The Olympic Spirit

Who said this: "You didn't get here solely on your own." President Obama, the Socialist, right? Wrong. Someone needs to teach that guy how to be an American. ;-)

Republicans, Full of Gas

So, now that Bin Laden's with the fishes, unemployment is down, and the Dow is up, the talking point du jour is the price of gas. You know, Republicans are full of it, so they know what they are talking about. And since a vast number of Alabama and Mississippi Republicans now believe that Obama is a Muslim (45 and 52% respectively), they might as well keep lying.

The Dishonesty and Hypocrisy of Republican "Stars"

I am often appalled by the idiocy and the hypocrisy of mediocre Republican figures. but when the idiocy and the hypocrisy come from one of the supposed "rising stars" of the Republican party, I find it even more appalling. Take the example of Gov Chris Christie.

---

In vetoing a bill that legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey, Gov. Christie made the following statement: "I am adhering to what I've said since this bill was first introduced – an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." If that statement does not bother you, think again: it should.

We live in a nation that established representative democracy as a form of government: We elect representatives to legislate and execute laws on our behalf. If we do not like what our representatives do, we can vote them out, and someone else in, at the next election. By this measure we judge everything our representatives do: Increasing or lowering taxes, enhancing or reducing social services, strengthening or . weakening law enforcement powers vs. the protection of individual rights, and so forth.

It really bothers me when some politicians think that some things are too sacred to be decided by legislators and sent the back to voters for further approval: The majority of the people already voted you in, so do you fucking job, which is to make a stand on principle from time to time, call an issue as you see it, and make decisions on our behalf, without making pitiful excuses.

Often, appeals to voters are made by reactionary politicians who want to maintain the status quo, and know that it is easier for 30-40 somewhat enlightened representatives (or 3, 4, or 5 judges) to repair a wrong, than it is for millions of voters that often include a majority of backward-thinking, religiously-motivated dullards who think that (their) God's view of morality be driving their vote, instead of rational, humane considerations. Do you think we should have patiently waited for the majority of Americans to eliminate racial segregation, antimiscegenation laws, or to decide whether Genesis or the theory of evolution by natural selection should be taught in science classes? If so, you need to live in a gated community of like-minded freaks. It's better for all of us if you do.

Referenda are the means that voters can use to right what they perceive to be a wrong perpetrated by a minority (their elected representatives or a handful of judges) after a decision has been made that is contrary to their general sensibilities. And courts have the final say because they are supposed to be composed of individuals of above average intelligence and education (and hopefully, some sense of impartial justice), who can recognize when a law goes against constitutional principles.

What bothers me even more is that referenda are often called into play with the excuse that the issues they are meant to decide are of foremost importance and consequence, but which in reality are fairly trivial, like gay marriage, the legalization of pot, the legalization of gambling, and so on, when compared to things that are hugely consequential in people lives. I would like to be called to vote on whether corporations are "people", in the sense that they should enjoy the same privileges that individuals do, without suffering any of the ill effects (like being sentenced to death when they wreck the world economy.) I would like to be called upon to decide whether we should have a national health care system, with a good deal of government intervention, versus a fragmented one in which the influence that power players exert (health care corporations, insurance companies, and Wall Street) greatly exceeds the ability of individuals to oppose them. I would also be liked to call to decide whether the water that I drink, or the food that I eat, or the drugs that I take, should be safe, whether the fuck the politicians want them to be or not. But that's not what happens as a matter of routine.

As a matter of routine, we let politicians represent us in the hope that they will weigh the public interest versus the private, and that they will legislate in good faith. And if, and only if, we disagree with the decisions they make, do we then have recourse to the courts or to undo what they did via referenda. For a number of reasons that make eminent sense,  that's the way things should work and that's the way, for the most part, they have worked. I am sure that Gov. Christie knows that; which is why he is both a hypocrite and dishonest when he says that "an issue of this magnitude and importance... should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide." But if there is no dishonesty or hypocrisy in his statement, that might be an even worse fault, because it would be a sign that the governor does not understand how representative democracy works. If so, he is not fit to be a leader in one, and the people of New Jersey would do well to replace him as soon as they get a chance. And the rest of us should so hope that he never ascends to higher power than that of Governor, if that's his idea of how politics should work.

