Tom Ridge wants leniency for creep who beat toddler

One creep goes to bat for another creep.

The Bushist brain trust seems to have never met a violent criminal they didn't like. As with the leniency displayed by Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour towards particular monsters in their respective states, Tom Ridge now seems to have taken up the hug-a-thug mantle.

The former Pennsylvania governor and Bush's Homeland Security director wrote a letter demanding leniency for Matthew Lazenby. Lazenby is an Erie area man who has just been sentenced to 4 to 8 years in prison for beating his former girlfriend's 23-month-old daughter so brutally that her skull was broken. The toddler also suffered neurological damage that may be permanent.

Ridge called Lazenby a "loving and nurturing father" despite this revolting crime.

This episode probably means Tom Ridge will never win another elected office again. Then again, you never know, because stuff like this doesn't seem to stick to Republicans. The media tried holding Michael Dukakis responsible for a prison furlough program that he had nothing to do with, but the Huckabee and Barbour scandals are forgotten.

(Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09294/1007219-100.stm;
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091021/NEWS02/310209906/-1/NEWS03)

2 phone rate hikes in 2 years

Utility and phone regulators in California are a lot like those in Kentucky and Ohio - i.e., a rubber stamp for unnecessary rate increases that harm consumers.

Years ago, I noticed an interesting gimmick used by phone and utility firms. Every time they asked for a rate increase, they claimed it was the first in many years, even if the ink was barely dry on their previous rate hike.

This time, however, they know nobody's going to fall for it. So they've just decided to go ahead and ask for an increase and hedge their bets that regulators will approve it - which they did.

In California, AT&T is raising telephone rates by a staggering 22%. This is their second rate hike in only 2 years.

That's nice, because average household incomes also went up by - wait, they didn't.

This after the California Public Utilities Commission deregulated rates almost entirely - despite the lack of competition.

Hey, how's that 1996 Telecommunications Act - which was supposed to increase competition and lower rates - working out? It isn't, and its supporters knew it wouldn't.

Sadly, the merger mania fostered by the '96 telcom law has almost completely reversed the ruling in the '80s that split up the phone industry.

(Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_13579916)

Tsk, tsk, Oscar! ('Sesame Street' Wednesday)

'Sesame Street' has put out several sets of DVD's full of old sketches. These are marketed to adults who grew up with the series. Indeed, each collection features a warning about their supposed unsuitability for today's children.

You should buy these DVD's to help keep continued production of 'Sesame Street' afloat (even if the ol' Ses is but a ghost of what it was in our day).

Why they're deemed unsuitable for today's kids, I don't know.

Perhaps the closing credits used from 1972 to 1974 might have something to do with it.

This credit roll features a drawing of the tenements found on our favorite television alley. Numerous lovable Muppets peer at us as it scrolls down. I count no fewer than 6 appearances by Grover.

Of particular interest is the fact that the blue male Muppet who often patronizes Grover's restaurant appears to be wearing only a bra.

But the real X-rated moment arrives at the end of the scroll, where it stops on Oscar the Grouch, who appears to be humping the signpost for the Sesame Street sign.



Naughty, naughty, Oscar!

I surround them

That comedy routine known as the Cincinnati Tea Party is at it again!

Most of these loudmouths aren't from this region. For most of them, their job is to travel from city to city to stir up trouble. They're professional right-wing operatives.

In the spring, they protested the stimulus bill. But - showcasing their mission creep - now they're attacking health care reform.

A particular target of their hateful invective is members of Congress who defeated right-wing incumbents. They've set their sights on Cincinnati congressman Steve Driehaus - a Democrat who defeated Republican Steve Chabot. (Chabot was known for his support of the now-defunct Kids Helping Kids cult.)

The BTPers' gimmick in their drive against Driehaus is: "We surround him." To symbolize this, they plan on gathering at most exits off Interstate 275, a loop around Cincinnati.

