Stop writing sob stories about poor sez GOP hopeful

In yet another example of Compassionate Conservatism, modeled on the teachings of Jesus, GOP senatorial candidate Eric Hovde of Wisconsin said that the press should really stop writing about the struggles of poor people during this recession that his party created through financial deregulation and tax cuts for the rich.  Mr. Hovde says he is sick and tired of reading stories that say, "Oh, the person couldn't get, you know, their food stamps or this or that."  Unsurprisingly, Hovde then indicated that he supported more tax cuts for corporations, and the contradictory position that we need to reduce the deficit...by cutting taxes on corporations who can afford to pay more.  I know, I know, voodoo economics 101 says that cutting taxes for a corporation magically creates jobs, but this falsehood has been repeatedly rubbished in this recession and the previous ones, all the way back to when Trickle down economics was first proposed.  The fact is that many corporations already dodge most of their tax liability anyway.  They don't need any help, and they are certainly not going to use their latest windfall to "create jobs" when they know that their customers don't have any disposable income to spend.  What would "create jobs" would be for middle class people to have more disposable income, which requires that we cut their taxes, not the taxes of the wealthy who already have more disposable income than they need, by definition.  For more discussion on this point see Why Trickle Down Economics Never Worked.

Teacher of the Year Laid Off...Thanks, MITT! MITTsion accomplished

Michelle Apperson was named Teacher of The Year in Sacramento, California.  However, this did not prevent her from being laid off due to massive budget cuts.  I'm sure that So-Full-Of-Mitt Romney is already getting the Mission Accomplished (MITTsion Accomplished) banner ready after this news, because he is on record as saying that the "message of Wisconsin" is that we need to fire more teachers, fire fighters, and police officers, because we need "smaller government".

Mitt Runs Like a Little Girl from Protesters in Quakertown, PA

The Mitt Romney campaign, for some strange reason, had planned to give a speech at a WaWa gas station in rural Quakertown, Pennsylvania.  But there were actually some protesters there so Chicken$hit Mitt started Quaking in his boots and ran away from them like he ran from being drafted during the Vietnam war. He eventually stopped running like he stole something when he got to another gas station about two miles down the road.  He then gave his speech to great applause from the gas pumps and the empty parking lot and then disappeared back inside his tour bus so that Romney, Incorporated could practice being So Full of Mitt for his next gas station visit.

Did Mitt Romney's Face Rob A Bank or What?

One wonders when the media will finally get around to asking the question that has surely been on everyone's mind since Mitt Romney began his presidential bid.  "Dude, is that your real face, or is that the mask you just used to rob a bank?"

Perhaps the so-called mainstream media can get around to asking it, just as soon as they can stop kissing the a$$ of the latest corporate fat cat, like Jamie Dimon for five seconds.

I mean if the thing on Mitt's head is actually his real face then it would still make a good bank robbers mask anyway, considering that he has robbed many bank accounts of the corporations he bankrupted.  It would be a good bank robbers mask for the many bank accounts of the workers whose pensions he stole and whose wages he cut, before shipping their jobs to India.  

But Mitt thinks that corporations are people, and this inclines me to think that his face is not real.  It causes me to think that Mitt's face was fabricated, down to the last strand of plastic hair, to be the virtual face of the animatronic people that Mitt believes corporations to be.  

After all, when Mitt proclaimed "Corporations are people, my friend", betraying his dual ignorance of the law and his ignorance of the fact that nobody likes him, people should have asked him, "Ok then where is the body of this person that you say a corporation is?"  Of course, even first semester business law students at a community college know that a corporation is a "fictitious person".  Perhaps Mitt doesn't know what the word fictitious means.  He might have missed that day at Harvard.  Possibly he was out robbing a bank with his fake face, and couldn't be bothered to crack open a book and do some reading.  Maybe that is what gave birth to entity we know today as Mitt Romney, Incorporated that walks around like a human inside of his suits.  

Obama takes high ground on immigration...not deporting the good kids

Team Obama has definitely outmaneuvered Romney again on the immigration issue.  To play to his base, Mitt Romney, who's grandfather was born in Mexico, had to take an irrationally hard line on immigration.  This made his hopes of attracting Hispanic voters on social issues a bit harder.  Now there is yet another reason for Hispanics to favor Obama.  He won't deport young people (under age 30) who are the children of undocumented immigrants, so long as they have not been in legal trouble, and don't present any security risks.  After all the children often didn't have a choice about whether to come to the US, and now they have grown up in the US they may not speak Spanish or know much of the culture of the country from which their parents came.  It is a lot hard to vilify young people than it is to vilify all immigrants. 

This policy stands in sharp contrast to the extremist tactics adopted by Arizona and some other states with respect to immigration.  This also plays well with Obama's base and potentially defends him against attempts to make in-roads into the Hispanic voting block.  Not that republicans were too adept at that, as when the GOP created a "Latino" website where the kids pictured there were actually Asian.  With competence levels like they might as well write off that demographic (Latinos and Asians). 

