Douchebag of the Week

Saxby Chambliss. We've been expecting you.

In today's Senate Armed Services committee hearing, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) defended rape and sexual assault that occurs in the military, saying: "The young folks coming in to each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22 or 23. Gee-whiz, the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur. So, we've got to be very careful on our side."

Yep, because people are physically attracted to each other, sexual assault and rape is "natural." So what are all those whiny rape "victims" complaining about?

If that's true (it's not), then perhaps Saxby should follow his "reasoning" to it's logical conclusion and reconsider the wisdom of allowing heterosexuals to serve in the military.

Team Douchebag

Your starting five: Team rape (cue the music)



At guard, from Missouri, U.S. Rep. and senate candidate Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin!
At the other guard, Indiana state treasurer and state senate candidate Richard "God Intended Rape to Happen" Moooour-dock!
At forward, from Iowa, U.S. Rep. Steve "Statutory Rape" King!
At forward, from Pennsylvania, senate candidate Tom "Rape = Out-of-wedlock Pregnancy" Smith!
And at center, from Wisconsin, state Rep. Roger "Rape so Easy" Rivard!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Richard Mourdock's Rape Comment
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

UPDATE: It wasn't a good night for Team Douchebag last night, as Akin, Mourdock, Smith and Rivard all lost their election bids. Of course, that means it was a good night for the people of the United States of America. Maybe now we can all start treating women like, you know, people.

The Earl of Douchebag

I've celebrated plenty of douchebaggery in this space before. But those idiots were just two-bit pretenders. This is just mind-boggling.

Charlie Fuqua is a lawyer and former Arkansas state legislator running for reelection on the Republican ticket. He is also, it turns out, a big believer in the Biblical practice of dangling the threat of death over children's heads in order to get them to respect their parents. What a guy!
 
According to the Arkansas Times, a passage from Fuqua's book, God's Law: The Only Political Solution, says that though child murder should not be "taken lightly," it could be helpful in the fight against scourges of "rebellious children."

What does one have to do to be considered unfit by Republicans to run for office? It's not like Fuqua, who also favors forced sterilization of nonsupportive parents, wrote, "The death penalty for rebellioius [sic] children is not something to be taken lightly" yesterday. He published this brilliance in April. So is the GOP not supporting Fuqua's candidacy anymore because of his beliefs, or because his beliefs are now widely known? I mean, I would think the vetting process would include having someone halfway literate read the candidate's recent book.

Just sayin.'

Fuzzy memory

Why do Mitt Romney's handlers believe that having Mitt deny that he remembers incidents of bullying  (in particular, we are talking about an incident at Cranbrook School in 1965 in which Romney led a gang of his asshole friends in an assault on a classmate in which Romney held the boy down and cut his hair) make the situation better for Romney or somehow absolve Mittens of guilt or responsibility? (Well, guilt. Cranbrook School absolved Romney of responsibility in 1965.)

I suppose claiming not to remember allows for a tiny possibility that the event never happened, even though Romney didn't deny that it did and has, finally, apologized for it. But anyone who follows politics, reads the news or has a brain realizes there's a difference between claiming not to remember  an event and denying that it took place.

Don't you find it strange that Romney would apologize for an incident that he claims not to remember? If someone accused you of assaulting another person and you didn't remember doing so, wouldn't you first deny the accusation and apologize only after it had been confirmed that you actually did commit the assault? (And then address whatever is wrong with you that you have no memory of such an incident?)

That seems to be the normal course of action that a normal person would normally take. Unless the person was drunk at the time of the incident. Then there's at least some explanation for why the person cannot recall the incident. But the last thing candidate Romney needs is another thing in common with George W. Bush.