I learned of this because the Cincinnati Enquirer insists on republishing the BTPers' press releases verbatim, in an effort to drum up support for them. Well, I read 'em too, so they may be in for a little bit of negative exposure - as they were this past spring.

The press release said the I-275 gatherings will occur at most exit ramps to and from this beltway. I assume that includes those in Kentucky, even though Driehaus's district is in Ohio. (They sure know how to misspend their resources.) These events will take place today, tomorrow, and Friday from 4 to 6 PM.

I already planned to peep the reopened 8th Street Viaduct tomorrow, so maybe afterward I'll take a little jaunt into hostile suburbia to monitor these sore losers.

The LOSEianne crowd's finale will be Saturday from 4 to 6 PM, in which they plan to encircle the Carew Tower skyscraper in downtown Cincinnati. The Carew Tower contains Driehaus's office, you see.

Hate to disappoint you, BTPer peeps, but I doubt there's anyone at Driehaus's office on weekends. This is already shaping up to be like the Palin cult's bombarding of the Capitol switchboard on a federal holiday.

After that, they plan to march across the street to Fountain Square for what seems to be another rally like their complain-a-thons earlier this year.

Their ideology is one of aggrieved wealth. They are privileged pied pipers of Potemkin populism. And if I happen to see them, I'll call them out here once again on their propaganda.

Oh noes! Banks may have to obey laws!

Today, the House Financial Services Committee voted to (gasp!) let the states regulate large banks in the interest of protecting consumers.

You mean banks might have to obey laws like we do? Heaven forbid!

The real story here may be that the states couldn't already regulate banks. This power was robbed from the states - especially by the Reagan regime, but also under the Contract With America.

Although the measure to restore state regulation of big banks is a Democratic effort, the bill is threatened by (you guessed it!) the DLC - the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. DLCer Melissa Bean is expected to fight the bill's passage.

This even after the bill was diluted by compromises that would let banks appeal state laws.

Hey, maybe I'll appeal that FCC law that won't let me run a pirate radio station.

(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7ffRdswXTlfgaQS0FCOZmrvbwcAD9BFIEGO0)

Court lets FBI gag free speech

How fascist is this?

The spleezox Patriot Act allows the FBI to send letters to ISP's and banks to demand records about customers without a warrant - in violation of the Constitution.

The Idiot Act also lets the FBI prohibit recipients of these letters from even disclosing that they received these letters. This also violates the Constitution.

And in the matchbook law world of the current makeup of much of the federal judiciary, this outrage is considered fine and dandy. Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that the FBI can continue to gag an ISP that received such a letter - even though they received the letter 5 years ago.

This gag order has in fact been used to suppress damning information about the FBI's Patriot Act abuses.

That's enough to make anyone gag.

That the government can violate the safeguard against warrantless searches and then violate the First Amendment by preventing the target of the search from even discussing it is more proof we no longer have a country.

(Source: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/judge-rules-fbi-continue-gag-recipient-national-security-letter)

3 arrested for disagreeing with Nazis

In Austin, Minnesota, it's considered perfectly acceptable for neo-Nazis to bring a stun gun and other weapons to a rally. But it's Stripe City for anyone who so much as expresses a different opinion.

On Saturday, the National Socialist Movement - a neo-Nazi group - held a rally at a veterans' memorial there.

That they'd desecrate a veterans' memorial by spewing hate speech is the first outrage. Our troops fought for freedom and the rights of all Americans. America's war dead would be turning in their graves if they knew this monument was being defiled by neo-Nazis.

I'm not saying that even neo-Nazis don't have the same rights as everyone else to free speech. But to use a veterans' memorial as a venue for their vile views is outrageous even if it's legal.

This story gets much worse.

Three people who showed up to protest against these neo-Nazis were arrested just for protesting. They were also sprayed with pepper spray.

So in Austin, Minnesota, only a neo-Nazi group is entitled to free speech protections now?