Apple iOS6 includes gay emojis

Icons called "emojis" can be embedded in emails sent from the iPhone or the iPad.  However, the latest operating system update, iOS6, will include emojis that include images of homosexual couples holding hands or even kissing.  I have an android phone, and though I use my iPad2 quite a bit still, I don't recall ever adding an emoji to any email.  Since I'm straight, however, presumably it never would have been a problem for me to find one representing me or my wife.  So I'm glad to see that Apple is trying to include more people.  Now if they would just include some humanist or even atheist emojis.  As it turns out atheists are still one of the most unjustifiably reviled and mistrusted minorities in the US, even compared to homosexuals. 

The right to be "offended"

If person A walked up to person B and said "Hello. It's a nice day isn't it?", and person B responded by saying "Your statement offends me", how would you respond? Most reasonable people would probably respond by saying, perhaps in slightly more diplomatic terms, "f@ck off, you have no right to claim that statement 'offended' you.". After all, it was not meant to be an attack on person B, requiring a defense, and we cannot simply take person B's word that "offensive" means anything B arbitrarily declares it to mean. In other words, there is some expectation on the part of person B to make a reasonable argument demonstrating why a particular statement constitutes an attack or "offense". We will certainly listen to that person's argument, and evaluate whether it is persuasive, but we cannot, contrary to the beliefs in some quarters, automatically says that something is offensive, just because someone else asserts it to be so. Yes, that person may have a feeling, and perhaps, more accurately, the person can claim, "I feel offended by X". But there is a difference between feeling that something is the case and actually showing that ones feeling is true. Yes, you may feel a certain way, but feelings can be wrong. Nobody is saying that you are wrong that you feel it, but it is possible to feel that something is true, which is actually false. I realize that is a very long prologue to introducing my point. However, it is likely necessary, because every one of those objections comes up in the discussion that follows, and therefore it is necessary to dispense with those ahead of time, or the conversation bogs down and becomes impossible to continue. Now then, imagine that, instead of the person saying, "Hello. It's a nice day, isn't it?" person A instead said, "Hello. I'm not convinced that God exists". I know a number of people who would hear this alternate statement and claim it was "offensive". Fortunately, we have just established, for every reason listed above, that such a person is not entitled to make this claim. To begin with, the statement is not clearly an attack or "offense" that requires a defense to it. It is an opinion, to be sure, as is "It's a nice day", and perhaps it seems to come out of nowhere, but that is certainly not sufficient to make it offensive. At the very least an argument still needs to be made that this constitutes an attack on the other person, or that it is an unreasonable topic to express publicly. After all, religious people often express the opposite sentiment, "I am absolutely convinced that God exists", and it is seldom even proposed that this is "offensive". Perhaps some people may feel put on the spot, or feel that they must express the opposite point of view immediately. Perhaps some people even resent that the other person has created a situation where such reactions may arise. But that would be true of many other topics, and that doesn't automatically make the expression of any potentially controversial view to be "offensive". Now, perhaps an argument could be put forth which would establish that this particular statement is, in fact, offensive. But, as it stands, in the absence of an argument being advanced, our response to that statement as well should be, "f@ck off, you don't have the right be offended by that statement".

Islamist Parliament Abolished in Egypt

The Egyptian Supreme Court has ruled that the nation's parliament is invalid due to fundamental problems with election laws that swept Islamic radicals of the Muslim Brotherhood into power.  The Court has returned emergency legislative power to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, who took over interim control after the ouster of former strong man Hosni Mubarrak.   They have vowed to write a new constitution for Egypt.  One of the chief criticisms of the new dissolved Parliament was that it had been operating for over 4 months, but was utterly dead-locked on how to proceed with writing a new constitution.

Mormons Are Not Christians, Says Prominent Mormon

Mormon writer and professor David Mason has finally spilled the beans on Mormonism, admitting that Mormonism is not Christianity -- indeed, he says it is no more a form of Christianity than Christianity is a type of Judaism.  That is, just like Christianity came from Judaism, Mormonism came from Christianity (and Judaism).  However, Christianity is not Judaism, despite its origins, nor is Mormonism a type of Christianity.  Mason notes that this argument is also advanced by Richard B. Land of the Southern Baptist Convention who argues that Mormonism is a "fourth" Abrahamic religion, separate from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Of course, Mason notes that most Mormons vehemently insist that they are Christians.  They often do so because they believe that Jesus is divine in some sense.  However, Mason points out that Mormons do not accept the Trinity, which is central to most forms of Christianity, except Unitarianism, and therefore reject the Nicene Creed's formula that Jesus is also to be identified with "the Father" and "the Holy Spirit".  Therefore, while Mormons "believe in Jesus", the Jesus that they believe in is radically different than the one that almost all Christians believe in.  By the way, many Christians do not consider Unitarians to be legitimate Christians either.