Speaking of explanations, why doesn't Romney remember assaulting a classmate? As BooMan points out, none of the other people who witnessed and/or participated in the bullying have any trouble remembering the incident. Is it that such callous, chickenshit acts of bullying were so routine for Romney that this particular one doesn't stand out in his memory? Or is it that Romney was so unmoved by the incident that it failed to make a lasting impression on him? Or is it that Romney has done so many dickish things in the past that, even though he claims to have no recollection of this event whatsoever, it's entirely possible that this happened exactly as five witnesses recall? BooMan's right: whatever the answer, it points to a serious character flaw in Mittens.

All of this is pretty much academic, however, because everyone knows Mittens probably does remember leading a group of his douchebag prep-school friends to attack a weaker, outnumbered and basically defenseless classmate because the boy's haircut was an affront to Romney, and that Romney's claim of a convenient memory lapse is just bullshit political damage control. But as I see it, saying you don't remember a bullying incident just makes things worse. Imagine how refreshing the truth -- an honest admission of guilt and a sincere apology -- would have been, especially from a candidate struggling to appear human.

Ladies and gentlemen ...

the end of the Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia cut in when Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said the justices would need to look at “the structure and the text” of the 2,700-page [ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act].

“Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment?” Scalia asked — a joking reference to the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

“And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?"

Taking a swipe at the court’s textualists, Justice Elena Kagan said the court could dispense with the legislative history and “look at the text that’s actually given us.”
“For some people, we look only at the text,” she said. “It should be easy for Justice Scalia's clerks.”

“I don't care whether it's easy for my clerks,” Scalia said to laughs. “I care whether it's easy for me.”

Given that Needler was arguing the merits of a law that provides health insurance -- and access to lifesaving healthcare -- to millions of Americans who otherwise would not have it, it might not have been prudent for him to answer Justice Scalia's question the way he would have liked. But, given that I am just an average American citizen and not burdened with that responsibility, perhaps I can enlighten Scalia about the expectations of average Americans like myself:

YES! When the Supreme Court hears a case, I do expect you to be fully aware of all the relevant issues. If that means reading every word of a 2,700-page document, that's OK with me. Your job as a Supreme Court justice carries an incredible amount of responsibility, and the Court's decisions affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people and alters the course of our nation.

In exchange for that taking on that awesome responsibility, you are compensated more than adeqautely, at more than $200,000 per year, placing you comfortably within the top 5 percent of American wage earners. And, with your lifetime appointment, you also have unprecedented job security at a time when the term "job security" is, for many people, becoming an oxymoron.

I also expect you to judge cases based on their constitutional merit, leaving your personal political beliefs at the courthouse door. We wouldn't want judges on the top court in the land "legislating from the bench" now, would we?

So yeah, I expect you to read every word on every page of the 2,700-page PPACA. It's your job. And given the fabulous wage and benefits package you receive, I don't care whether it's easy for you.

It's hard to believe that a Supreme Court justice asked an attorney arguing before the Court if the attorney expects him to read the law they are talking about. Are you fucking kidding me?

Nothing personal

This is a comment I posted on Facebook in response to a friend's announcement that his "snake in the grass" employer laid off a 47-year veteran of the company.

"Not a personal decision?" So the manager hopes she can remain friends with the victim? That their families can continue to get together for dinner parties? Well, not now that he can't afford dinner parties.

"Not a personal decision" is an empty, meaningless statement. Pure bullshit, about as sincere as, "it's not you. It's me." But, in this situation, at least that statement's true: He's not the one who failed to perform the duties of his job. It's not his failure that landed the company in its current financial situation. It's not his incompetence, it's hers. But it is he who suffers the consequences of her failure, while she gets to keep her job. With a tidy bonus for taking his job away, I might add.

"Not a personal decision" is simply what corporate scum say to avoid confronting the people they've become and how little money they sold their humanity for. It isn't as if the laid-off party feels better knowing that their new joblessness and financial struggles aren't because they are disliked personally. I am sure that, to the person who has just had his livelihood taken away, whether the manager in question liked him personally was irrelevant before the layoff and even more so after. The statement isn't designed to ease the suffering of the victim. If people who use this statement were to be honest about who is comforted by it, they would have to admit, "it's not you, it's me."