The charges include..."unlawful assembly." I swear I'm not making this up.

It turns out that one of the neo-Nazis had a stun gun, a knife, and an expandable baton. Clearly, he was spoiling for a fight. Yet he wasn't arrested, and was allowed to remain at the event. But those who protested against these extremists were arrested despite being unarmed.

I hope to high hell there's a lawsuit against the city over this. It's a crying shame the good folks of Austin have to live under a municipal government that rolls out the red carpet for neo-Nazis but arrests anyone who dares to challenge them.

This story reminds me of the bad old days when Cincinnati gave special protection to the Klan cross on Fountain Square.

(Source: http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=421662)

Mississippians sue over climate change

A smashing legal assault against Corporate America for contributing to climate change is long overdue.

After an Alaska village launched a suit over climate change ruining locals' livelihoods, Mississippi farmers and other residents whose lives were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina have joined the cause.

The basis of the suit is this: Energy companies released greenhouse gases that contributed to climate change. This melted sea ice and increased sea levels - which added to the hurricane's damage.

Even the ultraconservative U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the plaintiffs' standing to sue. This shows how weak Big Business's heavy-handed refusal to accept responsibility for climate change is. The polluters don't have a legal leg to stand on.

The Fifth Circuit's decision will likely encourage more climate change lawsuits - as well it should. Corporate America had years to mend its ways, yet it dragged its feet.

(Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/19/hurricane-katrina-victims-have-standing-to-sue-over-global-warming)

1 in 6 Americans now poor

Honesty should go a long way towards debunking the "prosperity" hoax that's flourished since the '80s.

A new formula for determining the poverty rate shows that 1 in 6 Americans now live in poverty - 7,000,000 more people than previously thought.

The new formula factors in soaring medical costs, child care, and regional costs of living. The old standard may have worked 30 years ago - but not in 2009.

The situation is actually even worse than it appears, because the economic safety net was so thoroughly gutted under the Contract With America. This measure still doesn't consider certain forms of government aid - which means the poverty rate is really much higher than this 1 in 6 figure.

The increase of poverty is fostered not only by politicians but also by media outlets who coddle their distorted, bombastic outlook. The entire "soak the poor" mentality of recent years is based on a web of filthy, evil, wicked lies.

(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOhjiPSEzO9gnbwUK96-ZeZo4liwD9BEQVVO0)

The Gospel according to wingnuts

When I first saw this story, I thought it was just a parody. But nope! It's all too real.

Andy Schlafly is known as the intellectually flatulent doofus behind Conservapedia - which is like Wikipedia except that it was designed to be a retelling of The World According To Conservatives.

Now Schlafly is expanding his conservative funhouse world by trying to rewrite the Bible as well.

Schlafly has founded something called the Conservative Bible Project, which is working on a new version of the Bible that would eliminate "liberal" text. He complains that widely read translations of the Bible such as the King James Version and the New International Version (one of the most common English-language translations) contain too many socialist ideas.

One of Schlafly's big complaints about these Bible translations: They use the word 'laborer', which Schlafly says is socialist.

Among other changes Schlafly would make: While the King James Version says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," Schlafly would change "rich man" to "a man who cares only for money." Schlafly groans that the King James translation is an attack against the affluent.

Schlafly also declares that the biblical passage that says, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone," will be removed from his version because it was a "liberal addition."

Biblical scholars are highly critical of Andy Schlafly's efforts.

Schlafly's attention to economic terms is yet another example of how the right-wing brain trust tries to hide behind religion to keep the working class down. It's much like Star Parker's idiotic claim that progressive taxation violates the commandment that says, "Thou shalt not covet."

What's potentially dangerous is that dominionists expect the entire citizenry to be required to live by their warped interpretations of religious texts. And I'll be bipped if I'm going to live by their economic policies just because they misuse the Bible in an attempt to back these policies up.

