actively undermining US diplomacy and foreign policy with his trip. For the record, the Senate doesn't set foreign policy -- and certainly not a member of the minority party -- the State Department does. And the State Department is an office within the executive branch.

Want more? How about House minority whip Eric Cantor going to Israel to criticize the White House's stand on Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands? Or Sen. Jim Inhofe's plans to be part of a "truth squad" to the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen? There, he'll engage in global warming denial and "tell foreign officials there that the American government will not take any action" on the issue.

How about Rep. Mark Kirk, who went to China and told officials there "that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed?"

If the Dixie Chicks hated on America by making an anti-war, anti-Bush statement to a crowd in an anti-war, anti-Bush town, what does it say when Republican elected officials go overseas and actively try to sink the president's efforts at diplomacy?

Am I saying that Republicans hate America? I guess not. To tell the truth, I don't know. I know they aren't too happy with this America and want to change it to another kind of America entirely, but that's just politics. What I am saying is that Republicans are shameless hypocrites here, in the same way that fellow Republican Joe McCarthy was all those years ago.

Why anyone takes these people seriously is beyond me. By engaging in behavior that is not only similar to that which they criticized in the past, but is also much, much worse, they show how much they really believed the things they were saying back in 2003 -- i.e., they didn't believe it at all. It, as McCarthyism always is, was just a political tool, used cynically and brutally to ruin their political opponents. The Dixie Chicks were supposed to be the heads on a pike, warning others of the danger of "hating America." Luckily, it didn't work out that way.

But the next time you hear some wingnut idiot or some talk radio moron yelling that "X hates America," you go ahead and send them to this post. They're chumps, being fooled into hypocrisy, by people who -- in the end -- don't give a damn about them. They're useful to Republicans only so long as they can be counted on to have the memory of a gnat.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 10/6/09

Republican Jesus

-Headline of the day-
"Conservative group aims to delete 'liberal bias' from Bible."

Because there's Republican Jesus, you see, and the fake one. The online alternative to the godless monstrosity that is Wikipedia is putting together their own version of the Bible and all that horseshit about mercy and helping the poor and loving thy neighbor is out.

Conservapedia has set up the Conservative Bible Project which, according to the report, "aims to rewrite the Bible from a modern, conservative perspective."

"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations," say's Conservapedia's page for the project.

Some verses that are out; "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" is "is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible," and "evidently many of Jesus' other teachings -- from the 'turn the other cheek' lesson, to his disdain for profiteering -- will also no longer be acceptable in the conservative Bible."

It strikes me that, if they're going to edit out all the stuff that sounds liberal, they're going to wind up with a mostly Jesus-free Bible. They could save themselves a lot of time and just punch up the Old Testament if that's where they're going with this. The Old God was an asshole -- nearly as big of an asshole as your average conservative. Wouldn't take a lot of work to fix that up. It's this pansy New Coventant guy who's a commie. Just get rid of Him altogether.

Of course, liberals have found this not so much shocking as hilarious. If you head over to Twitter and check out the hashtag #ConservativeBible, you'll find a bunch fixed up verses liberals have helpfully suggested. Hell, even I took a shot or four at it.

I always like being helpful. Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Of course, that's because he was a Godless commie. (Raw Story)


-Speaking of whacked-out right wing Christians...-
...the ghost of Jerry Falwell haunts our steps in the form of the Liberty Council, an offspring of his Liberty University. Always a font of really great ideas, LC may have the most awesome idea ever in the history of right wing fanatic groups having good ideas -- pray liberalism away!

Huzzah and hosannah!

See, it works like this; you adopt a liberal, then you pray your little heart out that they see the light and become conservative. It's so easy... Why didn't anyone think of this before?

And not just any liberal. I mean, who cares about your hippy heighbor down the street who drives a Prius? No, we're talking bigtime liberals here -- remove the head and the snake dies.

"Pray earnestly and intensely for them!" LC commands from on high. "Pray that the Lord would move upon them and cause them to be the kind of leaders who will encourage others to lead 'a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.' We encourage you to seek the Lord's guidance on how to pray for your liberal(s), always allowing Him to temper your prayer with His love and mercy."

So you can adopt Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Barney Frank or Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Then Jesus will show up at their doorstep (the real one, not that left-leaning weakling from the Bible) and set them straight.