The salve that statement offers these people is so great that they either don't know or don't care that they sound like insufferable assholes when they say it.

And, as if all that isn't galling enough, oftentimes companies kick loyal, long-tenured employees to the curb not because they are actually losing money, but to enhance their profit margin. It's not that they couldn't afford to keep the employee, it's simply that they could make more money if they got rid of him. Companies that are losing money don't usually give bonuses to mid-level management.

p.s. I think you owe snakes an apology.

One in two

That's half, folks. Half of all Americans. So it ain't just you.

Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.

"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.

"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax reduction, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.

And in case you think establishment conservatives are unsympathetic to your plight, they are.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far. He said some people described as poor live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.

What? Some poor people still have cars they aren't living in? So much more work to do, eh Robbie?

In the meantime, you poor folk should stop complaining and watch that big-screen TV.

UPDATE: I have been kicking this story around in my head for a little while and I wondered why a quote from a Heritage Foundation douchebag is even in the story. I went back to the story and saw no corresponding quote from an advocate for the poor. The closest thing was the quote, included in the snippet above, from Sheldon Danziger, the poverty expert from the University of Michigan. Being an expert in poverty doesn't necessarily mean he is an advocate for the poor, although he may be. It just means he knows what he is talking about.

It's just another example of the MSM's fetish with the bullshit idea of "balance," which in this case apparently means that if you report that nearly half of all Americans are impoverished or low income, you have to find some asshole willing to say that poverty isn't so bad.

I guess the next time the AP reports on a rape, it will have to find someone to say that rape isn't so bad. You know, for balance.

Hey, if you are a reporter writing about a rape and need that "rape isn't so bad" quote to ensure complete, balanced reportage, try this guy. One caveat: The victim has to be Latino.

Cross-posted at Suburban Guerilla.

We don’t need no stinkin’ principles

I think pieces like this, which analyze the incoherent, inconsistent public positions of candidates, in this case Newt Gingrich (with an honorable mention to Mitt Romney's "ever-changing stripes"), while valuable in calling bullshit in very specific terms on bullshit artists masquerading as public servants, miss the larger point.

If politicians' words and deeds seem to be connected more to the prevailing political winds than to the deeply held beliefs of the speaker, maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe it's time to abandon the notion that these politicians apply their deeply held principles and values to their public utterances and policy positions, or that such deeply held principles and values even exist. Rather than respond with shock and outrage every time a politician does or says something that contradicts what they have done and said in the past, we should look for a metric that more consistently explains (and could predict) what we see. Maybe the only underlying political philosophy at work here is winning, and the only relevant deeply held values are those of the wealthy individuals and institutions that can make or break the political ambitions of these aspiring lapdogs.

If the trainwreck George W. Bush administration was good for anything, it was for the development of a powerful sense of political cynicism. That administration's polices were widely criticized as being dumb because they did nothing to help the vast majority of Americans (99 percent, according to some estimates), let alone mankind. But those policies appear dumb only if one assumes they are actually designed to help the vast majority of Americans and/or mankind. If one assumes that those same policies were designed to move vast amounts of money into the hands of the wealthiest humans on earth, then one can't possibly argue with the ruthless effectiveness of those policies.

Here's a handy rule of thumb: If politicians have to stop to think before discussing one of their "deeply held values," it ain't all that deeply held. Peoples' principles don't have to be written on note cards (or their palms) to be remembered. And unless you are very rich, stop assuming that politicians care about you. Their individual utterances might change, but the class of people that benefits from their actions doesn't.

And those stories that call bullshit would be more valuable if they focused less on the bullshit and more on who benefits.

Cross-posted at Suburban Guerilla.

Less than nothing

This is your brain on Faux News.

Fox News viewers in the U.S. are less informed than those who watch nothing at all, a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll says.

But, lest ye think that Faux News is the only media outlet doing a disservice to its viewers:

Cassino again emphasized that none of the networks did a great job of informing its viewers.