(Source: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091018/NEWS06/910180341/New+Conservative+Bible+will+eliminate++liberal++text)

Palin cultists r dumm

Sarah Palin being a national laughingstock doesn't mean she doesn't have a cult of followers who are determined to make her President of the Universe. She's still one of the frontrunners for the 2012 GOP nomination, thanks to them.

Palinism is embodied by Team Sarah, a group of activists that describes itself as being "dedicated to advancing the values that Sarah Palin represents in the political process" (which I guess means censoring library books and illegally intervening to fire state troopers).

Team Sarah membership is "by approval only", and its website is full of password-protected pages. So they're pretty secretive.

Anybip, Team Sarah recently sent out an alert to members about a "phone bank blast" in which they planned to bombard the U.S. Capitol's switchboard to complain about health care reform. This event was supposed to take place from 2 to 3 PM EDT on October 12.

One problem with that, Palin peeps. October 12 was a national holiday. Nobody was working at the Capitol that day to field Team Sarah's calls.

This story showcases the wingnuts' trademark combination of babyishness and dumbness. Abusing the Capitol switchboard is a sign of their immaturity; doing it on a day when nobody was even there to take their calls is something else altogether.

Private school teacher accused of roughing up 6-year-old

This is another story that (if the allegation is true) illustrates the abuse rampant in private schools.

A teacher at a Catholic school outside Cincinnati is accused of roughing up a 6-year-old boy at the school for trying to use the drinking fountain. The teacher is now charged with disorderly conduct over the incident.

Disorderly conduct? Why isn't she charged with assault?

On the other hand, at least she's being charged with something. After I was injured at least once by a teacher at a Catholic school, I just wish the authorities had reined in this abuse back then.

(Source: http://www.kypost.com/content/wcposhared/story/Student-Allegedly-Roughed-Up-Teacher-Charged/ajOgS-NHxk6MnZBeokCdRA.cspx)

Obama launches new medical marijuana policy?

I sincerely hope this story is for real and not just another "strongly worded letter."

The Obama administration has announced a new policy on medical marijuana users. Under these new guidelines, users and suppliers won't be arrested as long as they follow state laws.

After Eric Holder has changed his stance countless times on this matter over the past 9 months, one hopes this policy isn't just talk.

If this policy is followed, this will be probably the most significant nationwide rollback of the failed War on Drugs in my lifetime. But perhaps it only seems significant because it differs so drastically from the policy of the Bush regime - which was to ignore state laws and prosecute seriously ill people no matter what the law said. (Bush really did take "regulation for thee, not for me" to new levels.)

The real test is: is the new policy talk or action? And if the prosecutions continue, will the states have the sense to prosecute the DEA for not following state law?

(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9mnrkJu2S7Mly9xuWs4p9_TRkdwD9BDT0701)

Week 10 of POOP

Miracle of miracles: Google has finally deleted my copyrighted posts I asked to be removed months ago.

But our work isn't done: The removal tool is still down. And now old posts that folks successfully removed ages ago are reappearing. That includes several other posts of mine.

This was a problem at least once before, but Google then claimed they had fixed it for good. Oops.

This isn't just an issue of people trying to keep personal matters private and protect their works. What's going to happen to Google if something illegal that someone else posted but Google deleted reappears? What if somebody had posted child porn or violent threats against public officials, and it reappears on Google?

Google could actually be prosecuted if it allows illegal material to reappear on its site.

Also, remember how last week I told you that Google reportedly fixed its long-broken message search feature after reading about the problem in Wired? Welp, it's already broken again. This isn't a serious matter as far as this blog is concerned, but it bodes ill for other problems being fixed soon.

Bubble gum rapper (Bubble Gum Weekend)

Because the mere existence of bubble gum makes you tumble onto the floor in laughter, this is yet another Bubble Gum Weekend - in which we usually profile hilarious old gum commercials.

Care-Free put out a strange ad in 1992 for its bubble gum (a product nobody seemed to buy).