Of course, the big problem here is that the only real difference between praying and casting a hex is that they're spelled differently. This isn't going to work in a bazillion years. And, when it fails, will these people find their wingnut faith a little dented?

Of course not. That's why they're wingnuts. Evidence and results don't mean jack to them. (Amygdala)


-Bonus HotD-
"Congressional GOP Fundraising Committee On Pelosi: It's Time To 'Put Her In Her Place.'"

Back in the kitchen, you wench! (Think Progress)


-USA! USA!-
Obama's failed attempt to get the 2016 Olympics for Chicago proves the world hates Obama and means we're looking at a failed presidency. Unquestionably. Case closed.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't give that answer when you actually ask them. The latest National Brand Index (NBI) gives the US the top spot as the "most admired country in the world."

Why is this? According to the report, "The United States is the most admired country globally thanks largely to the star power of President Barack Obama and his administration..."

"What's really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States for 2009," said NBI founder Simon Anholt. Asked if Obama really was the reason for this, he answered, "There is no other explanation."

Expect conservatives to boo the results -- because, suddenly, they're convinced America sucks. (Think Progress)

The Good News is That it Probably Can't Get Any Worse

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Public option, public option, public option... It's all I'm talking about lately. Sure, I take the occasional sidetrip to Iran or Crazytown, but -- let's face it -- the big domestic story is still healthcare reform. Among supporters and opponents, it's almost like a presidential campaign. Unless the moon explodes or something, this thing is going to suck up all the oxygen in the room until something passes or the whole thing dies.

To a certain extent, this may be a good thing. People who don't follow the mechanics of government are getting a pretty good education on the legislative process. We didn't watch the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq as closely as we're watching this legislation. We all remember "How a Bill Becomes Law" from Schoolhouse Rock, but that didn't really tell the whole story. You've got your horsetrading and your conference committee and your internecine political warfare; this is how the sausage is made and we didn't tell kids about it back in the day because we didn't want them to grow up cynical and convinced that the political system blows. It's a real education.

But back to the public option; what is it really? Senate majority leader Harry Reid has begun promising one. "We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said Thursday. "I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us."

The problem is that Reid has suggested that what constitutes a "public option" may be open to interpretation. It's generally assumed to be a government-run health insurance program that you can choose to buy; hence the "public" and the "option" parts. But Reid seems to believe that this definition is a straitjacket and maybe we should broaden it to include things that are more "publicish" and "option-like."


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the public option a "relative term" and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said "there is not one way to Rome, there are lots of ways to Rome."

"Remember, a public option is a relative term," Reid said. "There's a public option, there's a public option, and there's a public option. And we're going to look at each of them."

None of the leaders discussed the specifics of what a watered down public option would look like. Two versions have already been rejected by the Senate Finance Committee.


And in the Finance Committee anyway, the "option" part is out the window. That is, unless you want to call something that the vast majority of Americans won't be able to choose an "option." In a fit of righteousness, an MSNBC morning host called it like it is.


MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan says the efforts of some congresspeople to kill the public health care option and limit access to the proposed health care exchange system is a sign that Congress is defending the "corporate communism" of the health care industry.

On MSNBC's Morning Meeting, Ratigan pointed to the fact that health insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws as proof of the "communist" nature of the health care industry.

Anti-trust laws were enacted to prevent companies from forming market monopolies. Health care companies are exempt from these laws, which is why, for example, BlueCross BlueShield is able to control 83 percent of Alabama's health insurance market, and why WellPoint is able to control 78 percent of the market in Maine. (See the complete chart here.)

"If you're looking for choice in your own health care or competition to break up the corporate communism that burdens our country at this point and prevents any of us from finding work -- no no, your Senate is not working for you, there will be no competition, nor will there be any choice," Ratigan said.


"Ratigan was referring to an amendment proposed by Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden that would have allowed anyone with health insurance from an employer or a labor union to shop for health care on a so-called health insurance exchange," Raw Story reports. "Wyden withdrew that amendment last week after heavy pressure from business and labor leaders, meaning the health reform bill being debated in the Senate will allow only those without such insurance policies to use the exchange, rendering it useless for a majority of Americans."

Even without a public option, an exchange would be a vast improvement over what we dishonestly call a "healthcare system" today. Insurance companies would have to compete on the retail level and -- barring collusion or price-fixing -- this would go a long way toward keeping them honest.

