Wednesday, February 23, 2011

I am REALLY tired of seeing headlines about Jennifer Anniston's new hairdo.

Who gives a f*ck!?! Jeez!

If you are going to have items on blogs (including Yahoo) about celebrities, at least make them interesting! A new hairdo? On an actress who was nominated for this year's worst actress?

Conservatives certainly have an odd view of Democracy.

When I was growing up and taking “Civics” in grade school, I seem to remember bits about freedom of speech and the right of assembly. It seems as if a Deputy Attorney General for the state of Indiana thinks that our Democracy should be run sort of like Gahafi’s Libya.

From Washington Monthly.

On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building--something that didn't end up happening--one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.

I see. Demonstrators are “enemies” and “thugs” who should be shot.

And that’s different than Libya how, exactly? Maybe we should just have the U.S. Air Force come in and drop bombs on the demonstrators. That would show ‘em.

UPDATE: Susan of Texas has exactly the same impression. We did not compare notes. It was just a conclusion that was just WAITING to be plucked like some low-hanging fruit. It wasn't difficult to come to this conclusion, at all.

UPDATE 2: Looks like this genus got himself fired over this tweet. Amazing.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

If the country is in such a state of crisis, why is increasing taxes on upper 2% off the table?

And why can't we make corporations pay their taxes? That seems to be all that those who are supposedly "in charge" can agree on; we can't increase taxes on rich folks and we can't make corporations pay their taxes. That's it. We could NEVER allow that, for some odd reasoning. And forget oversight and regulations! Heck, the invisible hand of the market will take care of any abuses by insurance companies or major polluters...

But yet, when it comes to everyone else, boy, everything is on the table. Takeaways in wages and benefits, raising the retirement age, doing away with Medicare, Medicaid, "privatizing" Social Security, breaking unions, laying off teachers, government workers, police, etc... Anything and everything that can be heaped upon those who actually have to work to survive and make ends meet is automatically something that "must be done" in order to avoid this future catastrophe.

How did this happen? Why is this country so obviously set up to benefit rich people and richer corporations? Aren't those the very people who have benefited from living in such an open and democratic society? When did actual people become the enemy that must be vanquished?

I suppose this is THE major issue of the day that I do not understand. What the heck is this country for if not to benefit all who live here? Why is it that the powerful always seek more power and the rich will never be satisfied with all the riches they already have? They must have it all, even to the detriment of the rest of the 95% of the country? Is that what this is really about?

I am becoming more and more disenchanted with human beings as a species every single day. I am very attached to very many individuals. I am really becoming to detest my species, however.

UPDATE: Check this out from Whiskeyfire:

Compare income taxes received by the federal government from individuals and from corporations (their profits are treated as their income), based on statistics from the Office of Management and the Budget in the White House, and the trend is clear. During the Great Depression, federal income tax receipts from individuals and corporations were roughly equal. During the second world war, income tax receipts from corporations were 50% greater than from individuals. The national crises of depression and war produced successful popular demands for corporations to contribute significant portions of federal tax revenues.

US corporations resented that arrangement, and after the war, they changed it. Corporate profits financed politicians' campaigns and lobbies to make sure that income tax receipts from individuals rose faster than those from corporations and that tax cuts were larger for corporations than for individuals. By the 1980s, individual income taxes regularly yielded four times more than taxes on corporations' profits.

Since the second world war, corporations have shifted much of the federal tax burden from themselves to the public – and especially onto the middle-income members of the public. No wonder a tax "revolt" developed, yet it did not push to stop or reverse that shift. Corporations had focused public anger elsewhere, against government expenditures as "wasteful" and against public employees as inefficient.

Organisations such as Chambers of Commerce and corporations' academic and political allies together shaped the public debate. They did not want it to be about who does and does not pay the taxes. Instead, they steered the "tax revolt" against taxes in general (on businesses and individuals alike). The corporations' efforts saved them far more in reduced taxes than the costs of their political contributions, lobbyists' fees and public relations campaigns.

If Republicans and conservatives yearn for the "good old days", how about we take a step back to the 1940's on this issue? That's when America was truly great, wasn't it? When we were exceptional? How about American corporations start sharing the load?

No, of course not. I didn't think so.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Republicans continually decry the "Nanny State", but what they really want is the "Daddy State."

It seems as if everything that the modern Republican Party does is streamed directly from their psyche. There isn't actually a lot of rational thought that goes into their actions or statements. For example, they absolutely detest anything that they believe hints at weakness, dependency on someone else, and anything less than 100% absolute certainty that they know everything and can always be counted on doing exactly the right thing. Always. To them, that's the "Nanny State", where someone else takes care of you. They hate that. That's about the only reason I can understand that explains their hatred toward things like Social Security. The very nature of the program offends them, so it must be attacked.

The flip side of this coin, of course, is what I called the "Daddy State." And this is referring to "Daddy" as they saw him in the 1940's and 1950's. I also think this is a bit of an extension of the world inhabited by the American White Male after WWII. We had just vanquished the greatest evil the world had ever seen, and the flip side of evil is something almost god-like. American White Males could do anything. And most of the American White Males were already Daddies or were going to become one when they got back on American soil. Daddy knew everything, was always in control and could always, always be counted upon to take care of every problem that the family ever encountered, both large and small.

