Rand Paul Plays on the Third Rail

Paul defended his call to end to all foreign aid -- including the $3 billion the U.S. gives to Israel every year.

"I'm not singling out Israel. I support Israel. I want to be known as a friend of Israel," Paul said, "but not with money you don't have. We can't just borrow from our kids' future and give it to countries even if they are our friends."

..."I think they're an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world," Paul said. "Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don't think so."

Welfare? *Sigh.*

While I'm willing to praise Rand Paul for his bluntness on Israel (seems like more politicians should be worried bout the well being of the US before Israel - I'm looking at you, Joe Lieberman) he's going after them for the wrong reasons. It isn't purely a financial issue - although it probably is for Paul, who also wants to cut the Department of Education by 83%.

GOP Backs Off "Forcible Rape"

HuffPo: House Republicans announced Thursday that they are taking a step back from a particularly controversial passage of a piece of anti-abortion legislation that many had criticized as a dangerous redefinition of the acts that constituted "rape."

"The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.

Well I guess that's good. But here's an interesting quote (emphasis mine):

The bill’s authors, including Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), say it’s not their intent to change the way the exemption is applied.

“The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski told Talking Points Memo in a statement.

Two things: If they never intended to change the exemption, why did they use a questionable phrase? And if there's already "existing law regarding taxpayer funded abortion," which they didn't intend to change, please enlighten me on what this law actually does except reiterate what's already in the books and perhaps cons the rubes into thinking that Republicans actually achieved something with this redundant bill?

John Bolton's Bomb Iran Du Jour

Raw Story: Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the ouster of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

... "I don't think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up."

Bolton chided the protests in Egypt last week, saying that "the real alternative is not Jefferson democracy versus the Mubarak regime, but that it’s the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Mubarak regime, and that has enormous implications for the US, for Israel, and our other friends in the region."

Ah, yes. They all love spreading democracy... until they realize they might not like the outcome.

And so goes Bolton's latest excuse for bombing Iran. Unrest in Gaza? Bomb Iran. George W. Bush leaving office? Bomb Iran. Protests in Egypt? Bomb Iran.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bolton also said that the consistency of his poached eggs at tomorrow morning's breakfast would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "If they're not runny enough, there'll be hell to pay,"said Bolton as he picked the crumbs of toast out of his mustache.

Cartoon of the Day

Holy Crap!

NOAA:

Bachmann's Second Chance on SNL

Republican Priorities

For a year leading up to the 2010 elections, Republicans campaigning for public office raised holy hell against the Obama administration for spending so much time on health care reform while the country languished in a prolonged recession and unemployment hovered close to 10%. Their cry was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. It was all about doing the people's work once they regained control of the House.

So how has the first session of the 112th Congress, specifically the new Republican led House of Representatives, tackled the unemployment issue? So far, they haven't.

After one month of the new Congress, they've spent a little over their first week, reading the Constitution, while conveniently skipping the three-fifths clause, apparently to the detriment of Michele Bachmann, had a symbolic vote to repeal the "job killing" health care reform passed by the previous Congress, took a week off due to the tragic event in Tucson, and are now pushing a bill called the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." They are so clever with their bill titles, those Republicans, aren't they?

While there is already precedence for prohibition of federal funding of abortion with the Hyde Amendment, this is a dubious effort to constrict the legal right of abortion because the wording in the bill is attempting to redefine rape.

Since the 1976 Hyde Amendment, federal law has prohibited federal funds to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, but now...

"...Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

...Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense."

This doesn't pass the smell test because there is no legal definition of "forcible rape." What about date rape? Or victims being drugged? And how can you pass a law with such vague definitions subject to malleable interpretation? How many bruises does a rape victim have to have before the sex is considered "forcible?"

So just to reiterate, after 18 months of GOP whining that Democrats spent too much time focusing on health care and not enough on jobs, the Republican led House has spent its first month focusing on repealing health care benefits already in place for millions of people and the further restriction of legal medical procedures. The people's work indeed.

The Brainiacs at Fox Nation and The Imbeciles Who Read It

Mediaite: "...Fox Nation editors were apparently so enamored with an Onion piece from today entitled “Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail” that they reposted the first two paragraphs in their culture section with nary a sign as to its fictional nature. The only clue that this wasn’t real (besides a quick peek at your inbox to confirm that Barack Obama hasn’t been emailing you) was a link at the bottom instructing readers to go to TheOnion.com for the real story. This tiny link was, unfortunately, not enough for the vast majority of FN readers. At least, that’s the way it seems from the comments section."