“These sorts of media sources don’t actually help people learn. They are not giving people the basic facts to makes informed decisions about politics,” he said.

No, they're not. None of them are. Although I think Faux News was created to keep its viewers ignorant and that studies like this are an affirmation of its success, all news networks carefully control the dissemination of information potentially inconvenient to our ruling class.

Class, not party. Party affiliations are meaningless, as the major political parties no longer provide the electorate with meaningful choices. Perhaps the historical importance of the Obama presidency will be -- and I hope I am wrong about this -- that it showed that significant change cannot come from within a system designed to protect entrenched, wealthy interests who have no interest in change. Your political affiliation is meaningless. The only thing your party affiliation indicates is whom you blame for the economic distress you are currently experiencing: Democrats blame the rich, for seizing control of our government and using it to exploit and steal from the poor. Rich Republicans blame the poor, for not being able to figure out how to become rich. Poor Republicans blame people even poorer than themselves, for keeping taxes high or something.

In this system, political parties exist only to perpetuate the myth that you still have choices, still have some control over your life. In short, political parties are bullshit. In this system, money is the only metric that matters.

But since we at least started out talking about how well news networks inform their viewers, let's give credit where it's due: Only Faux News reported that pepper spray is "a food product, essentially." First on Faux. Congratulations on your scoop, Megyn Kelly, and thank you for providing information I wasn't getting anywhere else. And I mean anywhere.

I suppose, in Meg's mind, that when University of California, Davis Police Lt. John Pike soaked peaceful, apparently unarmed protesters with "food product," he was simply sharing some of his bounty, in the spirit of the season. Happy Thanksgiving, University of California, Davis Police Lt. John Pike, and happy Thanksgiving Megyn Kelly. Protecting the powerful from the oppressed is truly important work. Not everyone would trade their legacy and reputation, or gladly take such a prominent seat on the wrong side of history, to protect an aristocracy that is clearly in decline. I hope the elites are thanking God for people like you.

Take the Bastards Down

Dropkick Murphys, in support of the Wisconsin protesters.



To purchase a limited edition "Take em Down" T-shirt, click here. Proceeds benefit the Workers’ Rights Emergency Response Fund.

Heating aid for the poor

That's among the benefits to the most vulnerable Americans that the Obama budget reportedly will cut, in the spirit of "bipartisanship," a word that apparently has come to mean "selling out the poor to avoid forcing the wealthy to pay taxes they can easily afford."

So when you're freezing your ass off inside your home today, tonight, the rest of this winter in order to conserve whatever heating source you use; when your children complain to you that they are cold while huddled under blankets in your 59-degree home, remember that it's going to get worse, not better.

And remember why it's going to get worse: Because Republicans absolutely refuse to agree to a tax hike to the wealthiest, warmest, most comfortable Americans. (Regardless of what the swine in Washington would have you believe, cutting spending isn't the only way to address a budget shortfall). And because Democrats are too chickenshit to challenge them and help those who need help the most.

I think the revolution just got moved up another week.

The angry rich

Remember what I've said over and over in this space? That Republicans (and Blue Dogs) don't give a shit about you unless you're rich? Krugman:

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

This column brings to mind a post by Athenae that's linked to at Susie's place:

In the second place, in the second paragraph, really. You're really going to tell starving children to go blow because you're mad about your taxes. That's a thing you're going to do. The starving children, natch, having all kinds of influence in Congress, given how everybody's falling all over themselves to help THEM. Those are the people who can do exactly dick about your tax sitch, so I'm sure your brave moral stand will SO TOTALLY get noticed by our decision makers. Shit, stop giving money to politicians if you don't like how they behave, but Toys for Tots did nothing to you to deserve your contempt, and you're doing plenty to earn mine.

Of course, the starving children have no influence on Congress because the only thing congresspeople care about is getting re-elected, that is to say, their own asses. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, for example, would rather shut down the federal government than alienate what he sees as a bumper crop of new potential supporters in the tea baggers.

