Ricky Gervais

For today's Quote of the Day, I quoted Ricky Gervais, an excerpt from his superb "holiday message," Why I'm an Atheist. I highly recommend that you read the whole thing. It really is good.

And in the six days since it's been posted online at the Wall Street Journal, there have been 5862 comments! Heh, heh. No, I haven't read them all - or even more than a handful. But the column was so popular that they followed up with another, where Ricky Gervais answers some of the questions he received.

It's short, and it's very good, too. I recommend you read it as well (and there are only 704 comments there, so far). In fact, it's so good that I'm having trouble deciding what excerpts to post. How about starting with this?

What does a comedian really know about God anyway?

Since there is nothing to know about god, a comedian knows as much about god as any one else.

Yes, he's right. There are no experts when it comes to gods. There are experts when it comes to religions, true. But that's just being an expert in the history or ideas of a particular belief system.

After all, people who do claim to be experts about God disagree vociferously. Unlike in science, which relies on evidence, there's no consensus in religion. That's because there's no way to tell when you're wrong - or when anyone else is wrong, either - when you rely only on wishful thinking faith.

Science doesn’t concern itself with the non-existence of something. The periodic table of imaginary things would be too big for a classroom- infinitely big in fact, and rather pointless. It’s not trying to prove the non-existence of anything supernatural. All it knows is there is no scientific proof of anything supernatural so far. When someone presents a jar of God it will test it. If it finds some evidence of “godness” it will follow the evidence till it knows everything it can.

The fact that science can say “we don’t know” is exactly my point. Science doesn’t start with a set of convenient conclusions and try to justify them. It follows evidence. In fact, it tries to prove itself wrong. When it can’t, it’s right. Superstition, religion and blind faith cherry pick the evidence and justify the results by changing the goal posts.

This is very good stuff, which - as Gervais well knows - will likely change no minds at all. It still should be said, and said often.

But since it's Christmas, let me close with one more excerpt that really speaks to me:

How do you plan on celebrating Christmas?

Eating and drinking too much with friends and family. Celebrating life and remembering those that did, but can no longer.

They are not looking down on me but they live in my mind and heart more than they ever did probably. Some, I was lucky enough to bump into on this planet of six billion people. Others shared much of my genetic material. One selflessly did her best for me all my life. That’s what mums do though. They do it for no other reason than love. Not for reward. Not for recognition. They create you. From nothing. Miracle? They do those every day. No big deal. They are not worshiped. They would give their life without the promise of heaven. They teach you everything they know yet they are not declared prophets. And you only have one.

I am crying as I write this.

QOTD: Why don't you believe in God?

Quote of the Day:

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith.” I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,” comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence -­- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe,” this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me,” but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.” ...

“Do unto others…” is a good rule of thumb. I live by that. Forgiveness is probably the greatest virtue there is. But that’s exactly what it is -­‐ a virtue. Not just a Christian virtue. No one owns being good. I’m good. I just don’t believe I’ll be rewarded for it in heaven. My reward is here and now. It’s knowing that I try to do the right thing. That I lived a good life. And that’s where spirituality really lost its way. When it became a stick to beat people with. “Do this or you’ll burn in hell.”

You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway. - Ricky Gervais

More Christmas cartoons

(Mike Luckovich)

OK, I posted some Christmas-themed political cartoons a couple of weeks ago, not to mention yesterdays Savage Chickens post, but what would Christmas be like, without political slams in a humorous format?  :)

So, enjoy!

(Steve Sack)

(Jeff Danziger)

(Cam Cardow)

(Matt Davies)

(Nick Anderson)

(Tom Toles)

(Mike Luckovich)

(Stuart Carlson)

(Steve Benson)

QOTD: Lame ducks gone mad

Quote of the Day:

Congress has been working on this legislation since 2008, when a big food-poisoning epidemic reminded everyone that the Food and Drug Administration is currently working with laws written during the Great Depression. It survived endless delays by Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who believes the free market is your last, best defense against E. coli.

But staff members for the leading Democratic and Republican senators on the health committee actually got together and worked things out the way they used to do in olden days. Most of the negotiators were women, and while I am certainly not saying that made a difference, I am, sort of, just saying.

Not everybody was impressed by the achievement.

“Oh, my gosh! It’s so important,” said Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “I’m glad I rushed back from our break to work on food safety.”

Brown felt the Senate should have been focusing on economic issues, particularly his effort to stop the extension of unemployment compensation benefits until the Senate agrees to the Scott Brown Unemployment Compensation Funding Plan.