In this preposterous commersh, a stick of this massively unpopular brand of gum magically turns an opera singer into a hip rapper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw86BZu_sas

The ad is somewhat whimsical, though not quite as clever as earlier gum advertising promenades. But the fact that it shows a person repeatedly bubbling is considered by advertising experts to be the commercial's saving grace.

Trendy doesn't always mean more appealing. Even some viewers who cracked a smile at this ad probably still longed for the days of the goofy charm and simplicity of Care-Free's '70s ad campaign that featured historical figures like George Washington and the Wright brothers.

Now the '70s were some carefree times!

Insurers have an antitrust exemption now?

If there's one industry that doesn't need an antitrust exemption, it may be big insurance.

The Obama administration is warning the insurance racket that it may lose its antitrust exemption if it doesn't stop running deceptive, dishonest ads against health care reform.

The real story though is that insurance has such an exemption in the first place.

Why haven't the states reined this exemption in? Admittedly, amidst all the other signs of expanding economic fascism since the 1980s, it's been hard to notice their failure to do so.

We can't afford just to warn insurers about losing their exemption. We need to just go ahead and revoke this exemption. They should have had plenty of warning by now.

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18address.html)

Judge guts ruling against Microsoft

Impartial juries are central to the legal system of any democratic republic.

Recently, a Rhode Island jury delivered a powerful blow against Microsoft for violating an Australian inventor's patent. Microsoft was ordered to pay $388,000,000 to the inventor.

But in BushWorld, no jury decision can be counted on to stand for very long before the judge decides to ignore it.

True to form, U.S. District Judge William Smith - another Bush appointee - decided to "vacate" the jury's ruling and rule in Microsoft's favor.

What was the point in even calling in a jury when the judge just ignores its verdict? If I was on that jury, I'd be furious that I took the time to hear the case only to have my decision ignored.

In the matchbook law world of BushAmerica, a major corporation barely has to crack its war chest to fund its case. Judges just rule in their favor almost by reflex.

(Source: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/aussie-inventors-445m-microsoft-windfall-wiped-out-20090930-gc77.html)

Freepers think Alexander Hamilton was President (more Freeper Madness)

Now that the burper movement is spreading its ridiculous myth that natural-born citizens must have citizen parents, not even all right-wing blog diehards are buying this claim. Indeed, even a regular of extremist website Free Republic got a little bit suspicious of it.

But don't just assume this user is a history genius. This user said:

"Tell me how Alexander Hamilton become president..he was born in the East Indies."

For one thing, being a natural-born citizen wasn't a requirement to be President, if one was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. Otherwise, America would have had to wait until 35 years after independence just to have a President.

I can overlook that Freeper error, because I doubt that it's an uncommon one. The more important point is that Hamilton's natural-born status wouldn't have mattered anyway - because Alexander Hamilton was never President!

The Freeper person who thought Hamilton was President not only flunked history but also geography. Hamilton wasn't born in the East Indies, but in the West Indies - which are in the Caribbean. The East Indies are in southern Asia - almost precisely at the other end of the world.

That's like how when I was 7 years old I thought Walter Mondale was born in Ceylon the country instead of Ceylon, Minnesota. The difference is that I think most Freepers are a bit older than 7 (though they have the emotional maturity of someone half that age).

This coming from the folks who think the czars were communist.

Bush diktat costs America the Olympics

When Cincinnati's economic booster class wanted to bring the Olympics to town, I took exception. The region lacks the infrastructure or facilities to handle it, and I knew local residents would be treated as criminals just stepping outside their house.

But Chicago really wanted the 2016 Summer Olympics. If they can handle it, that's their prerogative.

But Chicago didn't get the Olympics. The Windy City was the last choice of the International Olympic Committee. Why?

It turns out it's because the IOC didn't want athletes and fans to have to deal with Bush's tourist visa policy. Bush barked down this policy after 9/11.

Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami in Florida, said that "the same stupid anti-visitor policy that is destroying American higher education" also cost America its hope of hosting the Olympics.

I'm not talking about minor inconveniences like customs agents asking tourists if they're bringing in beer. This is major: Even Americans have wound up dead in U.S. airport questioning rooms while trying to return home from abroad.

And who wants to spend bazillions on Olympics tickets only to find out they can't fly to Chicago just because someone with a similar name is on the no-fly list (the Bushist Bible)?

Say what you want about the Republicans at large, but one thing is for sure: Bush will forever be remembered as the Energizer Bunny of economic ruin.

In the meantime, it's long past time to reverse Bush's visa rules.

(Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/02/chicago-olympics-bush)

The latest hilarious burper meme

The birther movement - or as I call it, the burper movement - composes much of the useless skeletal husk that American conservatism has been reduced to.

After Orly Taitz found out the hard way that her frivolous lawsuit costs real money, the burpers have got to be feeling chastised.

So they've decided to unleash a whole new argument that's just as laughable as their claim that the President was born in Kenya. Now they're claiming Obama isn't a natural-born citizen even if he was born in America.

Their "reasoning": They claim that for a person to be a U.S. citizen at birth, both parents must be citizens. One burper screed declares, "In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this."

WRONG!

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

All persons. Understand? If you're born on U.S. soil, you're a natural-born U.S. citizen. The only exception is those not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - which means the offspring of diplomats, who enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Under certain circumstances, one may be a natural-born American citizen if born on foreign soil. This is not an issue in Obama's case, as he was born in the United States.

To back up their latest argument, burpers are citing court rulings that were issued before the Fourteenth Amendment passed. Thus, these rulings are no longer even in force.

None of this should even be a topic for this blog - except that the wingnutosphere still has more influence than it deserves. Their online presence is so bloated that it's impossible not to notice them.

So I still keep one eye on them.

Catholic school sued for expelling students

Contrary to popular belief, private schools are not above the law.

I attended some that thought they were, but they're not.

If you pay money for a service, you have a right to expect that service to be delivered. Similarly, if you pay tuition, you should be able to expect an education.

A Catholic school in Delray Beach, Florida, is now being sued by the parents of students who were expelled. The expulsions seem to be retaliation against parents who questioned the parish's financial practices.

This follows a scandal in which 2 priests were accused of stealing millions of dollars in church funds (including money from the collection plate). One of the clergymen allegedly spent almost $300,000 of this money to buy rare coins.

(Source: http://www.cbs12.com/news/church-4721832-lawsuit-beach.html)

Man gets 1,000 lashes for discussing sex life

Why would an American blog be concerned with a foreign government's disdain for justice?

This story is of interest not just from a basic human rights standpoint but also from the perspective of foreign relations. The regime in Saudi Arabia is a longtime friend of the Bush clan, and we need to expose the dreadful human rights record of Bush's pals.

A 32-year-old divorced father of 4 in Saudi Arabia spoke openly about his sex life on a TV show. Following this appearance, a court sentenced him to 5 years in prison and 1,000 lashes.

I think any website or media outlet needs to be called out if they bash Hugo Chavez or Manuel Zelaya without giving at least as much time to criticizing Bush's friends in the Saudi regime. Venezuela would never sentence someone to 1,000 lashes just for discussing their sex life on TV.

(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/07/saudi.sex.braggart)

"State opt-out for me, not for thee"?

What the hell kind of "compromise" is this?

Health care reform hasn't been abandoned - except by Congress, it seems.

There's a saying that, in a compromise between good and evil, only evil stands to benefit. I think this story illustrates this maxim spiffily.

As a handful of right-wing legislators in various states are threatening to pass bills to bar residents of their states from receiving benefits of a proposed national health care program, some in Congress think they can meet them halfway.

But let me tell you, we all know the corporatists don't settle for halfway. Whenever they get a foot in the door, it's all the way.