“We must not blink,” he said, noting that money cannot be spent without the House voting to pass it. “If the House says no, it’s no.”

Their new tea party backers won’t tolerate anything less than a full repeal of the health care law, he said.

“They will leave us if we go wobbly,” he said. “I am worried about that, but that’s why I think it’s got to be a blood oath.”

No word from King about what might happen if the entire nation goes "wobbly" because the House forces a shutdown of the government. But apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is not "worried about that." Apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is more "worried about" getting Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa re-elected.

Country first, y'all.

How they voted

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

on HR 847 to provide health care to 9/11 rescue workers.

Because not everyone will click through to see the shameful list of assholes, here are the 159 no voters. Of these, 155 are Republicans and four are Democrats (the Democrats are in bold).

Aderholt, Alexander, Austria, Bachmann, Bachus, Barrett (SC), Bartlett, Barton (TX), Bean, Berry, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Bono Mack, Boozman, Boustany, Brady (TX), Bright, Broun (GA), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite Ginny, Buchanan, Burgess, Burton (IN), Buyer, Calvert, Camp, Campbell, Cantor, Capito, Carter, Cassidy, Castle, Chaffetz, Coble, Coffman (CO), Cole, Conaway, Cooper, Crenshaw, Culberson, Davis (KY), Diaz-Balart L., Diaz-Balart M., Djou, Dreier, Duncan, Ehlers, Emerson, Fallin, Flake, Fleming, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gerlach, Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Hall (TX), Harper, Hastings (WA), Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Hunter, Inglis, Issa, Jenkins, Johnson (IL), Johnson Sam, Jordan (OH), King (IA), Kingston, Kline (MN), Lamborn, Latham, LaTourette, Latta, Lee (NY), Lewis (CA),Linder, Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Lummis, Lungren Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, McCaul, McClintock, McCotter, McHenry, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller Gary, Myrick, Neugebauer, Nunes, Olson, Paul, Paulsen, Pence, Petri, Pitts, Platts, Poe (TX), Posey, Price (GA), Putnam, Rehberg, Reichert, Roe (TN), Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Scalise, Schmidt, Schock, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shimkus, Shuster, Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Stearns, Sullivan, Terry, Thompson (PA), Thornberry, Tiberi, Turner, Upton, Walden, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wilson (SC), Wittman, Wolf.

The Democrats used a procedural tactic that prevented Republicans from adding all kinds of bullshit, pro-wealthy amendments to the very popular bill, which would have made it all but impossible for Democrats to vote against said amendments. But that tactic also requires a 2/3 vote for the bill to pass. So even though the vote was 255-159 in favor, the bill required 285 votes to pass. Sure, the tactic made it harder to get the bill passed, but getting Republicans to do the right thing shouldn't be so hard. This bill was a slam-dunk, but without amendments giving away what's left of the national treasury to the already super-rich, this bill just didn't seem like a good idea to Republicans. It's just more evidence that, unless you have obscene amounts of money, Republicans don't give a shit about you.

The procedural tactic isn't the reason the bill didn't pass. The 159 assholes who voted against it are the reason it didn't pass.

The 14th Amendment

I don't do this often, but I think I might agree with morons (or whores, depending on your view of the sincerity of their publicly proclaimed positions). Maybe Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl and so many other conservative dumbasses and lunatics are right: Maybe it is time to review the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, quit pussy-footing around the issue, bitches. Quit your cowardly floating of trial ballons and checking of polls. Let's repeal the fucker.

After all, why should U.S. citizenship be accorded to just anyone? To people who, through no effort or accomplishment of their own, just happen to be born within the borders of the United States? Since when do we just give away shit for free in this country? Citizenship isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's a responsibility that requires knowledge of our history and hard work to stay informed about issues affecting this great nation today. How could an uninformed citizenry possibly be effective stewards of our democracy? How could an ignorant, disinterested electorate keep its leadership honest and strike fear into a corrupt government? How could a lazy, apathetic public be anything more than a punch line, allowing thieving criminals with their hands on the levers of power to begin their lies with the phrase, "The American people ..."?

