New York (API) Today the wide-ranging recall of blinds due to issues with their cords potentially strangling small children was scrapped, and small children were recalled instead.
Kal Penn, who recently left the television show “House” to work for the Federal Government, gave this quote on behalf of the U. S. Department of Overprotective Safety Redundancy Issues: “If we are going to improve safety, we might as well recall these twitching little uncontrollable proto-people who are causing all these safety problems in the first place.”
Parents are requested to bring their defective young offspring into the closest Department of Overprotective Safety Redundancy office.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Congress Passes Bill To Raise Lieberman's Insurance Premiums
Washington (API) Today, in near record time, both houses of Congress passed identical bills that have the effect of raising Senator Joseph Lieberman's health insurance premiums to six million dollars a month. To avoid any potential problem with special legislation passed to affect just one person, the legislation was originally worded as affecting “any backstabbing Senator from Connecticut who ran for a major party's Vice-Presidential candidacy.” The legislation was later amended to remove the word “backstabbing,” because, in the words of an unidentified legislator, “Joe Lieberman is way too big a pussy to ever wield a blade.”
The Senate historian declared that the wording of the legislation effectively only applies to one living individual, Sen. Lieberman. His colleagues are already starting to refer to him as “The Six Million Dollar Man.” It turns out that he has alienated so many of his colleagues throughout the years he has served in Congress that nobody was willing to speak on the floor of either house in support of him.
The measure was said to have overwhelming support among all the members of Congress who have taken money from the insurance industry, and many are hoping this move will increase their political contributions even more. It was reported that insurance companies are “falling all over each other” to be the chosen company to collect the monthly premiums.
An unidentified source stated that when President Obama was asked if he would sign the bill, he chuckled, grinned widely, and said, “Hell, yea!”
The Senate historian declared that the wording of the legislation effectively only applies to one living individual, Sen. Lieberman. His colleagues are already starting to refer to him as “The Six Million Dollar Man.” It turns out that he has alienated so many of his colleagues throughout the years he has served in Congress that nobody was willing to speak on the floor of either house in support of him.
The measure was said to have overwhelming support among all the members of Congress who have taken money from the insurance industry, and many are hoping this move will increase their political contributions even more. It was reported that insurance companies are “falling all over each other” to be the chosen company to collect the monthly premiums.
An unidentified source stated that when President Obama was asked if he would sign the bill, he chuckled, grinned widely, and said, “Hell, yea!”
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Lieberman's Folly
Sen. Joe Lieberman has indicated that he may filibuster health care reform. Lieberman lives in Connecticut, which is definitely one of the states that probably has more of an insurance industry presence than any other state. Obviously, his loyalty has been paid for. The only way to counter that is to register so much opposition, frequently and vehemently, that it is obvious that the people do not agree with his blatant pandering to the insurance industry.
We probably do still need him as a Democrat, unpalatable as that may seem to some. But we need to do what we can to sway his opinion. Big and small businesses all over the country (except for the insurance industry) are starting to see the advantages of health care reform on their bottom lines, so there is some corporate support. After all, what business would not have more of a global competitive advantage if insurance was divorced from employment?
We probably do still need him as a Democrat, unpalatable as that may seem to some. But we need to do what we can to sway his opinion. Big and small businesses all over the country (except for the insurance industry) are starting to see the advantages of health care reform on their bottom lines, so there is some corporate support. After all, what business would not have more of a global competitive advantage if insurance was divorced from employment?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
This Unaffordable Life
The United States is rapidly becoming a nation that is shedding its middle class and making life in general unaffordable for the average person. We have bountiful resources, copious amounts of food, some of the best medical professionals in the world and the ability to house everybody. Yet all our resources are being siphoned off through deliberate policy decisions to a smaller and smaller group all the time. We are the frogs in the pot, and the pot is starting to boil.
Consider this: In the 70s, the median house was easily bought with a 15-year mortgage on a manageable percentage of the median salary. These days, a 30-year mortgage won't bring most dwellings inside a city within the reach of a family even if there are to-wage earners, without such a high percentage of salary being devoted to the enterprise that foreclosure is constantly looming. This doesn't even take into account the unconscionability of the mortgage companies getting so much more in interest over a 30-year period than they would have over 15 years.