Some of the comments left by the MENSA members reading Fox Nation, which can be seen in Mediaite's screenshot, ramble on from the President being incompetent and calling his mental health into question, to suggesting he smoked marijuana and calling his presidency an affront to American exceptionalism. So exceptional was that commenter that he couldn't discern between truth and satire.

Finally someone chimed in with some realism:

professorbrown: WOW! I can't believe how many readers think this is REAL! I can't believe FoxNews is touting this as REAL news! This link will be removed within an hour.  That is if anyone with a brain is working at FoxNews today...
It's "The Onion" for God's sake!! We as a country are hurting when the right [can't] tell the difference...

Well, "professorbrown" nailed it. Here's what you get when you click the Fox Nation link now:




If you ask me, the only ones "lost at sea" are the Fox Nation editors and their readers.

ADDING... This wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that some right wing ideologies have become so full of rage and rabid hate for all things Obama, they'll eat anything up and trust it as fact without the slightest hesitation or fact checking.  It's also the reason right wing humor is not funny. There's no way you can be humorous when you don't understand satire and your idea of a funny joke is a parody song called, "Barack, the Magic Negro." Seriously, when was the last time you laughd at anything Dennis Miller said since he crapped his pants after 9/11?

Must Reads

Bill Carter & Brian Stelter: Olbermann Split Came After Years of Tension

Matt Osborne: SOTU Response Fiasco

Mark Frauenfelder: Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same

Dick Cavett: The Wrath of Grapes

Michael Winship: The Bush Legacy Strikes Out American Justice

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 29, 2011

Out-Innovating, Out-Educating & Out-Building Our Competitors

Ten Years Too Late

Sam Stein: In an interview set to air this Sunday, former President George W. Bush said he was done with politics and that he is uninterested in campaigning or raising money for political candidates.

Stewart Rebuts O'Reilly Rebuttal to Use of Nazi Terminology

Shorter Bill O'Reilly: But when we call someone a Nazi, we have a good reason.

25 Years Ago Today

The Challenger Tragedy



I remember watching this in my living room with my girlfriend at the time. It was a sunny day, a day or two after a blizzard in New York City. We just sat and watched in silence.

She's So Presidential

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday night that President Barack Obama’s call for “winning the future” during his State of the Union address is best framed by the acronym it shares with a much different phrase — “wtf.”

“That was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach,” Palin said during an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren. 

“His theme last night was wtf, winning the future,” she continued. “I thought, okay, that acronym - spot on. There were a lot of wtf moments throughout that speech.”

You can watch the video here. I was only able to watch about four minutes of it before my eye started to twitch, but if you're feeling brave, knock yourself out.

You know, I'd actually give her points for wit if I thought for a second she came up with the WTF thing all by herself.

Hardball Classic

When Chris Matthews knows he's right, he's like a pit bull with a bone in its mouth. The bone in this instance is Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo who plays dumber than the imbecile he's trying to cover for, Michele Bachmann and her ridiculous slavery comment. Instant classic.

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

Hey, What's the Terror Alert?

Don't know? It doesn't matter.

Tomorrow Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano will announce that the much maligned color-code threat level, formally called the Homeland Security Advisory System, will be replaced with a more specific public alert system according to officials briefed on the issue.

...The system has not been raised or lowered since 2006 and officials say they have been better able to tailor security procedures without making changes to the color code system.

We've been stuck on Yellow since 2006. New York City has perpetually been on Orange.

President Obama's State of the Union Address

January 25th, 2011

Sitting Together at the State of the Union

Tonight, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union Address to the nation standing in front of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices (we think). As a symbolic sign of decreased rhetoric and bipartisanship after the Tucson shooting tragedy, some members of opposing parties of Congress have decided to break tradition and sit together.

I have one word for this gesture: bullshit.

This isn't something that transpired organically. What a story it would be if when walking into the chamber today, unbeknownst to anyone, members of Congress truly searched for what they claim are "friends on the other side of the aisle" and decided then and there to sit together. But that's not what's happening. This was something that was petitioned and members signed on to.

"I believe that members of both parties can symbolize our common citizenship and common interests by sitting together to hear the president's remarks, rather than divided across the aisle by party," [Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer] said in a statement Thursday.

One wonders whether their symbolism will continue during the address, when Democrats will undoubtedly stand and applaud during sections of the speech. Will the Republicans they're sitting next to do the same?

Will Congressman Paul Ryan's Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union be toned down in rhetoric and criticism? We'll find out tonight, but my guess is that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's Tea Party address will lack such civility.