But a public option without an exchange kind of kills that whole "option" part, doesn't it? Killing the exchange was "a great tactic," Ratigan said. "It protected health insurers from having any real competition, perpetuating their corporate communism... These are literally people who are paying off our government to make sure they don't have to compete, whether it's the too-big-to-fail banks or in this case the health insurance companies."

I'm not sure how they're planning on undermining the "public" part of the public option, but they've certainly managed to get rid of the "option" part. Still -- and expect me to keep saying this until a bill is signed or this whole thing explodes -- every serious observer expected the Senate Finance Committee's bill to be the worst. But it isn't the final bill. Look at the committee's bill as the lower limit of suck; no matter what happens after it gets out of committee, it can't possibly become worse. It can only get better. That's what I keep telling myself, anyway. There's always markup and amendments on the floor.

Still, rays of hope shine out in the form of pure self-interest. Moderate dems, seeing how popular the public option is with the base, are unwilling to be seen as being among those who killed it off. Brian Beutler, writing for the blog Talking Points Memo, puts it this way; "One difficulty that both the White House and public option skeptics appear to be facing is that, though they may be perfectly happy to advance a bill without a public option, the measure remains very popular, and intensely so among politically engaged, Democratic voters. That's a dynamic to keep an eye on: At this point, nobody wants to be identified as the driving force behind its demise."

In the end, that's the best hope we have for getting an actual, honest-to-goodness public option on the president's desk -- as opposed to a publicish optionoid -- pure fear. They're afraid of us and, for once, they're afraid to be identified as the one who screwed us over.

We've got the leverage here, so we need to use it.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 10/5/09

Your path to amazing wealth!

-Headline of the day-
"Graham: Beck is not the voice of conservatism."

The host of FOX News' Living with Rabies and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham have been having a sort of catfight lately. It started when Lindsey dissed Glenn, saying, "Only in America can you make that much money crying."

Glenn didn't like that much and totally burned Lindsey on his radio show by saying, "Lindsey Graham hating my guts is probably the highest honor I've ever received. Judge me by my friends and judge me by my enemies. Thank you, Lindsey Graham." See, Lindsey is insufficiently crazy to be a good Republican. At least, according to Glenn.

Anyhoo, Lindsey got the opportunity to shoot back at Glenn when FOX's Brett Baier asked him, "Are you saying that Glenn Beck is bad for America?"

"No, I’m not saying he's bad for America," he answered. "You got the freedom to watch him if you choose. He did a pretty good job on ACORN. What I am saying, he doesn’t represent the Republican Party. You can listen to him if you like. I choose not to because, quite frankly, I don't -- I don't want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us. We need to act decisively."

Wait a second, Glenn Beck doesn't represent the Republican Party? Says who? Certainly not the birthers, the teabaggers, the 9/12ers, the townhall shriekers, or the deathers. "Obama=Hitler?" Yeah, that's got Glenn Freakin' Beck written all over it. I think your statement might represent a wee bit of wishful thinking there, Lindsey.

You may not want Glenn Beck to represent the Republican Party, but that ship has already sailed. Glenn Beck represents the Republican Party -- at least, the public face of it.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, Lindsey. (Think Progress)


-On a related note-
Glenn Beck uses Vick's VapoRub to get those multi-million-dollar tears rolling. My money was on Bengay, but I guess in retrospect that wasn't the wisest wager.

He's probably five minutes away from getting fired anyway... (Raw Story, with video)


-Bonus HotD-
"Steele Says AMA Lacks Credibility on Health Care."

That'd be Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and the American Medical Association. Mike went on FOX News, your one-stop for crazy-assed bullshit these days, and said, "The AMA is -- does not have the credibility on this health care issue, as they would like to project."

That's right, doctors don't know shit about healthcare; RNC chair Mikey Steele does. It's stuff like this that makes you wonder why the GOP wants him to shut up.

See, the problem is that the AMA backs Obama's reforms and a bunch of doctors went to the White House today to back him up. So, of course, that means they don't understand America's healthcare system at all.

Remember folks, if you want brain surgery, you call a Republican Party flack -- because doctors only pretend to know about all this healthcare stuff... Worked for Michael Steele. (Political Wire)