“Is it because I’m a Republican that we’re not going to pass that? Is it because I’m the new guy?” he demanded.

We will now have a moment of silence to contemplate the suffering of Senator Brown. Who had to come back the week after Thanksgiving in order to vote on a major bipartisan bill aimed at keeping people from being poisoned by contaminated food. And then became a victim of discrimination. - Gail Collins

Does Obama have the cards?

(Mike Keefe)

Have a Savage Chickens Christmas

("So Bright")

Here's an assortment of great Savage Chickens comics by Doug Savage to get you in the Christmas mood.

Well, Jim, is this alternative enough for you?  :)

("Childlike Wonder")

("Exposed!")

("Frosty the Snowman")

("Season's Greetings")

("A Christmas Wish")

Keeping the promise

It's a Christmas miracle!

(Stuart Carlson)

This is a lame duck? Congress ends "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," then funds the 9/11 responders health care bill and approves the START treaty. What has gotten into the Democrats, anyway, that they're actually willing to fight for what's right?

Most of these votes weren't even particularly close. Once Democrats stood up to the GOP, the Republican leadership just couldn't keep their members from bolting - enough, at least, to break a filibuster. (All of these had majority support. The only problem was getting a vote permitted at all, and that took breaking those never-ending Republican filibusters.)

That's not all, either. The Food Safety and Modernization Act passed the Senate Sunday evening, and the COMPETES Act, which re-authorizes science funding, yesterday afternoon. The defense authorization bill, held up two weeks ago by DADT, was passed, and, of course, Obama's tax cut compromise. 

(Jim Morin)

Of course, not everything succeeded in overcoming GOP obstructionism. The DREAM Act couldn't quite make it, unfortunately. And Republicans blocked the Child Marriage Protection Act. The DISCLOSE Act didn't make it, either, and that's something we desperately need in this country (minus the NRA exemption, if possible).

And this is a lame duck Congress. The Republicans take over the House of Representatives next year (I still can't believe we were dumb enough to let that happen), and that won't be pretty. And the Democrats not only have a narrower lead in the Senate, they've got even loonier opponents across the aisle than they did the past two years.

But, hey, let's celebrate good news while we can. Maybe, if we're really, really lucky, the Senate will vote to change those stupid filibuster rules next term (which takes only a simple majority of votes, if they do it the first day). I still think the current rules are unconstitutional.

It's kind of funny, but according to TPM, the Democrats set a new record the past two years in breaking filibusters. The only Senate that even came close was the one immediately preceding this one. Of course, that's mostly because they've had more opportunity. Republicans have been filibustering nearly everything, which is not at all how the Senate traditionally worked. (And note that the filibuster itself is not in the U.S. Constitution.)

Well, it's the season of cheer, right? Do I hear the clip, clop of tiny hooves?

(Tony Auth)

QOTD: American exceptionalism

Quote of the Day:

The entire root of this attack line stems from a single sentence by Obama, endlessly repeated on the right: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." You see!, conservatives say -- he thinks American exceptionalism is no more valid than any other country's national pride!

In fact, Obama's remark was a nuanced defense of the idea. He began by acknowledging other forms of national pride, but proceeded to argue for American exceptionalism anyway:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

"And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

"Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

"And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

There's been a debate about epistemic closure on the right, and this is a prominent example. Conservatives repeat Obama's single sentence over and over, seemingly unaware that the context of his remarks leads to a conclusion very nearly the opposite of the one they claim. You could wade through this discussion in the right-wing media for hours and hours without ever coming across any excerpt of Obama's remark that goes beyond the one cherished sentence. It's pure epistemic closure. The other possibility, I suppose, is that all these people are dishonest hacks. - Jonathan Chait

Boss Hogg is dreaming of a white Christmas

(Mike Luckovich)

Re. this post, of course.

Triumph of the 111th Congress

(David Horsey)

"Triumph" isn't normally a word I associate with Congress, but this title belongs to David Horsey, not me. And he makes some good points:

With public approval of Congress hovering at 13 percent in the Gallup Poll, it is not easy to find anyone to sing praises of the 111th Congress. So, I'll do it myself.

Let's start with the much-maligned bailouts and stimulus bills.

The bank bailouts were distasteful because they rewarded many of the reckless financiers who dragged us into the economic morass of 2007-08. The alternative, though, was to let the banks sink and, since we are all on the same creaking ship, we would have gone down with them. It was a nasty choice, but the right one.