Food is more expensive as well. The minimum wage, or, indeed, the median wage, has hardly increased in purchasing power in many years. But food is becoming a larger part of people's budgets. Many of us would not give a second thought to eating well, and having good, nutritious food twenty years ago. But some of us are making even more money and have to ration our food budgets much more.
And medical care is getting outrageous. Somebody is just pocketing a huge amount of money. And that "somebody" is mostly the insurance industry; a frivolous middleman that gets hungrier all the time.
Things are really getting out of kilter.
Consider this: In the 70s, the median house was easily bought with a 15-year mortgage on a manageable percentage of the median salary. These days, a 30-year mortgage won't bring most dwellings inside a city within the reach of a family even if there are to-wage earners, without such a high percentage of salary being devoted to the enterprise that foreclosure is constantly looming. This doesn't even take into account the unconscionability of the mortgage companies getting so much more in interest over a 30-year period than they would have over 15 years.
Food is more expensive as well. The minimum wage, or, indeed, the median wage, has hardly increased in purchasing power in many years. But food is becoming a larger part of people's budgets. Many of us would not give a second thought to eating well, and having good, nutritious food twenty years ago. But some of us are making even more money and have to ration our food budgets much more.
And medical care is getting outrageous. Somebody is just pocketing a huge amount of money. And that "somebody" is mostly the insurance industry; a frivolous middleman that gets hungrier all the time.
Things are really getting out of kilter.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Our Progressive Future
Rush Limbaugh and his clones spent the last 20 years digging the grave of the conservative movement with an intolerant, venomous vision that moved the Republican Party toward a radical, ridiculous platform. The use of wedge issues gave the Republicans brief short-term spurts in votes, but doomed the Republicans in the long-term as people realized down the line how they had been taken advantage of. This is a lot like the situation with corporations that eviscerate themselves for short-term profit while destroying sustainability. The future of this country is becoming more and more progressive day by day. The "silent majority" is not spiteful, but compassionate.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Aren't We Capable Of Doing Better?
With the release of the movie, “Capitalism, A Love Story,” comes the first real questioning of the 800-pound gorilla in the living room in quite some time. Sure, the movie is hyperbolic and contrived, and takes on much more than it can chew in the short time period that fits the attention span of a moviegoing audience. And there are definitely some questions to be raised about a movie that questions capitalism, yet is distributed in a capitalistic fashion and is definitely going to make a pile of chump change. Though the movie raises some questions that deserve a serious look, there is the faint odor of hypocrisy.
But the United States and Adam Smith's economic theories have been so melded together for the entire history of this nation that few have dared to raise questions about whether we are benefiting from a system that is based on seriously taking advantage of those who don't have the devices or faculties to prevent it from happening.
Sure, there have been a couple of eras where people dared stick their necks out. The “Red Scares” of the 20's and 50's were followed by serious bouts of crushing violence and repression; some might argue that what happened was incompatible with the notion of a free nation. The 60's were supposedly marked by an awareness that people can create their own power, but they were also marred with violent repression, war, and notable assassinations. For a fairly large portion of our history, there has been an undercurrent of fear combined with any idea of raising any doubt about our crushingly “free” markets, which are really just the product of a regulatory system that protects the massive accumulation and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
There is really no such thing as a “free market.” Some rules will always be laid down to protect people from too much exploitation. The question is, where is the line drawn? Some questions are easier than others. We as a society will not allow sexual exploitation of children for profit; that would be absolutely repugnant. We won't allow people to take up a collection to have other people killed on television for thrills. We won't let barkers advertise heroin openly on every corner and give out free samples. I could bring up many other examples of this, but you probably get the drift. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Any market is simply the product of its regulation.
For the past several years, the line has been moving more towards a free-for-all of greed and debauchery. It is OK for a large corporation to go into a town, drive all the small businesses into oblivion, and then decide there wasn't enough business to stay. They can then pack up and leave the town ruined. And that is within the rules now.
It is just fine for another big corporation to ignore the rules of the social contract that has been in force for years between the company and its workers; that is, it can lay off productive workers, decimate their pensions, change the rules of the game in midstream, and build short-term profits as the company is cannibalized. It is all right for private equity firms to come in and strip the value out of companies, and then sell the hollowed-out shells for staggering profits, all the while claiming through some sleight-of-hand that value has been created. The company that is left is like one of those old movie sets, where there is just a facade propped up by boards, but it looks like a shining city. And that is all OK.