Republican Propaganda Organ Is Populated by Hypocrites?

Shocking news from Comedy Central! Fox News is populated by hypocrites!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
24 Hour Nazi Party People
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Republican = Hypocrite

I think it's about time the Merriam-Webster added Republican to the list of synonyms for hypocrite.

Here is the latest proof.

And here is more proof, with visuals.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Clarification: the poor dude in the video with Dylan Ratigan is a journalist, not a Republican]

Journalistic Malpractice

In Fiscal Shock renowned economist and Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman calls out the media on the pass they regularly give to Republicans, who rail against deficits and yet epitomize fiscal irresponsibility.

Scathingly, Krugman writes: "Republicans have, after all, been the party of fiscal irresponsibility since 1980; the GW Bush administration confirmed, if anyone was in doubt, that unfunded tax cuts are now in the party’s DNA."

Talking The Talk? Then Walk The Walk.

Sen. Schumer (NY) is right: Those politicians who oppose any form of government-funded health care should give up their own government-funded healthcare.

The Great Republican Pro-Life Hyprocrisy

It is a well-known fact that, for many Republican anti-abortion politicos, “life begins at conception and ends at birth.” So says, Carol Joffe, professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

That quip is well-exemplified by the ongoing Republican effort to block funding for essential health care for 9/11 responders. Read Carol Joffe's article to get your blood to boil, then write the Republican Senators like Tom Coburn and Jon Kil who are beyond shameful in their politicking on such a vitally important issue of humanity.

Politicians should not be punished for holding ideas antithetical to our own, but for the hypocrisy they openly display when they defend their turf against all reason.

FAIR, on Keith Olbermann's Suspension

As you may know, Keith Olbermann has been suspended by MSNBC for making political contributions that he failed to disclose to MSNBC.

The issue, in my opinion, is not whether Olbermann's suspension is justified or not (it probably is, as many corporations have specific disclosure rules about political contributions). The issue is the hypocrisy in this case, so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting points out that NBC and General Electric have an obvious hypocrisy problem.

Oklahoma Bans Sharia Law And Other Idiocies

I picked this up on the Daily Kos, and it's a true gem.

"[In] Oklahoma, voters overwhelmingly approved state question 755 [to ban Islamic Sharia law], one of the most important initiatives in their state's history. This is great news. Just because something doesn’t exist doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ban it. That's why I have long fought for ballot measures to ban cat pilots, baby curling, and man-futon marriage."
---Stephen Colbert

There are, believe it or not, those who praise the wisdom and foresight of Oklahomans. And I cringe at the thought that it will be the Roberts Court that rules on the obvious unconstitutionality of such a ban once the issue gets to the Nine. (You should also know that the referendum, which voters passed, sought to ban courts from considering or using international law, which is obviously unconstitutional per Article VI of the United States Constitution, which teabaggers looooooove!)

Personally, I welcome any and all referenda that seek to ban the undue influence of religion on the lives of U.S. residents (citizens or non-citizens). Oh, wait: Shouldn't the First Amendment already do that? Oh, but you are right, the concept of the separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Constitution. If you are a dim-witted teabagger senatorial candidate, that is.

But really, in a country where supposedly intelligent, loving, and reasonable Christians want Intelligent Design taught in schools alongside the Theory of Evolution, where they believe that stem cell research should be banned on religious grounds, where they feel comfortable analogizing homosexuality to alcoholism on national TV, where they view global warming as a hoax or a conspiracy perpetrated on the American public for the monetary gain of a few, why should Oklahomans busy themselves with banning Sharia Law instead of their own science-averse and discriminatory beliefs?

Incidentally, the Sharia Ban is not the only likely unconstitutional referendum that Oklahoma's voters approved of: They also approved of a requirement that would allow residents to opt out of any federal health care mandates (in a pretty clear contravention of the Commerce Clause.)