Mason points out that, once Christians finally came out and admitted that they were not actually authentic Jews, it allowed them to establish their own identity, and they ended up being quite successful there.  Likewise, he feels that Mormons should just admit that the religion they practice is not authentic Christianity of the form that has been practiced for almost 2000 years and move on.  I am not sure that they will be lucky enough to share in the accidents of history that catapulted Christianity so far up the social ladder.

I suspect that Mormonism, as prudish as it presently is, will either be forced to undergo radical change, or it will radically decline, just as we are seeing in many ultra-traditionalist sects of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

Embryonic Stem Cells To Restore Vision

New research out of Japan, where stem cell science has not languished under religiously and politically motivated bans, such as that imposed for eight years by former president George W. Bush, suggests that human EMBRYONIC stem cells can be vital for helping to restore sight.  Researchers successfully coaxed these embryonic cells to produce a component of the eye called the "optic cup" which is the portion of the eye, including the retina, which senses light and allows us to see.  It is suggested that this lab-grown material might be transplanted, at some point, into the eyes of patients to help restore their vision.  Perhaps if Bush had not effectively banned embryonic stem cell research in the US for almost a decade then this research would be coming from the US, rather than Japan.  With eight additional years of research it might even have reached the stage where it was out of the lab and helping people to see right now.  Unfortunately, in a very literal sense, religious extremists have a blind spot, when it comes to technologies like this, and would rather keep people in permanent darkness, than allow them to see the light. 

Romney sez cut teachers, fire fighters, and policemen

Mitt Romney would like to pretend Obama is "out-of-touch" for the "out-of-context" remark that "the private sector is doing fine", since it has been growing jobs for 27 weeks, compared to the public sector which has consistently lost jobs.  However, in the process of trying to to make hay of that remark by Obama, Romney mocked the idea that we need to hire more teachers, firefighters, and policemen saying of Obama, "Did he not get the message of Wisconsin?"

Hummm.....first off, in Wisconsin, firefighters and police unions were exempted from the ridiculous union-busting tactics applied to teachers in Wisconsin.  So that doesn't fly, but even Walker was not trying to fire a bunch of teachers or saying that we need a lot fewer of them.  He was just trying to cheat them a little on their pensions and nickel-dime them on wages.  I think Romney's big mouth just lost him the police and fire fighter vote.  Granted, teachers probably weren't going to vote for him because they're educated and all, but there are a lot of republicans in the police force and fire departments who don't believe that they are all a bunch of "worthless government bureaucrats", as Romney seems to see them.  

So I think that's a lot more damaging than some out-of-context statement where Romney basically complains that the economy could be better, despite the fact that he and his Republican cronies opposed any stimulus, and basically advised doing nothing, except giving more tax cuts to millionaires. Obama had to force them, kicking and screaming, every step of the way to accept any stimulus at all, and then a number of Republican governors refused to even spend the stimulus money that the federal government had given them.  In fact a great deal of the unemployment in the public sector comes from a handful of southern Republican states where they refused to spend stimulus money and then laid off a ton of public workers.  They have some nerve to turn around, after actively standing in the way of economic recovery, and whine that things didn't clean up the George Bush recession of 2008 any faster.  

Besides, the actual message of Wisconsin that they cannot avoid is that "UNIONS INCREASE WAGES".  Walker would not fight so bitterly against unions if they did not get better wages and better benefits for their members.  In the minds of people like Romney and Walker this is a BAD THING and is why unions must be destroyed -- because they will not accept minimum wage slavery for their members.  In the minds of sane Americans this is why we need more and more unions, and not the fake public workers unions who are prohibited from even striking, no matter what kinds of bad-faith deal someone like Walker tries to force upon them.  Despite outspending his opponent 10 to 1 in Wisconsin Walker only won by a few points.  If twice as many people had been in unions there then he probably would have lost and he would have had to find a way to balance budgets without stealing money out of the pockets of teachers.

It is always possible for unscrupulous people like Walker to find some minority to rob.  He could have just as easily declared that any adult under five feet tall had to contribute an extra $1000 as a "state short-person tax".  After all there is a crisis, and surely short people have something to do with it.  Furthermore, most adults are five feet tall or above, so it won't affect them.  Besides, if short people complain about it, then it should be easy to have them beaten up, because they're short and all.  That is precisely the mentality that prevailed in Wisconsin, only instead of "short people" they choose "teachers".  

Taxed Enough Already? RU Sure? How Do You Know?