The bailout of the American auto industry is more easily praised. It saved about a million American jobs and preserved vital manufacturing capacity that is otherwise disappearing from our national economy.

And overlooked by Tea Party critics who complained that the bailouts spiked the federal debt is the fact that the loans are already mostly paid back.

As for the stimulus, some say the stimulus bill failed to stimulate. This is a debatable point. Proving the positive impact of the stimulus money relies on projections of how much worse off we would have been if it had not been injected into the economy. One unquestioned aspect of the stimulus was that it gave a hefty tax cut to the middle class – something Democrats forgot to brag about during the 2010 congressional campaign.

Then, famously – or, for some people, infamously – the 111th Congress passed health care reform after a year of invective and vituperation. "Obamacare," which some call socialism and others call Bob Dole's Republican health care plan, will finally provide affordable access to medical services for nearly every American citizen, a goal that has stood just out of reach since it was first proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt a century ago.

It is not a perfect scheme, but, as provisions of the health care plan kick into gear over the next few years, Americans will begin to wonder – as they have with Medicare – why it took so long to get it.

After that, despite the objections of Republicans who seemed to think there was no reason to clamp down on the casino that Wall Street has become, Democrats approved moderate regulations to govern the out-of-control financial markets. They also passed legislation that, for the first time, creates a government agency to advocate for consumers. Republicans didn't like that one, either.

OK, anything that the Republicans dislike can't be too bad. So maybe Congress did accomplish some good things. But I'll point out that the bank bailout happened before Obama took office. Yeah, it was still mostly the same Democrats in Congress who passed it - less willing than Republicans to cut off their own nose to spite their face, when instead they could rescue the American economy from complete collapse. Huh! Fancy that!

The failure of Democrats to sell all this good news to voters demonstrates how liberals have not developed an effective response to the agenda-setting power of the right wing media machine. From conservative talk radio and FOX News to the reactionary blogosphere and powerhouse Republican political operatives, the right dominates the public debate with a loud and relentless message unrestrained by tethers to reality.

As a result, Democrats ran away from their achievements, took a drubbing in the fall election, gave up control of the House and lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Despite this, instead of slinking off into a quiet corner, the 111th Congress went out with a bang.

A controversial tax deal was reached that gave Republicans what they wanted – big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – but, to the surprise of many, also gave Democrats some rewards, including extension of unemployment benefits and a reduction in the payroll tax. The tax package did one very bad thing, of course: the government deficit was increased by many billions of dollars. But blame for this will go to both parties while, at least for now, President Obama is reaping the political reward. This is an infuriating result for Republican leaders who hoped to block the Democratic president from achieving anything that might improve his re-election prospects.

In fact, the Party of No had a terrible time snatching any victories from Obama in the lame duck session of Congress. Most significantly, conservative ranks were shattered by the quick passage of a bill repealing the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule. Two years after Obama promised he would end the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed forces, the 111th Congress was able to deliver.

And, as I write this, the Senate appears to be on the verge of approving START, the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, one of the president's chief foreign policy goals. That grating sound you hear is Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell grinding his teeth in bitter frustration.

Democrats should take pride in what was accomplished over the last two years and quibblers on the left ought to stop whining about not getting all that they desired. In an era of political gridlock and polarization, it is rather amazing that so much could get done.

OK, yes, this lame duck Congress has been impressive. If the Democrats had been this determined the past year and a half, I wouldn't have been so disgusted with them. But as Horsey points out, they did run away from their own record before the election. And I still can't believe they didn't split the tax question, before the election, and force Republicans to vote specifically on cutting taxes on the rich.

And now, well, things are going to get really, really bad for America in the next Congress. After all, the only reason the lame duck session is accomplishing anything is because they've got Democrats and Republicans alike who have nothing to lose. I guess you're more willing to do the right thing when you've already lost your re-election bid, huh?

The 112th Congress will be different. With the hand of Senate Republicans enhanced and a GOP majority in the House, the next two years will be a rough and bitter struggle between Democrats trying to protect what has been gained and Republicans, driven by a fresh cohort of tea partyers in their caucus, fighting to take back lost ground. It will not be pretty.

Before that battle begins, Democrats need to do one last thing. On the first day of the 112the Congress – and on that day only – it will take only 51 votes to change the rules of the 100-member Senate. Democrats should seize that opportunity to alter the rules governing the filibuster. Where once the filibuster was employed only infrequently, it is now used routinely to block any significant legislation in the Senate that lacks 60 votes.