This "compromise" would let states opt out of national health care. At first, I wasn't concerned, because I figured that no state government would possibly be stupid enough to bar its citizens from benefiting from a popular public program.

Then I remembered a former Governor of Wisconsin named Tommy Thompson. Republican Thompson pulled his state out of AFDC, a federal assistance program for poor families. And the law didn't even authorize a state to unilaterally opt-out. Thompson had to get a federal waiver.

If a governor could pull his state out of a popular program like AFDC, what's to stop a state from doing the same with health care? Despite GOP losses, there's still no shortage of arrogant state leaders who don't care what the public thinks, because they know they'll stay in power through it all. (The names Rick Perry, Haley Barbour, and Bobby Jindal come to mind.)

You can also compare this to places that have tried to opt out of public education by turning their public schools over to private firms. If places get away with opting out of popular services like schools, why wouldn't they do the same to health care?

The Far Right keeps citing the Tenth Amendment to pull their states out of health care. But where were they when the draconian 1996 welfare "reform" law passed? The welfare "reform" law doesn't let the states opt out. This law prescribes in hairy detail who the states can give welfare to and how long poor families can collect. (Most state legislators were such wusses that they didn't dare to cite the Tenth Amendment then.)

The health care bill doesn't even tell the states what to do, yet still some state lawmakers think they can use the Tenth Amendment to opt out!

Did they even bother to read the Tenth Amendment? It was never intended for states to deny people federal benefits they deserve.

Sorry, Grandma. The government spent your money on bank bailouts.

Now it's official: For the first time since the low-inflation '70s, there will be no increase in Social Security or disability benefits.

That's because - according to official numbers - there has been no inflation in the past year. All that inflation is just a figment of our imaginations, you see. (Better up the Trilafon!)

Consumer prices have leveled off over the past few months, but were still skyrocketing through the end of last year. (See a pattern here?) Fact is, last year's soaring costs haven't been offset by later trends.

Big banks and insurers got a cost-of-living increase in the form of massive taxpayer-funded bailouts. Yet if you're disabled or elderly, you don't get anything.

Thankfully, President Obama seems to recognize that the inflation numbers are misleading, as he supports a one-time extra payment of $250 for Americans who receive these benefits. Already, people who must rely on benefits can barely make ends meet even if they spend their checks only on food, rent, and electricity. This is especially stinging because most of them have already paid into the system.

Obama's stance is an improvement, because we all know what would have happened under Bush. Not only would there not be this $250 extra check for people who get benefits. Everyone else would get $250, but people on Social Security or disability wouldn't. (Remember the "rebate" debacles?)

(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWbDrKBPDcOvEPhXT9GeIzB4ijLQD9BBHCMO3)

Let's buy the Washington Times a dictionary

Why should a progressive populist blog pay any attention to a right-wing scumbag rag with weak circulation numbers that was founded by a convicted tax cheat?

Because it bips.

Just joking!

The real answer is that the publication in question - the Washington Times - is now showcasing just how out of touch with reality it is. And it speaks volumes about the right-wing intelligentsia as a whole.

Today, the Washington Times ran an editorial accusing President Obama of waging a war against "independent" media.

What's the Timesies' definition of "independent"? Well, the only media organization that the Times cites as being under attack is Fox News.

Yes, the Times says Fox News is "independent" media.

Zine websites have got to be rolling on the floor in laughter over that claim!

Go look up the word 'independent' in your Merriam-Webster's, Timesies. The Last Word is independent. Fux News is as establishment as it possibly gets.

The Times also cites false statistics about Fox's popularity. Predictably, the piece accuses the White House of trying to "quash dissent" just by disagreeing with Fox's coverage.

If anyone was trying to stifle dissent, it was the Bush regime when it ordered Indymedia's servers to be raided in 2004. That was an outright assault on journalistic freedom.

What does it say about the conservative movement when the Washington Times says Fox News is "independent"? It's another illustration of how the right-wing brain trust is trying to manipulate public opinion by portraying themselves as oppressed victims.

