Monday, April 11, 2011

Nice t-shirt!


It's based on this comic. Buy the t-shirt here.

And no, I don't get a cut. If I wasn't so swamped with Blood Bank t-shirts, I'd have ordered this one already. I might anyway. It's really appealing.

Sometimes I feel like a goat

Pearls Before Swine

Click on the link to see the last panel, since my columns aren't wide enough to display the whole thing. But the first two panels tell you what you need to know.

Actually, that's not the only cartoonist who's apparently familiar with my blog. :)

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Friday, April 8, 2011

The end times

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Intro - Jon Tells the Truth While Wearing Glasses
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

This is just the introduction. Jon Stewart has three more video segments (Glenn Beck Announces His Departure, Glenn Beck Was Sent by Jesus, and then Barack Obamayan) about the end times - the end of Glenn Beck on Fox "News."

It's really funny stuff. I highly recommend watching it all.

You won't believe this!

Forget gay marriage. In a recent poll, only 40% of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be legal!

From TPM:
Americans nationwide are evenly divided over the issue of same sex marriage. But Republicans in Mississippi are divided over a wholly different wedlock issue: interracial marriage.

In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal. ...

The poll also found that voters who thought interracial marriage should be banned liked [Haley] Barbour, [Sarah] Palin, and [Mike] Huckabee the most among the slate of potential GOP presidential candidates. Seventy-nine percent of those voters said they approved of Gov. Barbour's job performance, while 74% said they had a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, and 73% viewed Huckabee favorably.

Incredible, isn't it? This is the 21st Century, not the 19th. I wonder what the response would have been if they'd asked these southern Republicans about slavery?

Note that bans against interracial marriage were judged unconstitutional in 1967, nearly 45 years ago! But forget the legality of it. Are Mississippi Republicans really this backward that they still think otherwise?

Well, you can certainly see why the Republicans' Southern strategy of wooing white racists has been so successful, can't you? What I don't understand is why anyone who isn't a racist would still belong to the GOP.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Just have faith

Unmarried teen pregnancy really pays!

From ThinkProgress:
In 2009, Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol joined a teen pregnancy prevention nonprofit called the Candie’s Foundation. Today, the Associated Press reported that the Candie’s Foundation released its 2009 tax information, revealing that Bristol was paid a salary of $262,500.

But a closer examination of the tax form by ThinkProgress shows that the group disbursed only $35,000 in grants to actual teen pregnancy health and counseling clinics: $25,000 to the Mt. Sinai Adolescent Health Center and $10,000 to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. ...

Thus, the nonprofit paid Bristol over seven times what it paid to teen pregnancy prevention groups.

A quarter of a million dollars for getting knocked up in high school? Who says unmarried teen pregnancy doesn't pay?

And this doesn't include all her other activities, including Dancing with the Stars and her own PAC. Really, why go to college when you can get all this from getting pregnant in high school?

Of course, you also have to be part of the Palin clan. It's incredible, isn't it? That phrase, the "Wasilla hillbillies," seems more appropriate all the time.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

The Procrastinator

Tim Pawlenty attracts the youth vote

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tim Pawlenty Appeals to Youth Vote
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive

Yeah, T-Paw is radical to the extreme. Or, er,... something like that.

How dare you call Republicans extreme?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For a Few Dollars More
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

Gomer stands up for the Constitution? Wow! You know you've gone off the deep end when even the crazies start pointing it out!

I have to admit, I love that "House Mouse, Senate Mouse" bit by Anthony Weiner. "Perhaps if this were the rules that the Republicans had to follow - it's a much thinner book, and it rhymes - maybe you'd get it right."

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Free speech is a great idea, but...

Sunday, on Face the Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R - SC) said this:
Free speech is a great idea but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.

Just think about that. This is a United States senator. True, he's a Republican, and true, he's from South Carolina, but still... how can such a man be elected to any office in America?

Yeah, a handful of religious nuts in Florida burned a Koran, which gave thousands more religious nuts in Afghanistan an excuse to riot and kill innocent people. And the response from this politician is to suggest limiting free speech in America? That's just incredible, don't you think?

This is especially the case because these same people have been pushing the most incredible bigotry against Muslims in America - campaigning against mosques built in our communities, saying that Islam isn't a "real" religion and so isn't covered by our Bill of Rights, engaging in witch hunts in Congress, a la Joe McCarthy,...