Citizenship is a serious responsibility that shouldn't be trusted to just anyone. If you can't be bothered to stay informed about the issues facing this country and protect it from those who would do it harm for personal gain; if you are too busy to learn the history of the nation you purport to love; if you are here just to take what you can from this country for yourself with no regard for it or anyone else who lives here; if you can't name the three branches of our government; if you couldn't pass what amounts to a high school civics pop quiz; then please explain to me why you deserve citizenship.

And don't hand me any of that shit about "my parents were here legally." This isn't about their citizenship, it's about yours. So what have you done to deserve to be an American citizen? And remember, if we repeal the 14th Amendment, being born here ain't gonna cut it no more.

If the extent of your commitment to this country is to fly American flags on your vehicle, find somewhere else to live. If you think patriotism is a weapon for divisiveness in a country founded on the virtue of tolerance by people fleeing persecution, if you think loving your country means hating others, get the fuck out of my country. You're too fucking stupid to live here.

No more free rides and no more getting credit for your parents' circumstances. If you want to be an American citizen, earn it. It's the American way.

ACORN cleared

Just so you know.

When a duo of right-wing provocateurs posing as a pimp and prostitute released selectively-edited videos trying to impugn the community activist group ACORN, both Democrats and Republicans condemned the organization.

Congress then voted to cut off federal funding for the group (a decision that was later ruled unconstitutional). Following negative press and Congress' vote, ACORN effectively disbanded Apr. 1 and reorganized under new names.

But a just-issued report by the Government Accountability Office that reviewed ACORN's federal funding at the behest of Congress found little grist for the mill for politicians or right-wing bloggers looking to bash the now-defunct advocacy group for the poor.

The 38-page report surveyed over 31 federal agencies, probing how ACORN used federal funds and whether adequate controls on spending existed.

The report found no evidence of fraud, lax oversight or misuse of federal funds.

In fact, the report discovered that ACORN had adequately accounted for spending $40 million worth of major and minor grants awarded by the federal government to the group since 2005 to combat a variety of problems afflicting poor Americans, including lead poisoning, housing discrimination and lack of adequate job training.

The preliminary report on the group’s funding also found that of the grants that warranted audits no irregularities in spending were found. Smaller grantees said that oversight was adequate as well.

Of eight major grants awarded ACORN by the federal government the report found fault with one, a grant by Neighbor Works.

“Neighbor Works determined that ACORN Housing Corporation had not provided a description of what it planned to accomplish under the grant, as required. After Neighbor Works brought this to the attention of ACORN Housing Corporation officials, these officials subsequently provided the documentation. Oversight of sub-awards is generally delegated to grantees,” the report states.

Of fifteen sub-grants awarded ACORN by a variety of federal agencies, the report did not find any irregularities.

Along with the preliminary finding, the federal agency did a comprehensive review of all criminal investigations by the Department of Justice and federal Inspector General’s since 2005. [...]

The agency also found the Federal Election Commission had closed all investigations into voter fraud by the group.

Of corurse, that still leaves open the question about the motives of the "right-wing provocateurs posing as a pimp and prostitute" and their financial backers. Do they hate poor people, programs that work to help poor people, or the effective use of federal funding?

The best healthcare in the world

This nauseating affront to basic human decency is brought to you by the free-market, for-profit healthcare system.

Kyler Van Nocker’s story shows that even 5-year-old kids are not exempt from this insurance company abuse. Van Nocker has neuroblastoma, which is a very rare form of childhood cancer that targets the nervous system and creates tumors throughout the body.

Due to successful treatment in 2007, Van Nocker’s cancer went into remission, giving him 12 months of pain-free life. Unfortunately, in Sept. 2008, the cancer returned, and Van Nocker was once again in need of treatment. Unfortunately, his health insurer, HealthAmerica, refused to pay for one form of treatment doctors believe could save his life (MIBG treatment) because they consider it “investigational/experimental” since it has yet to be approved by the FDA.