The so-called right-wing Tea Party was an anti-tax movement originally modelled on the Boston Tea Party.  They later adopted the backronym that "T.E.A" stood for "Taxed Enough Already".  However, one has to wonder, since tax rates/deductions have changed considerably in the decades since it was founding, and both state and federal budgets change from year to year, how these people know that, no matter what, they are always being taxed enough.  Have they really done studies to figure out how much taxation is "enough"?  Or are they just admitting that they hate having to pay even a single penny of taxes, because they have no concept of civic responsibility.  As noted, that is doubtful, since that would change on a regular basis depending upon factors like the budget, the economy, wars, recessions, etc.  Yet these victims insist that they are being taxed too much,, regardless of what the tax rate is.

This is just further evidence that Republicans are not serious when they talk about smaller government.  They are intentionally vague about what smaller government even means.  They have no agreed upon way to measure  how small is too small or just right.  They often try to soothe their critics by assuring them that they still want massive military spending, and a large police apparatus.  After all, someone has be their to defend the property of all those Tea Baggers so that they can keep hating the government from the privacy of their homes.  But outside of supporting unlimited defense spending, and a large police state, so long as the police are only used against their political enemies, there is no agreement on what else should be part of small government.  Some want to abolish the public school system, the federal reserve, social security, the EPA, and the NEA.  Others just want lower taxes or a flat tax, ala Herman Cain.  Remember Mr. 9 9 9?  Of course, they would still be "taxed enough", presumably, even at 9%, I am sure.  Otherwise the party would be over and they might have to get real jobs and find some other excuse for dressing up in wigs and skirts and screaming about things they don't understand.  If they want to do that, perhaps they should just go join a local theater company.

Obama Is Pro-Choice, Romney is Multiple-choice

Back in 1994 when Mitt Romney was busy losing his senate election to Ted Kennedy the issue of abortion came up in a debate.  Mitt Romney (version 1994) claimed that he was pro-choice, at the time, because Romney's mother had been pro-choice when she also ran for and lost her bid for the US Senate.  Teddy Kennedy responded that people knew where he stood on the issue because he had a record that was clearly pro-choice, whereas he noted his opponent (Romney) was "multiple choice".  

If you go over to multiplechoicemitt.com you can see many of his other multiple choice flip flops on matters financial and social.  

Why Trickle-Down Economics Never Worked

You still have some hard-core Republicans insisting that millionaires and billionaires need more tax breaks as the sole way to “stimulate” the economy, create jobs, etc.  There are a lot of reasons that this self-serving , trickle-down theory has never worked and will never work. 

To begin with, rich people, by definition, already have more money than they need, or they would not be called rich, would they?  So they don’t need an extra “tax break” in order to afford to hire another butler or limo driver.  Rich people don’t sit around saying, “I hope the government passes that tax break so that I can afford to pay those illegal immigrants to mow my lawn”.  Poor people are the ones who sit at home hoping that there will be a little extra in this month’s check to be able to afford to go to the beauty parlor or get a massage. 

So, generally speaking, rich people can already afford to hire additional servants, or purchase additional goods and services, but they don’t want to.  I mean, after all, there are limits on what a person can consume, and when you’re already rich and have already satisfied all your basic appetites, giving that person a little bit more money will not make it any easier to eat or drink or party more.  When your belly is already full, money will not make more room inside of it.  It won’t make you hungry when you’re already stuffed.  It won’t make you party hardy when you’re already partied out. 

Just to reiterate, since rich people already have more money than they need, giving them additional money on top of what they are choosing not to spend right now, logically speaking, doesn’t seem like a good formula for changing that behavior.  Especially for billionaires, who may not even notice the excess funds, the idea that a small additional pittance from the government will inspire an avalanche of consumption is naïve, to say the least.

See, there are plenty of things that rich people can do with money rather than spend it.  Classically speaking, they can always afford to just hoard it.  It might not be logical to sit on it and do nothing, but psychologically, it may give a sense of “security” to hold onto that money for a “rainy day”.  As the Bill Gates character on the Simpsons said, “I didn’t get rich by writing checks”.  Rich people are still human and, even in their yachts, they too must worry about running aground on unexpected financial shoals.  In fact, in the words of a rather well-known rich person who goes by the notorious initials B.I.G., when you have “mo’ money”, you often also have “mo’ problems”, since you have mo’ to worry about losing. 

After all, it’s actually work for a rich person to hire someone and then have to manage that labor.  If you suddenly give a rich person more money for doing nothing, why should she want to immediately run out and expend a lot of time and effort figuring out what to do with it.  Where is the urgency when you already have plenty, and, for that matter, why work hard when you don’t have to?  Again, this might be what poor people do when they get an extra $50, but it is not necessarily what rich people do, even when they get an extra $50,000.  It is almost as if trickle-down economics is a poor-person’s misconception of how they think rich people are supposed to act. 

Of course, some of the slightly more sophisticated tricklers may be thinking to themselves that only rich people will have enough concentrated money to invest it in things like purchasing a factory, and increasing the “supply side” of our economy.  However, there are such things as stock markets, or a business partnerships, or even crowd-source funding, which allow people to pool their money.  So one does not have to be a single, wealthy individual in order to invest money in ways that grow business production.  For that matter, most businesses do not need to be big.  The vast majority of American businesses are not only small, but micro.  Whereas a small business is often defined as anything up to a couple million dollars, many businesses are started with far less than few million dollars. 