Maybe we should try standing up for America's constitutional freedoms, instead. Maybe we should proudly support freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Maybe we should refuse to torture prisoners of war, Muslim or not. And maybe we should give accused terrorists a fair trial.

You know, Republicans seem to hate everything America stands for. I just don't get it. Don't they believe in America at all?

But I want to address one other thing, this idea that we can abandon our fundamental freedoms because "we're in a war." Personally, I think our freedoms make us strong, not weak. So the last thing I'd want is to abandon what makes America great, just because we're at war.

But there's another thing to consider. Why are we at war? And when won't we be at war?

America wasn't invaded. We weren't attacked by another country. We're only at war because we wanted to be at war. Bush thought it would be fun to play Commander-in-Chief, and his political advisers thought it would boost his re-election chances (as it did).

Yes, many of us thought it would be great fun to be at war (as long as there was no draft, so we ourselves didn't have to fight it). In fact, when Afghanistan proved too boring, we started another war, for absolutely no reason at all, without even ending the first one!

The media went along with it, because war really boosts ratings. And Democratic politicians were, by and large, too cowardly to oppose anything so popular.

We're at war only because we wanted to be at war. We started both wars. Neither was actually necessary. Yes, 9/11 was terrible. But it was a crime, not an act of war. The Oklahoma City bombing was terrible, too, but we didn't use that as an excuse to wage war against Christians.

But Republican chickenhawks love war, as long as (1) they don't have to pay for it, and (2) they don't have to fight in it. As a spectator sport, though, it's great fun. Plus, it keeps ignorant, gullible Americans in a constant state of fear. What's not to like?

So now we've got the "war on terror," along with the "war on crime" and the "war on drugs." (The only war we quit, in abject surrender, was the "war on poverty.") So are we going to limit freedom of speech as long as these "wars" continue? Permanently, in other words?

Free speech is a great idea. There's no "but" about it. If you don't value freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including the strict separation of church and state, why don't you emigrate to Saudi Arabia? Here's something I used to hear in the 1960s that's far more applicable today: America, love it or leave it!

Monday, April 4, 2011

QOTD: Abolishing Medicare

Quote of the Day:
As House Republicans cue up their Medicare Phase-out legislation, we're about to be treated, once again, to an example of how political actors use press cowardice to deceive the public. Rep. Paul Ryan's plan, which is now the official Republican plan, phases out Medicare over 10 years. Yet you'll be treated to numerous articles that call this a 'reform' or 'overhaul' or even 'saving' Medicare. But each are no better than straight outright deceptions, whether by design or ignorance.

The Medicare system has been in place in the United States for a bit more than 40 years. The premise is simple: once you hit retirement age you move into a single payer health care insurance system in which Medicare takes responsibility for your care, regardless of the state of your health or income level. There are copays. No one's crazy about exactly how much is covered. Some doctors opt out. You've probably heard all of this at one point or another. But the key is that you're in the program. And for the rest of your life you're out of the private health insurance system. You're covered. Permanently and on the same terms as everyone else.

Now, this isn't just a good thing if you're a senior or have parents who are seniors or have anyone in your life who's a senior, which presumably means virtually everyone. It's also just necessary for pretty obvious reasons.

We all know about pre-existing conditions. You're a cancer survivor so no insurer will cover you. Or you have one of the myriad possible conditions that make you a bad risk. And no insurer wants to issue a policy for someone who odds say is likely to cost a lot of money. Well, guess what, people over 65 all have a preexisting condition: they're old! ...

The Ryan plan is to get rid of Medicare and in place of it give seniors a voucher to buy health care insurance from private insurers. Now, what if you can't buy as much as insurance or as much care as you need? Well, start saving now or just too bad.

Now, by any reasonable standard, that's getting rid of Medicare. Abolishing Medicare. Phasing it out. Whatever you want to call it. Medicare is this single payer program that guarantees seniors health care, as noted above. Ryan's plan pushes seniors into the private markets and give them a voucher. That's called getting rid of the program. There's simply no ifs or caveats about. That's not cuts or slowing of the growth. That's abolishing the whole program. Saying anything else is a lie. - Josh Marshall

"1636: The Saxon Uprising" by Eric Flint

(cover shot from Amazon.com)

In my review of 1635: The Eastern Front, I noted that it seemed to be one long setup for the next book in the series. Well, that's this one. The two books together create a distinct storyline.