Yet in April 2008, the insurer approved cheaper treatment for Van Nocker that was also “experimental,” prompting Philadelphia Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky to ask, “So why, pray tell, is HealthAmerica playing the ‘experimental therapy’ card in the case of the MIBG treatment Kyler now needs? Gee, money couldn’t have anything to do with the decision, could it?”

And remember: this child has health insurance. But in 21st century America, there is little difference between having and needing to use health insurance and having no coverage at all.

I have a feeling the revolution just got moved up a day, and that Kyler Van Nocker’s family and friends have just been "radicalized."

Press 1 for English

I came across a group on Facebook called something along the lines of "Why Should I have to Press 1 for English?" and it just pissed me off.

But because there's an entire group of people on Facebook who apparently need an answer to that question so badly that they've organized, I thought I would help them out and tell them the answer.

The reason you have to press 1 for English is because the company, organization or whatever that you are calling has clients, customers or whatever who either don't speak English or prefer to conduct their business in their native language. Now, before you start raging against people wanting to conduct their business in their native language, remember that you want the same thing, so badly that it apparently pisses you off that others don't see the advantages of conducting their business in your language, too.

But maybe that's not why they are pissed off. Maybe the anti-1-dialers simply don't like it when companies provide reasonable service to their customers. If that's the case, why are they even calling?

Or maybe they just plain don't like pressing phone buttons. Well, if that's the new white man's burden, I suppose they should be congratulated for displaying the intestinal fortitude needed to reach the company's automated answering system in the first place. I mean, that requires dialing, like, 10 digits. After that flurry of activity, I can see how pushing one more button must seem like carrying a piano up Mt. Everest. And yet they find the strength to soldier on. It's that kind of dedication and refusal to quit, even in the face of the most daunting of odds, that makes me proud of my fellow Americans.

Or maybe they just don't like automated answering systems. I'm right there with them. And for that unique inconvenience we can thank the executives who decided to buy computer systems to answer their customers' calls instead of paying humans to do it. But I doubt that's what their beef is about, because the Facebook group I saw wasn't called, "Why Should I have to Press 0 to speak with a human?"

Perhaps it's not all that service or all that dialing or all that time wasted listening to a computer pretend to interact with them that has these patriots so salty. Perhaps the real issue is that the "press 1 for English" message is an automated reminder that some God-loving, red-blooded American has lost a job to a God-loving, red-blooded foreigner. Well, to them I say, if you're angry about American jobs being shipped overseas, thank the CEO who decided that he could save a few bucks by laying off Americans and shipping their jobs off to (insert country name here). Don't blame the customer-service rep. for taking a job. She has to eat too, and it wasn't her idea to ship that job overseas.

Besides, when was the last time you declined a job because you felt someone in another country deserves it more?

Blaming foreigners for taking jobs that corporations have shipped to foreign countries makes about as much sense as blaming foreigners for speaking foreign languages in foreign countries.

And maybe that's the real issue here. But I hope not. I can understand anger about jobs being shipped overseas so that a corporation can avoid paying an American a decent, living wage and instead exploit the poor in other countries. (In this coutnry, we have these pesky laws about things like the minimum wage, working conditions and overtime. So companies avoid them by shipping jobs overseas, where they are free to pay their workers almost nothing and treat them essentially as slaves. But Republicans oppose those oppressive laws, so don't worry: One bright, shining day, you too may be able to work 100 hours a week in dangerous, deplorable conditions for poverty-level wages). What I can't understand is baseless, ignorant xenophobia. What I don't understand is buying into the lie that the working class in this country is being exploited and suppressed by those who are even poorer than they are.

Do the homeless have the power to eliminate jobs and slash wages? Are undocumented immigrants living like kings in gated communities, making more money in an hour than most people make in a year? Are families facing foreclosure having their mortgages paid off by the government, or is the government simply handing trillions of dollars to giant banks and getting nothing whatsoever in return? If the poor in this country are exploiting the working class, they are doing a really shitty job at it, because they have almost nothing to show for it.