Alternatively, there is a much stronger case to be made for giving tax breaks to non-wealthy or “po’ people”.  Even poor people who might be tempted to save some money for a rainy day often do not have enough money to do that, and are therefore are not in the habit of doing it regularly, just based on necessity.  In the same way that we defined a rich person has having more money than he or she needed, a poor person generally has less money than needed.  Therefore, when a poor person gets money, it is a safe bet that this money will already be spoken for in any number of different ways.  There will be past due bills to pay, and repairs put off, and needs that are crying to be met.  The sense of urgency which was found lacking on the part of wealthy people will be found in abundance among the poor. 

For that matter, there is likely to remain a sense of urgency even among the middle class.  People often live up their means, so people who make more tend to quickly spend more, and may feel as strapped for excess cash as the poor.  It is only after people reach a certain level of affluence, which some have estimated at $80-90 thousand / year in present US dollars that people find they can pretty much afford all the basic wants and needs, and excess money becomes of diminishing importance. 

However, for most middle-class people they had to work their way up and they know what it is to be poor, either as struggling college students, or due to temporary layoffs and unemployment experienced in the past.  Try as some might, many cannot forget where they come from, because they are only one pink slip away from returning to poverty.  Thus, many middle-class people carry with them the mindsets of their impoverished days, perhaps explaining the rampant consumerism, and “live for today” credit card sprees that are all too common, instead of savings, and investing. 

Yet, I would argue that this does not mean that we must only count on the rich for savings and investing.  Indeed, many in the upper-middle class, where all their basic needs are being met, have to do something with that excess money, and they are the ones who are likely to start looking for places to put that money which cannot be easily spent right away.   Furthermore, most middle class people have pension plans which come with their employment, in the form of 401Ks or the equivalent.  The more affluent end of the middle class can probably also afford supplemental plans, Roth IRAs , and a variety of additional investments, including stocks and bonds.  Thus, we do not need to rely on the millionaires and billionaires to shoulder that burden either. 

There are also other reasons that trickle down would be questionable.  Since the time of Pareto, wealth disparities in the 80:20 (wealth to population) range have given way to 90:10 and higher.  This suggests that wealth has not been trickling down for quite some time, and, in fact has been moving the other way.   Even if a poor person gets some money, he or she runs out and spends it at Walmart, owned by some of the wealthiest individuals on the planet.  Even among the rich there is stratification where the wealthiest 1% owns far more than the rest of the top 10%.  The point is not to make any judgments about these people, but merely to suggest that money is more likely to suck up than to trickle down.  

Romney Ain't Reagan, He Aint Even Bush...41

Are there any conservatives who really love Romney the way that they loved Reagan?  Of course not.  It takes more than a haircut to do that.  

Are there any conservatives who even love Romney as much as Bush?  Either Bush?  Of course not.  

Romney might be a little more charismatic than Bush 41, but he is certainly no Bush 43.  Hell, he's not even McCain or Palin.  Right-wingers would probably much rather have Mrs. YouBetcha as their nominee than old square as a Picasso pear Mitt Romney.  

Plus he's a Mo..Mo...Mormon.  Many Republicans will swear on a stack of Holy Books which are coincidentally not the Book of Mormon that they don't care about that at all -- yeah right.  They're Republicans, not hippie-dippy progressives who hold hands and sing Kumbaya.  They are not exactly paragons of open-mindedness.  

They might grit their teeth and accept him since they effectively have no choice and are stuck with him as the nominee, but the idea that they really love this guy is laughable.  Can you imagine right-wingers sitting around the radio and listening to Romney the way they listen to Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Savage is beyond absurd.  To borrow a phrase from Mark Twain that he used to describe Mormonism in his day, Romney's speeches are "chloroform in print".  

Liberals might have been a little disillusioned by Obama after 4 years, but they can still find things to like about him.  Right-wingers are at a real loss to find things they like about Mitt Romney.  Back when Bush was running against Kerry the metric for likability was who you would rather have a beer with.  Well, considering that Romney is a Mormon and therefore doesn't drink, I guess Obama automatically wins that one too.  

Bush claimed that God choose him to be president, but if Romney is elected would that mean that God approves of Mormonism?  I think right-wingers need to think long and hard about that before they cast their ballot for him.  They might do better by just putting up with Obama for another 4 years instead of effectively legitimizing and boosting Mormonism on the national stage.  

140 advertisers dump rush

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving jacka$$, but for perhaps the first time in Rush's entire miserable life, he is finally being held accountable for the idiocy that ceaselessly spews from his mouth. That is, according to new reports as many as 90% of Rush's advertisements seem to be public service announcements, as many as 140 advertisers have deserted him. This reinforces my point that Rush Limbaugh is the media SLUT, not Sandra Fluke. Now Rush is finally being dumped like the cheap little media whore that he is.