Minority rule needs to end. The filibuster has become a weapon too easily put in the service of narrow ideology.

Sorry, but Horsey won't sucker me that easily. I'll believe it when I see it. It's long past due, and we've missed a huge opportunity by letting the filibuster continue this long (and by not investigating and prosecuting the Bush Administration for their crimes, though that's a separate question), but I guess better late than never. If the Democrats actually find the nerve to do it.

I wouldn't mind a real filibuster, one that took an actual effort to accomplish. But not this wimped down version. Republicans claim that they will filibuster, but they don't actually have to do anything. So of course they've begun to filibuster everything.

And with the GOP in control of the House, the next two years are almost certain to be worse than the last two. I rate Congress low because the Republicans have been insane and the Democrats cowardly. Well, Republicans aren't getting any saner - just the reverse, in fact. And I won't believe the Democrats are actually growing a spine until they show me a lot more evidence of that.

I guess we'll see.

QOTD: We don't mind sharing Christmas

Quote of the Day:

For a fact, the Christians stole Christmas. We don't mind sharing it with them, but we don't like this pretense of theirs that it is the birthday of Jesus. It is the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun - Dies Natalis Invicti Solis. Christmas is a relic of sun worship.

The customs of this time of year endure because they are pleasant customs. It's fun to hear from distant family and friends, to gather, to feast, to sing. Gifts, as Robert Ingersoll once said, are evidences of friendship, of remembrance, of love.

The evergreens displayed now as in centuries past flourish when all else seems dead, and are symbols, as is the returning sun, of enduring life.

In celebrating the Winter Solstice, we celebrate reality. - Anne Nicol Gaylor

What Christmas is all about

(Calamities of Nature)

I agree with Linus. Check out the whole thing here.

Is this me?

I have a feeling I should take this Dilbert strip personally. Does Scott Adams read my blog?

Um, that's unlikely in the extreme, I know. (Why should he be one of the select few?) More likely, I'm just a type.

Then again, if you don't like listening to me repeat myself 27 times, you don't have to come here - which is the solution most people have adopted. Heh, heh.

Ascension Island

I posted once before, in September, about the deliberate terraforming of Ascension Island, and I still think it's fascinating. Here's another article, in the Economist, about the history of this island.

Discovered by the Portuguese in 1501, it was so "barren and isolated" that no country even bothered to claim it.

Just to the west of the mid-ocean ridge that separates South America’s tectonic plate from Africa’s, it is the top of a volcano which rises steeply from abyssal plains more than four kilometres below the surface of the ocean. The volcano made it above that surface only a million or so years ago, since when the island has grown to about 100 square kilometres. Before people arrived it was home to just a flightless bird, a land crab and no more than 30 species of plant, none as big as a bush.

Weirdly, when the British took possession of the island in 1815, they kept it on the books as a ship, the HMS Ascension. It was just a staging post, with even fresh water having to be shipped in.

That earlier article at the BBC kept mostly to the attempt, starting in 1847, to build an artificial ecosystem on the island, "the world's first experiment in terraforming." This one discusses that, but has more about the history of the island and also about the present situation. I still think it's fascinating.

It's optimistic, too:

The lesson that Easter Island teaches humanity is bleak. Ascension Island’s story has a more hopeful message. It shows that environments not remotely natural in their origins can become lovely to inhabit. People like Mr Stroud can and will act not just to preserve the environment but to improve it, making it more, not less, than it otherwise would be.

Winding down the flank of the mountain, there is a graceful fluttering in the woods off to the side of the road. Free from the threat of cats, fairy terns have returned to the island—and forsaken their ancestral cliffs for a new life among the leaves and branches. They flash bright white and beautiful against the green.

Since I'm a huge science fiction fan, the implications of this experiment in regards to terraforming other planets also interests me. And heck, at the rate we're going, we may well need to terraform our own planet in the years ahead. The unintentional changes we're making are almost uniformly disastrous. Sooner or later, we're going to have to repair the damage.

Boss Hogg for President!

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

OK, it's not Boss Hogg, I guess. It's Haley Barbour. I always get those two mixed up.

But seriously, this is incredible, isn't it? I know that nearly all Republicans are busy whitewashing history, but isn't there a limit? Why aren't they being laughed out of office?

(I borrowed the above graphic from Jonathan Strait at the New Republic, who seems to have the same problem I do.)