Know your real oppressor, people.

The best healthcare in the world

 

Meet six-year-old Madison Leuchtmann. Madison was born with bilateral artesia, meaning she was born without ear canals. She needs a hearing implant in order to recognize sounds. Without it, she could lose her hearing.

Madison's family has health insurance, but their insurer, Cigna, refuses to cover the $20,000 cost of the implant. The company claims that the device is not medically necessary. Madison's pediatrician, Dr. Randall Clary, disagrees, saying, “This is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear canals!”

In addition, as reported by Think Progress, Cigna said in a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude hearing assisted devices.” Get it? There's nothing unusual about this situation. This is standard operating procedure.

But there is a silver lining in this horrible mess: At least it's an employee of a for-profit health insurance company -- and not a government bureaucrat -- coming between this six-year-old girl and her doctor.

It seems that if you need to use your health insurance, having health insurance is not much different than not having it. And remember, Cigna is doing this while the nation's attention is focused on the for-profit health insurance industry, and while legislation that could put them out of business is being crafted in Congress.

Imagine what Cigna and other for-profit insurance companies will do when no one is looking.

Why do we always have to shame these amoral scumfucks into doing the right thing? That this is a necessary and oft-repeated step in the process of getting healthcare is evidence that the for-profit health insurance system Just. Doesn't. Work.

Enemy of traditional marriage

The state of Texas.

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

This is the language of an amendment to the Texas Constitution that was adopted in 2005. But don't worry. Apparently it doesn't mean what it says.

“The Texas Constitution and the marriage statute are entirely constitutional.”

Hear that? The Texas Constitution is constitutional. So everyone can relax.

Until they hire some people better versed in the English language, Texas might want to consider a "You Know What Was Meant" amendment, because in their attempt to trample the civil rights of some of their citizens, Texas lawmakers have trampled the civil rights of everyone. In the process, they made it unlawful for anyone to become married or to be recognized as married in the state.

But you know what was meant. So go ahead and ignore this particular provision of the constitution.

Unless you're gay.

Game of chance

Eat ground beef and roll the dice.

Stephanie Smith, a children’s dance instructor, thought she had a stomach virus. The aches and cramping were tolerable that first day, and she finished her classes.

Then her diarrhea turned bloody. Her kidneys shut down. Seizures knocked her unconscious. The convulsions grew so relentless that doctors had to put her in a coma for nine weeks. When she emerged, she could no longer walk. The affliction had ravaged her nervous system and left her paralyzed.

Ms. Smith, 22, was found to have a severe form of food-borne illness caused by E. coli, which Minnesota officials traced to the hamburger that her mother had grilled for their Sunday dinner in early fall 2007.

“I ask myself every day, ‘Why me?’ and ‘Why from a hamburger?’ ” Ms. Smith said. In the simplest terms, she ran out of luck in a food-safety game of chance whose rules and risks are not widely known.

Meat companies and grocers have been barred from selling ground beef tainted by the virulent strain of E. coli known as O157:H7 since 1994, after an outbreak at Jack in the Box restaurants left four children dead. Yet tens of thousands of people are still sickened annually by this pathogen, federal health officials estimate, with hamburger being the biggest culprit. Ground beef has been blamed for 16 outbreaks in the last three years alone, including the one that left Ms. Smith paralyzed from the waist down. This summer, contamination led to the recall of beef from nearly 3,000 grocers in 41 states.

Ms. Smith’s reaction to the virulent strain of E. coli was extreme, but tracing the story of her burger, through interviews and government and corporate records obtained by The New York Times, shows why eating ground beef is still a gamble. Neither the system meant to make the meat safe, nor the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe.

See, the trouble is, testing the beef supply to make sure it's safe and won't kill people who eat it is just so darn expensive. And you know that we like our money more than life itself.

Don't kid yourself: The beef supply isn't monitored closely enough and isn't safe.