Limbaugh Loses 42 Advertisers Due to Defamatory Comments

The total number of advertisers that the Rush Limbaugh Show has lost since its slanderous comments about Sandra Fluke now stands at 42.  You may recall that Rush Limbaugh accused Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke of being a "slut" and a "prostitute" when she testified before congress about the need for women to have access to contraception through insurance coverage.  Back in a place called reality, Fluke was actually arguing that birth control pills have medical benefits such as preventing Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, which has nothing to do with having sex or being a slut.  For some women their periods are so painful that they can be debilitating and birth control also allows them to skip periods or at least have less painful ones.  Of course, these are FACTS as opposed to the FACT-FREE content that Rush Limbaugh spews to his listeners. Since Limbaugh refuses to do research or engage in factual dialogs and instead chooses to bully women with his slurs, advertisers are making the right choices.  Keep the pressure on, because the only thing that a self-absorbed pig like Limbaugh understands is when it affects him in the pocketbook.

Of Course Fluke Will Sue Limbaugh for Defamation

People are asking, I wonder if Sandra Fluke will sue radio rapist Rush Limbaugh for repeated verbal molestations, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute", for wanting insurers to cover birth control.  Hummm...that's a good question...wait...no it isn't.  It's a stupid question considering that she is a LAW STUDENT and that Rush has PUBLICLY DEFAMED her without any evidence or mitigation.  He can claim all he wants that his unfunny, completely serious statements are "jokes" and "entertainment", but he accused her of criminal actions, and even if he was joking, his listeners are too dumb to know the difference.  Limbots pretty much take what Rush says at face value.  He did injure this woman's reputation accusing her of criminal actions, like prostitution.    He claimed without evidence that this woman is promiscuous and that her parents should be embarrassed by her.  That could certainly have an impact on her ability to find employment or future clients as a lawyer.

If I claimed that Rush was an monkey-f*(king, AIDS-infected, gay-gigolo who smuggled cocaine around in his enormous a$$ then I would expect that he and his fans would feel this crossed the line as well.  The fact that he made these comments not once but several times, upping the ante instead of retracting them, makes her case even stronger.  It is very clear that he intended, with malice of forethought to injure this woman's reputation using his widely distributed show, so Mrs. Fluke can easily justify suing the radio stations that broadcast Limbaugh.  Surely, as a law student, she knows that 95% of suits are settled out of court and the more deep-pocketed people and organizations are involved the better your chances are of getting a settlement.  Heck, I'm sure that many lawyers would argue the case for free just to get the publicity.

BTW, I think Rush is just jealous because Sandra is a smokin babe.  Limbaugh, as an oxycontin-addled, closeted homosexual, doesn't know how to talk to smart, attractive women.  That's why he can never get any women and has failed to consummate any of his four marriages or have any children, even though he's old enough to be a grandpa.  Why is it that women keep leaving Rush?  Can we say Brokeback Mount-Rushmore.
See, real men like having sex with women, Rush, so we fully support contraception.  You like getting pounded in the butt by men, so you don't need to worry about getting preggers.

RUSH is the SLUT, not Sandra Fluke

RUSH is a media SLUT who has been mind-sodomizing the nation for decades, so for him to call other people a "slut" or a "prostitute", is laughably hypocritical and down-right absurd, like pretty much everything else on his show.  Proof that Limbaugh is a slut came when Quicken Loans pulled out of advertising on his show, after he made his latest moronic claim that Sandra Fluke was a "slut" for advocating insurance coverage of birth control. Never mind that men have long received Viagra from Medicare and can continue to receive it now, even after rule changes, as long as they claim it's for "hypertension".

Anyway, it's not that Quicken Loans doesn't love Rush, it's just that they already had their fun with him, so they shot their wad all over his face and then left the money on the table, on the way out the door.  The same thing happened with former Johns Legal Zoom, and Sleep Number who had been gang banging him like a rented donkey, but apparently got tired of his ugly horse-face and dumped him like the ten-dollar hoe that he is.

But you may still be thinking that Rush has a point.  Why should I have to pay for X, Y, or Z?  If you think that it proves that you are a moron, because we always have this debate and there is always something that some taxpayer doesn't want to pay for.  I don't want to pay for Rush's rectal exam either, which consumes half of the Medicare budget right there, but the government has never been a (tossed) salad bar where each individual tax payers could veto public policy for the other $300 million of us. Welcome to reality and try to live there a little more often.