On a side note, while I praised Senator John McCain a few days back for his views on President Obama's address at Tucson, he couldn't even be bothered to truly find someone at odds with him to sit with, as his "date" tonight is reported to be Senator Joe Lieberman. Nothing like showing bipartisanship by choosing to sit with the senator who describes himself as an "Independent Democrat" and endorsed you in your failed 2008 presidential bid, Maverick.

ADDING... I prematurely published my post before making another point. The reason I'm not really thrilled with this symbolic seating gesture and frankly don't think it matters is because while we usually think of a "it's not what they say it's what they do" mantra when it comes to politicians, the reverse is true in this case.  It's not what they do, such as mixing up the seating arrangement to not appear so divided, but it's what they say, and what they will say and how they say it after the address that's important. Conservatives sitting next to liberals, Democrats sitting next to Republicans means absolutely nothing without taking that symbolism and applying it toward their everyday experiences while working in Congress. I just don't see that happening anytime soon because of who you sit next to for an hour out of the year at the State of the Union. I hope I'm wrong.

What's Prayer Got to Do With It?

POSTED BY JHW22

For decades, we have been told that the removal of God from schools has caused all of our problems.

For starters, God wasn’t removed from schools and neither was prayer. Any teacher can pray any day, any time, anywhere in a public school. So can students. The only change made since the good ol’ days is that prayer cannot be school-sanctioned or led: we can no longer have a prayer led by school staff. But we have a moment of silence that is specifically for anyone who wants to pray to have time to do so and for anyone who doesn’t want to pray to think about something else. Sometimes I wonder if Christian parents are afraid that their kids aren’t praying during that time thus all the hubbub. Are they really bothered because they think their children aren’t praying when they aren’t there to make them do it? Just a curiosity, but seems plausible.

In addition to America sucking because God isn’t going to school anymore (us sucking is according to the very people who don't like it when Democrats take responsibility for our nation's mistakes), we have been told that natural disasters are the result of gay people being gay. Never mind that straight people die in those disasters and some are probably prayerful homophobes.

Now, if we’re a "Christian Nation," I often wonder why all the Christians haven’t been able to prevent all this crap they blame on the lack of school prayer. I mean they ARE the majority and they pray at home and church and at restaurants and in the car and on Facebook and in email chains, etc. So why do we still have so many problems if prayer is the answer and they all pray so much? Is the lack of prayer led by teachers THE reason? Are gay people really to blame? Seems like I, as a non-prayer, am being blamed for bad things I don't do. I am being blamed for crime and vile sex acts and other sins simply because I don't support proselytizing in public schools.

So then Reagan's line (that Palin just had to cite) about only the criminal being to blame, yadda, yadda, doesn't apply when prayer is on the line? So, if we don't pray as a class, we're all to blame for a classmate going crazy and killing someone?

If Christian kids are raised right, they should be taking advantage of prayer all the time and privately. So it can’t be MY fault -- as an atheist who doesn’t want to hear or have to use part of my time participating in something irrelevant to me – when Christian kids don't pray whenever and wherever. It’s not because of my lack of belief if a child doesn’t pray enough. Don’t pretend that public prayer is more consequential than silent prayer. And don’t blame the lack of required public prayer for our ills while avoiding responsibility for not praying enough or well enough or for the right things on your own time.

Finally, if all of this is true, why is the absence of something they think is good so impactful, yet violent rhetoric isn’t?

When someone from the “prayer should be in schools to prevent horrors” side of the debate uses language to divide and imply violence is a solution, don’t then say words don’t matter and that only the criminal is accountable. Or if you want to say that only the criminal is accountable, then don’t blame the lack of school prayer for someone's crimes.

I leave you with this poll that is quite relevant and helped me formulate my thoughts even though it's not specifically what I wrote about.

Just an observation

POSTED BY JHW22

Some people who are choosing to root against the Steelers because of Ben Roethlisberger who had two sexual assault claims made against him are supportive of Julian Assange who had two sexual assault claims made against him.

So a few thoughts/questions:

Why do we accept the word of some women when they make the claim but not others?
Will some women lie about assault?
Will some men be assholes but still not go THAT far?
Why will we believe famous men over unknown women?
Why can some men's actions be overlooked while other men's can't?
Why is a team of 53 somehow accountable for one player?
Why is there an assumption that the other teams don't have any secret offenders?
Why is it OK to bail a person out of jail because you agree with the stuff they weren't charged with but you don't agree with what they were charged with?