The biggest problem with a system that is built to take advantage of people is when it gets too big, it can get out of control. It can crush other valid means of productivity. It can buy laws and regulations.
Perhaps so-called “free-market capitalism” served a purpose at a time when the world's population was smaller. When there were only a few million people in the world, and they were not as connected as they are today, you might only encounter a few people who wanted to burn down your life and make off with the charred ruins. But these days, with billions of people around and instant connectivity, everywhere you turn there is someone who is just chomping at the bit to dig holes in your existence to turn a profit. They are on the next corner. They are on your television set and on your computer screen. They tell all kinds of lies to bait you into picking them over the next three-ring-circus. They offer you things that are “free,” and don't have to tell you that you have to buy a huge pile of stuff to get something along with the stuff you bought. They exhort you to “save money now,” when really what they want you do do is spend a little less money. They advertise some commodity at some unreal price only to be out of that commodity, and suddenly the only thing available is something more expensive and less desirable. And those are the nice ones. The worse ones want to take away your home in the guise of saving you from foreclosure, lend you money at outrageous rates (that are probably even banned by the usury laws of your state but are somehow allowed anyway under some quasi-legal technicality—I dare you to check into whether your state statutes and/or constitution allows the interest rate that your credit card is charging you), toss you out of your health insurance when you get sick or dig for a pre-existing health condition that defies logic (I mean, who hasn't been sick with something previously?), or even steal your very existence and essence.
And what do we have to protect us from hordes of invading forces coming at us from all directions, lured by the promise of riches while hollowing out your soul, and lowering their ethics more and more to try to grab a slimmer and slimmer share of the available riches (because, really, our most valuable resources have been actively and systematically plundered for three hundred years in the name of creating value)? “Caveat emptor.”
Oh, and our government. You know, that entity that is “of the people, by the people, for the people?” The protectors of our “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are the institutions that are supposed to keep us from being plundered by the big corporations, the entities that we don't stand a chance against. They are supposed to keep the big accumulations of money and power that have no interest in whether we live or die, so long as they make a profit, from tearing us limb from limb. They are supposed to consist of a separation of powers, and a layering of this democratic process so that some of it happens locally, and some of it happens nationally.
Now what chance to we have if those elected officials who are supposed to be protecting our interests can simply be bought by big stacks of money? We won't get laws that protect us, we will get laws that exploit us even further. And that kind of money will buy huge amounts of brainpower with very little aggregate ethics, to create arguments that will tell you that black is white and it tastes like ice cream.
So that is what is happening. And when there is something that really matters to those big corporations, something that threatens to interfere with their short-term profits, you will see definite anti-democratic influences. You will see hearings and forums and town meetings where huge majorities of people will come out and say that they want something. And you will see the officials nod their heads, furrow their brows sincerely, and speak sympathetically about how they “feel your pain.” And then they will vote to do the exact opposite of what is good for the majority of the people because what they are voting for is good for the profits of their real sponsors. They will ease your lollipop out of your hand as they pat you on the forehead and tell you that black is white. And it tastes like ice cream.
Now I'm certainly not advocating that we have a bloody revolution and install a communist autocracy. We have all seen how well that works in actual practice, however appealing it could possibly look on paper. And I'm definitely not saying that we're not better off than we were under feudalism, when some baron could just have our skulls crushed for grins. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ghengis Khan--yes, they all sucked. Anybody could pick any past or imagined much worse situation and point out that at least we don't have that. But aren't we capable of doing better?
All that I think should happen, really, is that if a conglomerate of big corporations want to club us to death to take our skins, that our elected officials should not pick up a club and join them. They should stand in the way of the heinous practices of unchecked profits at all cost, and really make an effort to stop us from being clubbed to death. I don't think that is too much to ask.
But the United States and Adam Smith's economic theories have been so melded together for the entire history of this nation that few have dared to raise questions about whether we are benefiting from a system that is based on seriously taking advantage of those who don't have the devices or faculties to prevent it from happening.