Of course, this is a long series of alternate history, so there isn't just one story. There are threads of many stories weaving together. And as history doesn't end, these books don't have "they lived happily ever after" endings, either (although there is a clear resolution of the particular issue in this book). Characters die, but there are always new characters. It really is a remarkable achievement.

As I explained in my previous review, you don't want to start in the middle with this series. But you don't necessarily have to read every book leading up to this one, either. There are certain main threads, with certain recurring characters, and a knowledge of what's going on elsewhere in Europe is nice, but not required.

This novel, 1636: The Saxon Uprising, is a direct sequel to 1635: The Eastern Front. The incident at the end of the latter book sets up a constitutional crisis in the United States of Europe, a crisis that threatens to become a full-fledged civil war.

As usual, this novel is chock-full of characters, most of whom we've met before. But it's easy to keep track of the major characters, if you're at all familiar with the 1632 series (and if you're not, you shouldn't be starting here).

It's not really necessary to keep track of the minor characters, though that's not overly difficult, either. Well, there are some really minor characters - Flint does a good job of showing how these political problems affect everyone - but don't worry about trying to remember names and places. He's a remarkably skilled author when it comes to things like this.

Well, I must say that I'm filled with admiration for the whole 1632 series. The individual books in the series, by various authors (most, but not all, co-written with Eric Flint), vary in quality. But in general, it's really fascinating and superbly entertaining. I didn't foresee the events described in these two books. Indeed, that's the whole point of this sudden crisis. But it's a perfect development story-wise.

At a time of intense partisanship in America, this book shows how reasonable people resolve issues (and how unreasonable people do). The value of the rule of law - and the necessity of political compromise - are clearly demonstrated. At the same time, rational people can't just roll over and play dead. You have to stand for something, and you have to be skilled at promoting what you believe.

The characters here are facing a remarkable situation. Well, that's the advantage of science fiction. This isn't actually going to happen. People aren't going to find themselves suddenly transported to 1632 Germany. But by examining an alternate history, Flint can show us how good people might react to an unexpected event. Plus, it's a rollicking good story, too.

Flint's characters were very fine people to begin with - much better Americans than we actually are, I'm afraid. They aren't supermen, but they're generally very capable and very likable. But they also grow. They find themselves in situations that require personal growth, or at least encourage it. And with Flint's optimistic attitude, they rise to the challenge.

In this case, Mike Stearns continues to apply his leadership skills to his new job as general. Jeff Higgins, a very green captain in the previous book (and just a fat high school geek in 1632), becomes a very effective colonel in this one. And countless other characters grow as well.

In an afterward, Eric Flint talks about the timeline in the 1632 series, and in what order they should be read. But he also talks about the future of the series. Ring of Fire III is the next book scheduled to appear in print. It's an anthology, like the previous two volumes by that name, but it will contain a story that picks up directly from the end of this book.

There's also very clearly a major event coming, as the Ottoman Empire invades Europe. But the events of 1632 continue to spread, affecting pretty much the entire world. Would you believe the Japanese colonizing the west coast of North America? Yeah, this is not going to be the same history we're taught in school. (Apparently, there's going to be a novel set among the Iroquois, too. But Flint says the working title, 1636: Drums Along the Mohawk, is not how it will be published.)

There are existing story threads getting sequels, as well. 1635: The Papal States will continue one of my very favorite storylines, as it's the direct sequel to 1635: The Cannon Law. I can't wait for that one! And 1635: A Parcel of Rogues will pick up the story of characters left behind in England after their escape from the Tower of London in 1634: The Baltic War.

This is a complicated series. Well, it's a whole world undergoing drastic change (a whole continent, at a minimum), so of course it's complicated. But the individual books aren't complicated, or not overly so. It's just that things are going on everywhere, concurrently. That's the reason for the dates in the titles. They're stories about different people experiencing different events at roughly equal times. Everything is connected together, but no novel can include it all in one book.

It works pretty well, I'd say. And it's a shared alternate history, so it's not just Eric Flint writing stories about it. He does co-author most of the novels, but only a few of the shorter stories.

Anyway, to get back to this book, it's a fine continuation of the 1632 series. I had some qualms about the previous book, but not this one. Indeed, the two books together - which is probably how you should consider them - make an exciting and entertaining story.

PS. As I mentioned before, don't start with this book. But if you're curious about the series, note that the first two books, 1632 and 1633, are available for free download at Baen Books. So is the first volume of the Grantville Gazette, a short story collection set in the 1632 universe, and the first Ring of Fire anthology.