I know that when I think of victims, I think of poor little Fox News. (That's sarcasm!)

ACLU may sue over Sudafed crackdown

Finally!

After 2 towns in Missouri (Washington and Union) decided to defy federal law by making over-the-counter allergy drugs available by prescription only, the eastern Missouri chapter of the ACLU took notice.

This ridiculous, idiotic crackdown on these drugs hurts only innocent people, and the ACLU is now warning of a lawsuit against these 2 cities.

The only thing in this story I disagree with the ACLU about is an ACLU official's claim that these ordinances have "good intentions." I honestly don't think these ordinances do have good intentions.

At minimum, the original crackdown in the mid-2000s didn't. A Republican lawmaker in another state who led this effort was probably making meth himself and was just trying to use the new laws as a price support for his meth labs.

(Source: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/10/15/new-effort-fight-meth-comes-under-fire)

Kermit uses magic word! ('Sesame Street' Wednesday)

The English language is full of funny words: 'viaduct', 'mayhem', 'tirade'.

And what may be the funniest word of all: 'ruin'.

If the magic word was ever spoken on 'Sesame Street', that clip would be almost a shoo-in for this feature. And finally, one such sketch (reportedly from the show's first season) has turned up:



'Ruin'!

Hear that, everyone? Kermit the Frog said 'ruin'!!!

There was supposedly a longer version of this skit, in which Kermit uttered the magic word several more times.

Kermit's letter sure was ruined by Cookie Monster!

UN defends illegal Honduran coup

When did the United Nations become such a reliable apologist for right-wing dictatorships?

Of course, this is the same UN that interferes with countries' drug policy and let the Bush regime enjoy veto power over other countries. But now it's gone wackier than ever.

The UN is now defending the right-wing coup in Honduras. In fact, the UN is denying that it even was a coup. The UN said that the overthrow of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya "was constitutional under the laws of the country."

Nice to know the UN has decided to anoint itself as a country's Supreme Court.

Now that the UN supports a dictatorship's violent putsch against a democratic government, what's next?

The United Nations is supposed to be a force for peace and human rights. But now that the UN has abandoned its purpose, the United States should consider withholding UN dues until it calls the Honduran coup what it is.

AIG execs lie about paying back bonuses

Remember when the government gave AIG skillions in taxpayer money?

And remember when AIG's executives squandered it all on pay bonuses for themselves?

And remember when they promised to pay part of it back? (Heaven forfend they have to pay all of it back like they should.)

Well, guess what?

Yep, you guessed it, peeps!

Now they're refusing to pay back even a nickel.

Over $200,000,000 of your hard-earned money down the portable poopot. You could have used your share of this $200,000,000 to help pay for your glasses or to take your kids to Mammoth Cave.

But nope. The only thing that's mammoth in this story is AIG's fleecing of hard-working taxpayers and the subsequent broken promises.

(Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/14/793063/-Economic-Outrage-du-Jour:-AIG)

GOP candidate lived in luxury on taxpayers' dime

Chris Christie - Republican gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey - likes to portray himself as a mean, lean corruption-fighting machine. This despite the fact that he was U.S. Attorney under Bush, the most corrupt administration in America's history, and used his position to fix traffic tickets he received.

Now it turns out that Christie has lived the high life at taxpayer expense.

On at least 23 trips that Christie took on government business, he exceeded his hotel allowance by staying at luxury hotels. On 4 of these trips, lodging cost over $400 a night! Then he billed the government when he went over his allowance.

Christie also approved his top deputy Michele Brown exceeding the government allowance by staying at the same luxury inns where Christie was booked.

(Ahem.)

The downfall of one of few remaining viable Republican candidates for a major office in the Northeast may be unfolding right before our very eyes. And I can't say I feel sorry for the Republicans, after everything they've put America through.

(Source: http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1506677.html)