Republicans stop the Child Marriage Protection Act

This time, it's the House, not the Senate, blocking good legislation. Heck, the Child Marriage Protection Act "passed the Senate with zero objection on Dec. 1," according to Talking Points Memo. But Republicans in the House suddenly became hysterical.

Here's TPM:

But just before the vote began, Republican leadership blasted out a "whip alert" to GOP staffers with a message: Vote no. The alert claimed the bill cost too much and that a competing bill, introduced just the day before, would be better.

"There are also concerns that funding will be directed to NGOs that promote and perform abortion and efforts to combat child marriage could be usurped as a way to overturn pro-life laws," the alert read.

And so the bill, which needed a two-thirds vote to pass under the suspended rules, failed. Even some congressmen who sponsored the bill voted no.

McCollum, along with human rights organizations and the State Department, believes that child marriage is a form of child abuse that includes sexual abuse, domestic violence and slavery.

The text of the bill does not mention abortion, contraception or family planning. Instead, it directs the president to make preventing child marriage a priority, especially in countries where more than 40 percent of girls under the age of 18 are married. The ways to do that, according to the bill: support educating communities on the dangers and health effects of child marriage, keep young girls in school, support female mentoring programs and make sure girls have access to health care services. ...

Republicans also claimed that the bill would spend $108 million in taxpayer money. McCollum, however, says the bill doesn't authorize any new funds. The Congressional Budget Office says it would cost about $67 million over five years, noting that it won't affect direct spending and is therefore not subject to pay-go.

With the right-wing having hysterics about everything, America can't even fight child marriages these days. Have we become dysfunctional, or what?

Ministers and federal subsidies

Via Pharyngula, here's something to think about when you're preparing your taxes in the next few months. You know that churches are tax-free, of course. But did you know that ministers get special treatment in the U.S. tax code?

How special? Well, this tax preparer has posted an example. How about a total tax bill of $740 on an income of $105,000 (actually, he got a refund, if you include child tax credits), compared to the $18,826 in tax you or I would have to pay?

This is unfair.  What makes his profession so special that he is able to take deductions that no one else can?  Why is he able to elect out of social security?  Why is he able to deduct his mortgage interest and property taxes twice?

To top it off, he wrote a letter to our firm asking for a discounted preparation fee because he is a minister of humble means.  It made me sick to my stomach.

Heh, heh. Yeah, a "minister of humble means." Right.

Yes, the tax code is unfair in other ways, too - for example, in giving such a huge tax break to investment income, when a working stiff has to pay the full rate on his paycheck. But just because there are other wrongs, that doesn't make this any less wrong.

But don't expect it to be changed any time soon, either. American politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, are terrified of seeming to be "anti-Christian."

DADT in the dustbin of history

(David Horsey)

On Sunday, I blogged about the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but now we're starting to see the first political cartoons about it. So I thought I'd post a few of them:

(John Sherffius)

(Clay Bennett)

(Walt Handelsman)

(Steve Benson)

(Stuart Carlson)

Jon Stewart saves the day?

From Comedy Central's Indecision:

Did you happen to notice how a week ago, when Republicans blocked a Senate bill that would have paid for health care coverage for 9/11 First Responders, there was this deafening sonic boom of complete silence that emanated from the cable and network news offices, and then how, after Jon Stewart dedicated an entire episode of The Daily Show to the bill's defeat and its resulting silence, all of a sudden people started to talk about how maybe this was kind of an important thing that somebody should have told people about?

You did notice that? Well, you're not the only one…

In the wake of Stewart's show, ABC's Jonathan Karl ran a story on World News and the cable nets seem to have woken up to the bill's existence. On Sunday, New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand announced that a revised version of the bill, which reduces the cost from $7.4 billion to $6.2 billion — the measure is offset by closing a corporate tax loop hole — had gained at least some GOP support. Indeed, several prominent Republicans have come out in support of the bill with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace calling it a "national shame" that the legislation has yet to be enacted.

Sen. Gillibrand thinks there might even be enough Republican votes to get this piece of crazy liberal legislation passed…

"I believe we now have more than enough votes to pass this legislation. We have been working extremely closely with a number of Republicans and have made a series of changes to the bill. Americans will be watching closely over the next few days and expecting the Senate to do what is right and fulfill our moral obligation to these heroes."

Wow! Who'd have thought that reporting on an issue could actually produce real world results? Seems so counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

The article also includes embedded video clips of the Daily Show episode in question. Note that, last week, I posted the first clip here, and included a link to the second (for some reason, embedding more than one in a single post really screws things up on my blog).