I am curious to see what Christians can come up with in the way of an intelligent response.

Class Warfare Hypocrisy

Interesting article on class warfare. The real one, that is.

Beware of those who accuse governments that try to bring relief to the poor and huddles masses as statists, while hailing those whose intent is to crush the same masses into servitude and submission as paladins of freedom.

Ask The Bigot!

Don't ask, don't tell? Guess, then.
(You can find Chan Lowe's original cartoon, with commentary, here.)

Prof. Shallit Bashes Doug Groothuis. So I Don't Have To.

Read here.

And in case the blogger named Miranda finds this (she replied to Prof. Shallit's post): No, civility, or alleged lack thereof, has nothing to do with Groothuis banning people. Groothuis routinely uses worse invective (ok, equally bad) towards others than I or other banned invididuals ever used against him. Only, since The Constructive Curmudgeon is his blog, he can capriciously ban people rather than accepting a challenge or engaging dissenters in debate. He is very good at finding the speck in other people's arguments while displaying an uncanny ability to ignore the log in his own.

As another blogger pointed out, calling someone a hypocrite, who is demonstrably in fact a hypocrite, is no more "invective" than calling a spade a spade.

Republican Hypocrisy Watch -- Episode One

Can a Republican please explain to me how it is ok for Republicans to decry President Obama's proposal to spend $50b on infrastructure projects, while at the same time pushing for $800b in tax cuts for the rich?

Local Hypocritical Idiots

Enter Mike Coffman, Republican congressman from Colorado, who broke his ankle on Christmas morning, received taxpayer sponsored health care to fix it, and then went on to rail against the "trillion dollar takeover of healthcare" concocted by a "radical liberal agenda that threatens our freedom".

Idiot, ass, and hypocrite. Shame on the Denverites who elected him.

John Oliver Looks Back On Better Times

The bad thing about The Daily Show is that it is on vacation more often than an Italian bank employee. The good thing is that when cast members come back to work, their batteries recharged, they never cease to skewer hypocrites with their wit.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Even Better Than the Real Thing
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

In the next segment, Jon Stewart and Aasif Mandvi join wits to destroy the idiocy of Brit Hume and his recommendation for Tiger Woods.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Temple of Hume
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The President as an Innocent Bystander On Health Care Reform

After months and months of closed-door negotiations among themselves, Senate Democrats are about to pass a nauseating health care reform bill that does little or nothing to contain costs and the greed of the insurance companies and their political allies. We are told that the bill is imperfect, but that its opponents should still vote for it because “it will save lives.” That is certainly a worthy goal, but one that can be achieved without pickpocketing the American people's already thinning wallets.

Gov. Dean is right when he says that the reconciliation route must be entertained to outflank health care reform opponents, the thieving and immoral senators, like Joe “Douche Evilman” Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, and Mary Landrieu, who are putting their political future and their sponsors' interests ahead of the American people's. Use reconciliation—says Gov. Dean—not as Sen. Landrieu says “to create a new government bureaucracy, but to expand an existing one: Medicare. The Senate had the right idea when it considered letting people 55-65 buy into Medicare. It should go even further: it should let anyone choose to buy into Medicare, regardless of age. As Gov. Dean tried in vain to explain to Sen. Landrieu during yesterday's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the Senate is about to force 300 million Americans (through the insertion of an individual mandate) to buy a product they might not want, or openly despise, and depriving them of real choice by taking a way a government-administered health care option.

There are other ways of reforming health care, of course. Medicare for all or a public option are not the only ways to ensure that people have guaranteed, affordable access to health care. Other countries have shown us the way. You can keep a private insurance-based system in place and provide efficient, reasonably cheap care to your people, but you have to support it with fierce regulation, for example by denying insurance companies the right to make a profit on basic health care services. In other words, they must operate as a non-profit for basic care. Switzerland and, I believe, the Netherlands, already do that. Other countries, like Japan, have decided that the way to go is to set the rates providers can charge patients, thus limiting the profit potential of providers. And yet, there are over 6,000 insurance companies in Japan, so the argument that negotiating rates or setting strict market rules is an insurance company killer is in fact just a meme, advanced by reform opponents here in the U.S.