No, Rush has no point, except the one rammed up his butt during gay sex.  Yes, Mr. Limbaugh is closeted-homosexual, in addition to being a media whore.  How can you prove this in five seconds?  Firstly, there is the fact that he has never had kids, despite claiming to be a traditional, "family-values" guy.  Then there are the rumors that none of his three marriages were ever consummated.  In other words he doesn't really like sex with women.  Those were just sham marriages, which is common for closeted homosexuals to hide their true identities.  Remember Brokeback Mountain?  But Rush is OK with you paying for his Viagra so he can go have sex with men in bathrooms, like his buddy Larry Craig.  Remember, it's for his "hypertension".

Muslim Extremist Wanted to Blow Up People in Capitol

Moroccan Amine al Khalifi, who had illegally stayed in the US after his temporary visa ran out, received what he thought was a bomb vest and a firearm so that he could go martyr himself by killing people in the US Capitol.  Fortunately, this was a sting operation by undercover FBI agents.  However, he would have happily killed dozens of people, had the devices been real, because he was a religious fanatic.  Many religious fanatics of all stripes think this way.  The main distinction with Islam appears to be that they put their money where their mouth is, whereas a lot of Christian extremists just run their mouths while being too chicken$hit to actually follow through.  But there are certainly plenty of religious terrorists, including the Hutaree militias, abortion clinic bombers, and even the Oklahoma City bombers.  We can't forget about the Branch Davidians either who were armed to the teeth with a million rounds of ammunition.  In that light Khalifi is not really so different from some of these Christian extremists who would probably take similar actions if they were presented with the same opportunities.

If Whitney Houston Was A Baptist Then Obama Is A Catholic

It's starting to become increasingly obvious that Whitney Houston had a serious alcohol and probably drug problem which was not under control and a lot of people had to be intentionally looking the other way to not notice it.  There's the image and then there's the reality.  I mean Houston is technically a Baptist, after all, at least in theory.  My understanding is that Baptists generally frown upon the idea of clubbing and getting shitfaced in public, which seems to be exactly what Houston was doing. It would be like Rick Santorum buying jumbo packs of Rough Rider Condoms.
And yet I suspect that Whitney would have labelled herself, perhaps loudly, a Baptist, despite the fact that her Baptismal font was probably filled with Everclear instead of water.  If Houston was a Baptist then Obama's a Catholic.  I mean Obama did go to a Catholic school for a couple years.  However, at least he has the decency to not claim that this makes him a Catholic, any more than attending a muslim school for a few years made him a muslim.

Freedom of Religion My Ass.

Oh the phony fury of dress-wearing Catholic Bishops wanting the "freedom of religion" to keep oppressing women.  It really is ludicrously over the top for the Catholic church, an organization that arrested, tortured, and even executed people for "heresy", to scream that they are being persecuted on the grounds of religious freedom.  What is the persecution they're screaming about?  Asking them to do what everyone else is required to do.  That's so unfair.  At issue is asking them to cover a MASSIVE $20 per YEAR average cost for contraception, and now OBAMA says it will be required by law to be FREE.  But FREE still isn't good enough, if you are an insane fanatic, which the Catholic leadership definitely are, even though the average catholic is perfectly sane and reasonable by comparison.  Yes, most Catholics are A-OK with contraception.  Only the extremist idiocy of the church leadership has a problem with.  Don't believe me.  Well you're wrong.  Here are the actual FACTS.  The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Catholics SUPPORT CONTRACEPTION.  As in 98% of Catholic women support contraception usage.  The church leadership does not own the church.  The church membership is the church, not the people who undemocratically claim divine right to rule it.  The leadership are only the mafia gangsters (literally, in some cases) who hijacked the church for their own selfish benefit.  

Here's another FACT.  Catholic leadership has been preaching single-issue opposition to Democrats since Roe v. Wade, and that issue has been their OPPOSITION to freedom of choice.  They said to oppose Mondale, and Dukakis.  They said to oppose Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and now Obama.  You can never make a fanatic happy.  They even opposed Carter, and Carter was adamantly against abortion.  Screw them.  They will always instruct church members to vote against Democrats, and members will ignore them like they have been for decades anyway.

  

The fact is that Catholics have a doctrine of "primacy of conscience", but the church leadership doesn't want its members to be able to think for themselves and exercise it.  They demand that their followers march in lockstep with the pope even though there is NO EX CATHEDRA ruling on ABORTION, so their TEACHING IS NOT BINDING ON ANY CATHOLICS.  Yep, the Catholic church is too chickenshit to make this an official policy, because they know it would be the nail in their coffin.  So they do everything short of this, and this is the reason for the hysterics.  

Unfortunately for the Catholic church, Obama has outmaneuvered them once again.  He has given them a deal that makes real Catholic women, and non-catholics employed in these organizations as well, while technically being "revenue neutral".  This makes the church look even more out-of-step than ever, and increases Obama's stature with moderates, independents, and women, who are the people disposed to vote for him anyway.  