Sure, there have been a couple of eras where people dared stick their necks out. The “Red Scares” of the 20's and 50's were followed by serious bouts of crushing violence and repression; some might argue that what happened was incompatible with the notion of a free nation. The 60's were supposedly marked by an awareness that people can create their own power, but they were also marred with violent repression, war, and notable assassinations. For a fairly large portion of our history, there has been an undercurrent of fear combined with any idea of raising any doubt about our crushingly “free” markets, which are really just the product of a regulatory system that protects the massive accumulation and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
There is really no such thing as a “free market.” Some rules will always be laid down to protect people from too much exploitation. The question is, where is the line drawn? Some questions are easier than others. We as a society will not allow sexual exploitation of children for profit; that would be absolutely repugnant. We won't allow people to take up a collection to have other people killed on television for thrills. We won't let barkers advertise heroin openly on every corner and give out free samples. I could bring up many other examples of this, but you probably get the drift. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Any market is simply the product of its regulation.
For the past several years, the line has been moving more towards a free-for-all of greed and debauchery. It is OK for a large corporation to go into a town, drive all the small businesses into oblivion, and then decide there wasn't enough business to stay. They can then pack up and leave the town ruined. And that is within the rules now.
It is just fine for another big corporation to ignore the rules of the social contract that has been in force for years between the company and its workers; that is, it can lay off productive workers, decimate their pensions, change the rules of the game in midstream, and build short-term profits as the company is cannibalized. It is all right for private equity firms to come in and strip the value out of companies, and then sell the hollowed-out shells for staggering profits, all the while claiming through some sleight-of-hand that value has been created. The company that is left is like one of those old movie sets, where there is just a facade propped up by boards, but it looks like a shining city. And that is all OK.
The biggest problem with a system that is built to take advantage of people is when it gets too big, it can get out of control. It can crush other valid means of productivity. It can buy laws and regulations.
Perhaps so-called “free-market capitalism” served a purpose at a time when the world's population was smaller. When there were only a few million people in the world, and they were not as connected as they are today, you might only encounter a few people who wanted to burn down your life and make off with the charred ruins. But these days, with billions of people around and instant connectivity, everywhere you turn there is someone who is just chomping at the bit to dig holes in your existence to turn a profit. They are on the next corner. They are on your television set and on your computer screen. They tell all kinds of lies to bait you into picking them over the next three-ring-circus. They offer you things that are “free,” and don't have to tell you that you have to buy a huge pile of stuff to get something along with the stuff you bought. They exhort you to “save money now,” when really what they want you do do is spend a little less money. They advertise some commodity at some unreal price only to be out of that commodity, and suddenly the only thing available is something more expensive and less desirable. And those are the nice ones. The worse ones want to take away your home in the guise of saving you from foreclosure, lend you money at outrageous rates (that are probably even banned by the usury laws of your state but are somehow allowed anyway under some quasi-legal technicality—I dare you to check into whether your state statutes and/or constitution allows the interest rate that your credit card is charging you), toss you out of your health insurance when you get sick or dig for a pre-existing health condition that defies logic (I mean, who hasn't been sick with something previously?), or even steal your very existence and essence.
And what do we have to protect us from hordes of invading forces coming at us from all directions, lured by the promise of riches while hollowing out your soul, and lowering their ethics more and more to try to grab a slimmer and slimmer share of the available riches (because, really, our most valuable resources have been actively and systematically plundered for three hundred years in the name of creating value)? “Caveat emptor.”
Oh, and our government. You know, that entity that is “of the people, by the people, for the people?” The protectors of our “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are the institutions that are supposed to keep us from being plundered by the big corporations, the entities that we don't stand a chance against. They are supposed to keep the big accumulations of money and power that have no interest in whether we live or die, so long as they make a profit, from tearing us limb from limb. They are supposed to consist of a separation of powers, and a layering of this democratic process so that some of it happens locally, and some of it happens nationally.
Now what chance to we have if those elected officials who are supposed to be protecting our interests can simply be bought by big stacks of money? We won't get laws that protect us, we will get laws that exploit us even further. And that kind of money will buy huge amounts of brainpower with very little aggregate ethics, to create arguments that will tell you that black is white and it tastes like ice cream.