But what about the argument that any reform that saves lives is worth passing, regardless of its pitiful shortcomings, made by many liberals such as Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, etc, not to mention the White House? That may be true, but that is also precisely why Democrats should go the reconciliation route. Use reconciliation to do what it is supposed to do: save money and achieve budget neutrality. Then come up with an insurance regulation bill, one that bans exclusions for pre-existing conditions, or that prevents insurance companies from charging sick people three or four times the going rate. Prohibit insurance companies from dropping people's coverage at their whim. Mandate a medical loss ratio of at least 85% (preferably less: casinos make tons of money on the slots by keeping 2% of what gamblers bet), meaning that the industry must spend 85 cents of every dollar it takes in. And remove the monopoly exemption that, under the misused McCarran-Ferguson act, allows insurers to act as an organized crime cartel at the expense of American patients. Then, on the pharma front, allow drug re-importation so that Americans, like citizens of other countries, can reap the rewards of government negotiated rates for drugs. The key is competition, and the Senate bill (and, to a lesser degree, the House bill as well) contain no provisions in support of competition. It was not long ago that the President told us health care reform should include some mechanism to keep insurance companies honest. The current bill has none.

Going back to the “saving lives” argument: Use reconciliation to expand Medicare, and let a “regulation” bill take care of saving lives. The advantage is that only 51 votes are needed to pass reconciliation, making the passage of a Medicare for all bill a very achievable goal, without having to worry about reform-killing maneuvers by the likes of the despicable Liebermans, Landrieus, etc. Then let politically suicidal Republicans or Democrats rise in opposition of a life-saving, insurance regulation bill ahead of the mid-term election cycle, and—should they choose to call the all-in bet—enjoy the ensuing carnage.

None of this had to be difficult, had the White House decided to exert its power and influence on fence-sitting, obstructionist Democrats. But that great disappointment of a president we now have has decided to act like an innocent bystander, rather than as the leader we though we had elected in Nov. 2008. On health care reform, as on Afghanistan and on too many other important matters, he has spoken out of both sides of his mouth leading us to doubt his true motives for not offering leadership where leadership was needed.

We can apply to President Obama the same yardstick that Vice-president Biden reminded us we should apply to Sen. Lieberman's opposition of reform: question not the man's motives, but his judgment. By that measure, President Obama does not come out of this legislative effort as the squeaky clean paladin of the American people's best interest he purported to be during the campaign.

Do As We Say, Not As We Do

In a pretty shocking (or is it?) and embarrassing (it is!) twist, it turns out that the Republican National Committee, whose members publicly blast "abortion-on-demand", has a health-insurance plan that DOES cover "abortion-on-demand."

Read here for more on this interesting morsel of Repuglycan hypocrisy. (Incidentally, Focus on the Family finds itself in a similar quandary.)

Deconstructing Sen. Lieberman's Ignorance of Terrorism

R.J. Eskow of the Huffington Post has written an excellent deconstruction of Sen. Lieberman's misuse of the word "terrorism". As a bonus, it applies to other Islamophobes, like my favorite target for misinformation and ideological hatred (of the Christian kind), Mr. Groothuis of The Constructive Curmudgeon.

The Vacuousness of the So-Called "Pro-Life" Argument

Now that Congress has approved the truly hideous Stupak Amendment I am surrounded by sanctiomonious self-described "pro-lifers" who insist that no taxpayer money should ever be used to kill innocent (unborn) babies. It really irks me--scratch that: it truly angers me--that these idiots never insist with the same militance that no taxpayer money should be spent to kill innocents in wars of choice (like Iraq, or many of the other wars the U.S. waged on countries that had done nothing to America).

Next time they try to pull that bullshit on you, try reasoning with them. If that fails, tell them their abortion would have lowered the level of self-serving dishonesty in the world.