Ricky Retardo Santorum Says Privacy Rights Don't Exist

When it comes to gay people, disgraced former senator Ricky Retardo (Santorum) thinks that they have no right to privacy.  He then goes to his PRIVATE yacht club, and talks to PRIVATE business men about his plans to PRIVATIZE social security, and to replace the public school system with PRIVATE madrasas for straight Christians only.  Hummm....sure sounds like he believes in a right to privacy, at least for himself and people like him, regardless of the idiotic rhetoric spewing from his uninformed pie hole.  

How people can take a moron like Santorum seriously boggles the mind.  His chief argument is that the words "right to privacy" do not appear in the Constitution, but neither does "the right to breathe".  Of course, we can INFER that the "right to breathe" is assumed under the Constitution, since it would be impossible to exercise any of our other rights without it.  A similar INFERENCE is used to establish that we DO have a "right to privacy", given that the Constitution says citizens have a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".  

EVILgelical Christian extremists hate the notion that people have a right to privacy because then they might look at porn or engage in wild sex parties or want things like birth control and abortion.  Indeed, on this last point, Roe v Wade concludes that abortion should be legal on the basis of a woman's "right to privacy". How can people be "secure in their persons" if there is an intruder growing inside their bodies, threatening their health and even their lives. Therefore, necessarily,  religious extremists have to be against the "right to privacy", so that they can continue to be endorsed by the freedom-hating anti-birth control movement.  

Over on planet Dumbshit, where Ricky Retardo lives instead of planet Earth, Santorum argues that "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy..."  Indeed this makes NO SENSE whatsoever, but what did you expect.  The right to consensual sex does not imply the right to marriage.  If it did then Gay people would not need separate laws to GET MARRIED.  Having sex with multiple partners is not the same as polygamy, which is formal legal marriage to all these partners.  Retardo also throws in incest and adultery, for good measure, but the major problem with incest is that it is almost never consensual and adultery is not against federal law.  If it were then they could have attempted to prosecute Bill Clinton for "adultery" instead of just trying to say that he lied about it under oath. 

He also makes the claim based on personal ignorance that, "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality".  Perhaps he does not know better, but even if no other society has yet acknowledged something that would still not be a good argument against it.  There are plenty of things that no other society in human history has ever done, like walking on the Moon.  That would not be a good argument that we should never do it.  Someone always has to be first.  

The fact is, however, that pretty much every society that ever existed has acknowledged and admitted that homosexuals do exist, and many of them, outside the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, did not have serious problems with it.     On the other hand, polygamy isn't all that big a problem because most men don't want to have multiple women telling them what to do all the time, and most women don't want to have only 1/10 of a husband who comes around once every couple weeks for a slam-bam-thank-you-maam.  

However, if people do want to repeal polygamy laws or recognize gay marriage, it's still not clear how this consensual activity hurts anything except the religous prejudices of people like Retarded Ricky.  

Bachmann Pulls To Have More Time to Gay Bash

Michelle Bachmann's pathetic performance, even amongst brain-dead right-wingers, has made it apparent, even to her, that she is wasting her time and is thankfully dropping out of her hopeless presidential bid.  There are so many gay people in the world and only her and her husband left to provide pseudo-scientific "de-gay-if-cation" therapy to them.  She says you can "pray away the gay", but apparently gays have made her go away.  Oh happy day.
Bachmann also moronically proclaimed that she will continue to "fight socialism", which is codeword for taking bribes from HMOs who revoke people's insurance when they are sick.  I wonder how Jesus would feel about people who support these insurance companies that charge people huge premiums and then, the moment they try to use it, cancel their insurance on some pretext like not reporting acne at age 13 as a "pre-existing condition".
Dumb as hell michele will also be busy making the retarded claim that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation.  That way she might persuade retarded right-wingers to not vaccinate their daughters, so that they will get cancer.   There are so many stupid things Michele still has to do and say.

Batshit Crazy Ricky Almost Takes Iowa

I'm from Iowa, and my grandmother was very active in politics there.  This caucus is sure to be the most embarrassing meltdown of Iowa Republicans yet.  They were all over the map, displaying an inability to make up their minds or even comprehend the choices.  They loved Perry.  Then they hated him.  They loved Cain.  Then they hated him.  They flirted with Gingrinch and then teased him into 4th place.  They loved Ron Paul.  But most disgustingly of all they loved disgraceful "man-on-dog" Santorum.  This truly speaks to how adrift Republicans are, and perhaps failures in the once great Iowa school system which would allow them to make such an uninformed choice with Santorum.  Of course, in the end they came back to Mormon boy.  That ridiculous corporate raider who off-shored tens of thousands of jobs is the best that they've got.  

The question is, how are they going to hammer Obamacare with Romney, which he created Romneycare in Massachusetts? It truly is laughable.  Plus, it's quite clear that evangelical Christians will not support Romney, no matter who his running mate is.  Even if he picked batshit crazy Ricky Santorum, which is highly doubtful anyway.