That's very generous, don't you think? You've really got nothing to lose if you want to check them out. (Look under Eric Flint at the Baen Free Library website.)

Budget like a family


And whatever you do, don't invest in a good education. Your lousy brats will be better off not knowing any better.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

QOTD: Mainstreaming treason

Quote of the Day:
For most of the last century, talk of secession, nullification and the rest of the extreme states-rights lexicon were relegated to the fringiest parts of the political fringe. But since Barack Obama entered the White House in January 2009, mainstream Republican rhetoric and proposed legislation at the state level have both warmed to the hoary idea that state governments can take their relationship with the federal government on what amounts to an a la carte basis or perhaps abandon it altogether.

Take the concept of Nullification -- the notion that individual states can unilaterally refuse to follow or enforce federal law they don't agree with. For the most part, it's been laughed off since the Civil War. It was brought up again by segregationists during the Civil Rights Era but more out of desperation and political theater than as a serious approach to the constitution.

But the rise of the Tea Party and its amorphous anti-federal government platform has brought these ideas closer to the mainstream than they've been in decades. So, while nullification advocates, Tenthers, secessionists, "constitutional tender" proponents, and the rest don't necessarily share the same theoretical rationales, together they've brought hostility to the federal government back into the realm of respectable political discourse. ...

The concept of states' rights mostly clings to one interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, which says that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenthers would say this means a state doesn't have to follow federal laws the state believes exceeds the federal government's constitutional authority.

But this pretty clearly goes against the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in Article 6:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
 - Jillian Rayfield

Friday, April 1, 2011

Anthony Weiner at the Congressional Correspondents' Dinner



What can I say? I like this guy - especially the way he treats Fox "News" (as they deserve).

QOTD: How far back?

Quote of the Day:
I used to think that the Republican Party was trying to push the country back to the 1950s, but I don't think that anymore.

Now I think they're trying to push us back to the 1850s…
Republican members of the state legislature are attempting to loosen child labor laws that the community fought hard to put into place.

The minimum wage in Maine is $7.50 an hour, and there is no training or subminimum wage for students. But under a new piece of legislation introduced in the state's House of Representatives, employers would be able to pay anyone under the age of 20 as little as $5.25 an hour for their first 180 days on the job.

The bill, LD 1346, also eliminates the maximum number of hours a minor 16 years of age or older can work on a school day and allows a minor under the age of 16 to work up to four hours on a school day during hours when school is not in session.

So, what's next? Are they going to start sneaking repeals of women's suffrage into education bills? Are we gonna find a movement gaining steam to return black citizens to 3/5ths of a person status? Are we gonna have to start allowing soldiers to quarter themselves in our homes? What's the final plan? Just how far back are they planning to take us? - Dennis DiClaudio

Yeah, I hate that 3D stuff, too

Pardon my French

From Mother Jones:
Clearly having seen my roundup yesterday, and hoping to outdo it, the Florida GOP offered us another precious moment today. From the St. Petersburg Times:
At one point [Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando] suggested that his wife "incorporate her uterus" to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn't want to further regulate a Florida business.

Apparently the GOP leadership of the House didn't like the one-liner.

They told Democrats that Randolph is not to discuss body parts on the House floor.

"The point was that Republicans are always talking about deregulation and big government," Randolph said Thursday. "And I always say their philosophy is small government for the big guy and big government for the little guy. And so, if my wife's uterus was incorporated or my friend's bedroom was incorporated, maybe they (Republicans) would be talking about deregulating.

"It's not like I used slang," said Randolph, who actually got the line from his wife.

Wait. Uterus? What's wrong with uterus? It's a pretty common medical/anatomical term, right? A House GOP spokeswoman explained that Randolph's comment lacked "decorum" and could pervert the kiddies:
...the Speaker believes it is important for all Members to be mindful of and respectful to visitors and guests, particularly the young pages and messengers who are seated in the chamber during debates. In the past, if the debate is going to contain language that would be considered inappropriate for children and other guests, the Speaker will make an announcement in advance, asking children and others who may be uncomfortable with the subject matter to leave the floor and gallery.

It was even worse than slang. It was... science. Horrors! That's certainly inappropriate for Republicans and other children, huh?

But I guess now I understand why Republicans also object to any talk about having a "heart" or a "brain." Body parts are just icky, you know.