So that is what is happening. And when there is something that really matters to those big corporations, something that threatens to interfere with their short-term profits, you will see definite anti-democratic influences. You will see hearings and forums and town meetings where huge majorities of people will come out and say that they want something. And you will see the officials nod their heads, furrow their brows sincerely, and speak sympathetically about how they “feel your pain.” And then they will vote to do the exact opposite of what is good for the majority of the people because what they are voting for is good for the profits of their real sponsors. They will ease your lollipop out of your hand as they pat you on the forehead and tell you that black is white. And it tastes like ice cream.
Now I'm certainly not advocating that we have a bloody revolution and install a communist autocracy. We have all seen how well that works in actual practice, however appealing it could possibly look on paper. And I'm definitely not saying that we're not better off than we were under feudalism, when some baron could just have our skulls crushed for grins. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ghengis Khan--yes, they all sucked. Anybody could pick any past or imagined much worse situation and point out that at least we don't have that. But aren't we capable of doing better?
All that I think should happen, really, is that if a conglomerate of big corporations want to club us to death to take our skins, that our elected officials should not pick up a club and join them. They should stand in the way of the heinous practices of unchecked profits at all cost, and really make an effort to stop us from being clubbed to death. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Bush Apologizes for Deceit During Presidency
Washington (API) Former President George W. Bush called an impromptu and unusual press conference combined with an open public gathering today on the National Mall to express his remorse and regret for what he called “manipulating the American people for eight years.” Mr. Bush, sporting a newly grown beard, shoulder-length hair, and his trademark Birkenstock sandals that he wore informally around the White House, announced that he had been in seclusion while experiencing a “religious transformation.”
Mr. Bush walked to the podium hand-in-hand with Green Party spokesperson April Pfulle-Jacques and surrounded by members of Greenpeace, the National Organization for Women, and the NAACP. He clasped the hands of those closest to him high in the air in triumph as he ascended to the stage. When he got to the speaker's platform, he humbly acknowledged the standing ovation given to him by the assembled masses and members of the press.
“I want to tell the American people that much of what I participated in during my tenure as president was a cynical manipulation of the electorate, and I have come to deeply regret it,” said Mr. Bush. “Sure, I said before that I had been born-again, but that's just because Karl and Dick told me it would get us more votes. Now I really see that it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.”
Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had spread “a lot of mistruth and distortion” during his years in the White House. “People actually wanted to impeach me,” said Mr. Bush. He pursed his lips, his eyes welling with tears, and exclaimed, “And they may have been justified.”
“We lied about Iraq,” explained the former president after a dramatic and emotional pause, his head hanging in sorrow. “We lied about the Patriot Act. We misled people on gay issues to drive a wedge between people and spread fear. We tried to drive out U.S. Attorneys who would not be bullied into towing the party line. We lied about torture and rendition and, worst of all, we lied about justice and truth.”
“I may be able to live with myself some day, but right now, all I can do is work to make it right.” Mr. Bush then went on to announce the formation of the “George W. Bush Freedom From Hunger and Homelessness Foundation,” and he pledged to work until his “dying days” to find enough funding for to end the dual plagues of low food security and housing instability within the borders of the United States.
“We will tap into all that money that, up until now, has been cynically used to manipulate people's opinions to win elections using scare tactics, and use that money to spread a blanket of security over the American people. And this time I mean real security, not just the siphoning of money into make-work, no-bid contracts,” Mr. Bush said.
“I really want the American people to finally trust my motives. I hope that each of you can find it in your heart to forgive me, and this time, I will try my best not to let you down.”
Mr. Bush then ended his speech by picking up a hammer and a tool belt, and saying he would personally work his fingers to the bone until every homeless person had a roof over his head. He also sheepishly grinned and indicated that he was working very hard to improve his vocabulary.
As he descended from the stage, an aide whispered in Mr. Bush's ear, "Sir, it's too late to be considered for the Nobel Prize." The ashen former president then furiously exclaimed, "Aw, screw it, then. I take it all back."
Mr. Bush walked to the podium hand-in-hand with Green Party spokesperson April Pfulle-Jacques and surrounded by members of Greenpeace, the National Organization for Women, and the NAACP. He clasped the hands of those closest to him high in the air in triumph as he ascended to the stage. When he got to the speaker's platform, he humbly acknowledged the standing ovation given to him by the assembled masses and members of the press.
“I want to tell the American people that much of what I participated in during my tenure as president was a cynical manipulation of the electorate, and I have come to deeply regret it,” said Mr. Bush. “Sure, I said before that I had been born-again, but that's just because Karl and Dick told me it would get us more votes. Now I really see that it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.”
Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had spread “a lot of mistruth and distortion” during his years in the White House. “People actually wanted to impeach me,” said Mr. Bush. He pursed his lips, his eyes welling with tears, and exclaimed, “And they may have been justified.”
“We lied about Iraq,” explained the former president after a dramatic and emotional pause, his head hanging in sorrow. “We lied about the Patriot Act. We misled people on gay issues to drive a wedge between people and spread fear. We tried to drive out U.S. Attorneys who would not be bullied into towing the party line. We lied about torture and rendition and, worst of all, we lied about justice and truth.”
“I may be able to live with myself some day, but right now, all I can do is work to make it right.” Mr. Bush then went on to announce the formation of the “George W. Bush Freedom From Hunger and Homelessness Foundation,” and he pledged to work until his “dying days” to find enough funding for to end the dual plagues of low food security and housing instability within the borders of the United States.
“We will tap into all that money that, up until now, has been cynically used to manipulate people's opinions to win elections using scare tactics, and use that money to spread a blanket of security over the American people. And this time I mean real security, not just the siphoning of money into make-work, no-bid contracts,” Mr. Bush said.
“I really want the American people to finally trust my motives. I hope that each of you can find it in your heart to forgive me, and this time, I will try my best not to let you down.”
Mr. Bush then ended his speech by picking up a hammer and a tool belt, and saying he would personally work his fingers to the bone until every homeless person had a roof over his head. He also sheepishly grinned and indicated that he was working very hard to improve his vocabulary.
As he descended from the stage, an aide whispered in Mr. Bush's ear, "Sir, it's too late to be considered for the Nobel Prize." The ashen former president then furiously exclaimed, "Aw, screw it, then. I take it all back."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
John Cornyn Is NOT A Gay Meth Dealer
With all the attention that has been lavished on Barack Obama's fantasy lack of a birth certificate, we wanted to somehow indicate that opponents of Obama's detractors would never stoop to such a strategy.
That is why we want to be the first to point out that John Cornyn is NOT a gay meth dealer. Sure, he HAS been seen in the company of other men, and sometimes his eyes look a little wild, and this would surely constitute more evidence that he is a gay meth dealer than is available for the proposition that Barack Obama has no birth certificate.
But to suggest that John Cornyn is a gay meth dealer would be really low. And we are better than that.
Now, some of you might be thinking about planting drugs on John Cornyn in a false and spurious attempt to prove that he is a gay meth dealer. We don't think that would be a good idea. That would be illegal, even though the drug laws don't differentiate between mere possession and any kind of knowledge or intent, and even though the mere fact that someone has drugs on them makes them guilty in the eyes of the law whether someone planted them or not.
Just because John Cornyn says things that don't seem to have any rational basis, it does not mean that he is fried out of his mind on crystal meth. We here at the blog are surprised that anyone would even be thinking along those lines. And we are not talking about the lines that you snort, either. John Cornyn is not a babbling, incoherent ape; he is a decent man working hard for Texas families.
The doubts that John Cornyn had about voting for Sonia Sotomayor were NOT bug-crawling, bat-swatting psychosis induced by snorting way too much white powder. Nor were they an orgasmic revelation induced by some male lover who boldly went where no man (or even many men) had gone before. No, those doubts were the product of the courage of his convictions.
Oh, and there is one last scurrilous rumor we would like to kill. When John Cornyn ran that campaign ad calling himself "Big Bad John," it was NOT an homage to the Village People.
That is why we want to be the first to point out that John Cornyn is NOT a gay meth dealer. Sure, he HAS been seen in the company of other men, and sometimes his eyes look a little wild, and this would surely constitute more evidence that he is a gay meth dealer than is available for the proposition that Barack Obama has no birth certificate.
But to suggest that John Cornyn is a gay meth dealer would be really low. And we are better than that.
Now, some of you might be thinking about planting drugs on John Cornyn in a false and spurious attempt to prove that he is a gay meth dealer. We don't think that would be a good idea. That would be illegal, even though the drug laws don't differentiate between mere possession and any kind of knowledge or intent, and even though the mere fact that someone has drugs on them makes them guilty in the eyes of the law whether someone planted them or not.
Just because John Cornyn says things that don't seem to have any rational basis, it does not mean that he is fried out of his mind on crystal meth. We here at the blog are surprised that anyone would even be thinking along those lines. And we are not talking about the lines that you snort, either. John Cornyn is not a babbling, incoherent ape; he is a decent man working hard for Texas families.
The doubts that John Cornyn had about voting for Sonia Sotomayor were NOT bug-crawling, bat-swatting psychosis induced by snorting way too much white powder. Nor were they an orgasmic revelation induced by some male lover who boldly went where no man (or even many men) had gone before. No, those doubts were the product of the courage of his convictions.
Oh, and there is one last scurrilous rumor we would like to kill. When John Cornyn ran that campaign ad calling himself "Big Bad John," it was NOT an homage to the Village People.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
A Letter To Lloyd Doggett
Dear Representative Doggett:
As one of your constituents, I am deeply sorry that the town meeting you called the other day turned into an ambush by organized anti-health care interests. It is my belief that the majority of this district supports President Obama's health care initiatives and your efforts to reform health care. Big insurance interests have been taking advantage of us to enrich themselves for too long now, and it is time to change the way the big insurance companies turn us upside down for the loose change in our pockets.
As one of your constituents, I am deeply sorry that the town meeting you called the other day turned into an ambush by organized anti-health care interests. It is my belief that the majority of this district supports President Obama's health care initiatives and your efforts to reform health care. Big insurance interests have been taking advantage of us to enrich themselves for too long now, and it is time to change the way the big insurance companies turn us upside down for the loose change in our pockets.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Pseudoepinephrine Madness
So I go to the doctor yesterday because my ears are kinda stopped up. He gives me a prescription and tells me to also get an over-the-counter drug, Mucinex-D. Last night I went to the pharmacy and I had gotten there too late; the pharmacy was closed. I figured that I could at least pick up the OTC drug, but no such luck. There was a sign saying that I had to get it from the pharmacist.
Today I went in to get my prescription and the OTC drug, and to get the Mucinex-D, I had to have the pharmacist run my drivers' license and sign something that looked like a loyalty oath! I remarked to the pharmacist that I didn't even have to do that for prescription drugs, and he said that the law says they have to track people who buy anything with pseudoepinephrine in it.
Great. So now just because my ears are stopped up, I'm in a database somewhere as a potential speed lab chemist. What kind of absolute madness is this?
Today I went in to get my prescription and the OTC drug, and to get the Mucinex-D, I had to have the pharmacist run my drivers' license and sign something that looked like a loyalty oath! I remarked to the pharmacist that I didn't even have to do that for prescription drugs, and he said that the law says they have to track people who buy anything with pseudoepinephrine in it.
Great. So now just because my ears are stopped up, I'm in a database somewhere as a potential speed lab chemist. What kind of absolute madness is this?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Get The Insurance Companies Out Of Medical Care
The insurance companies who currently seem to run our medical care with an iron hand really don't seem to be doing a very good job when it comes to patient care, though they seem to be doing a much better job of enriching their executives.
Some of the guiding principles seem to be the opposite of what they should be. Why on earth are any of these organizations allowed to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, haggle with customers over what types of services are covered or not covered, and do anything that is antithetical to reaching a good outcome with the patients' health?
Obviously we need to get these organizations out of medical care completely. If only we had the political will to create a single-payer system, we could probably get the medical care we need with a minimum of hassle. We could still have boutique health care for the rich, and tax it heavily to assist with paying for the single-payer system. If Snidely Whiplash wants to take a gold helicopter to his private plastic surgeon, that's fine, but Snidely should pony up for the privilege of society letting him do that.
Some of the guiding principles seem to be the opposite of what they should be. Why on earth are any of these organizations allowed to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, haggle with customers over what types of services are covered or not covered, and do anything that is antithetical to reaching a good outcome with the patients' health?
Obviously we need to get these organizations out of medical care completely. If only we had the political will to create a single-payer system, we could probably get the medical care we need with a minimum of hassle. We could still have boutique health care for the rich, and tax it heavily to assist with paying for the single-payer system. If Snidely Whiplash wants to take a gold helicopter to his private plastic surgeon, that's fine, but Snidely should pony up for the privilege of society letting him do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