But here is what I really think that translates to. They crave an authoritarian figure, someone in charge. (St. Ronnie comes to mind, but only after the fact that his presidency wasn't really all that popular when it was actually happening.) They want laws to come from that person, not from some legal "system" that may come up with answers that they don't like. And they most certainly do not want Mother or the children to ever question Daddy, to ever ask why he made the decision that he did and to offer suggestions that aren't rigidly in the Daddy State mode that might smack of self-introspection once in a while. Ha! Self-introspection is for weaklings! If you question the authority of a Daddy figure, you might get smacked upside the head, either literally or figuratively. At least you might be grounded for the next few days. You don't ever question the authority of Daddy. That path leads toward darkness and chaos.

That's the picture of the 40's and 50's that modern Republicans would like to remember. Of course, that is all a very false impression. Daddy, in good times, might look and act like the combination of Ward Cleaver and Winston Churchill. But in bad times, when things really start getting dicey, the Daddy facade can very easily start to crack. Daddy could very well turn out to be a surly alcoholic with a tendency to take out his anger on his wife and kids. They certainly deserve it, don't they? All these problems are their fault! Someone who is never wrong and always in control, by definition, cannot be wrong or not in control.

I don't think Republicans can really admit, even to themselves, that this is the "utopia" that they are looking for. Maybe they can, but you surely can't tell them this. That would lead to even more denial and an even stronger pushback. No one can tell ME that I am don't know the answers to these problems or that I don't know what I am doing! I'll show them!!

And unfortunately, I think that is exactly what is going on in today's society here in the Good Ol' United States of America. There are some psychic hot buttons being pushed in a big way, and we are getting the programmed reaction that is required when those buttons are pushed. As I said in the beginning, there is very, very little rational thought involved here. It's emotional, gut reaction time, and nothing, no matter how small, that questions the validity of the Daddy State or implies a need for what they think of as a Nanny State must always, without fail, no matter how trivial or insignificant it might seem from a distance, must be attacked. Because it is an attack on their programmed belief system.

The insanity of today's society in America might look like it is just that, insane. However, I think when you view if from this lens of the unspoken, perhaps unthought, wishes for a Daddy State, I think it makes some sort of logical sense, however twisted it might be.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Apparently, a lot of insiders are predicting Republicans will shut down the government on March 4th.

Check this story out in the Washington Monthly.

I'm of a firm belief the government will shut down after March 4th because the House and Senate won't be able to come to a conclusion on a CR [continuing resolution]. So it isn't a question of "if" in my mind, it is a question of "how long."

It's becoming clearer and clearer everyday that Republicans in the House have no connection to reality and are willing to burn it all down. Staff have sat dumbfounded over the last few days watching the floor, which no media is reporting on, to see how disconnected Republicans are from basic math. Their CR would do practically nothing to address the debt, but it will stunt any economic recovery (which they will blame on Obama).

What I don't hear people talking about is that so many members of the House are millionaires and don't seem to care how this will affect people. I don't know how they can look their staffs in the eye, who will be royally screwed by this.

The wild card is President Obama. As we discussed last year, he has yet to prove he has a spine. I fear he will cave and give in on most if not all of the Republican demands. In that case our last defense would be a small set of Dem Senators who have yet to lose their minds. But we will see.

As that post states, the current crop of Republicans are so divorced from reality that they don't even stop to consider whether they should stop and consider whether this is actually a good thing to do. All they know is that they have power and, by God, they are going to use it. Besides, the Democrats don't want this to happen, so it MUST be a good thing, right?

I just wonder how long it will be before our news media really starts reporting about how insane these people really are.

I would certainly be affected by this. I am an employee of the federal government. I have already had my salary frozen for the next couple of years because of these yahoos. As I said before, I actually don't mind making a sacrifice if it is the common good. But all I feel is that I am subsidizing tax cut extensions for millionaires and billionaires. But for this latest bit of insanity, a government shutdown would result in a forced furlough for me. However, don't feel bad on my account! It would just amount to a paid vacation, on top of my other paid leave days I get. I couldn't do any work, even from home. I wouldn't get paid during that time. However, once the government gets back up and running again, guess what? I would get back pay for all that time I would have been forced to take! Paid vacation, courtesy of John Boehner!

However, I think my case is the exception. Vendors who work with the government wouldn't get paid. Contractors who essentially work for the government but aren't direct employees wouldn't get paid. The last time this happened, back in the Newt Gingrich days, many of those people were forced to go out and find temp jobs to pay the bills. And that isn't to mention all the people who receive social security checks from the government. I am wondering what is going to happen to all those nice TSA people at the airports who pat you down or take x-ray pictures of you through your clothes. Are there enough private firms to jump in there and take up the slack? Would that even be allowed? How about things like Air Traffic Control? Would our military personnel, many of them stationed overseas with their families living paycheck to paycheck, get paid? Would the VA Hospital have to stop taking new patients or scheduling surgeries? I have no clue.

The thing is, neither do these nutcases who now are in the majority in the House of Representatives. They have many elder statesmen in their own party telling that this isn't a wise move in the least, and they don't care! They have the power and they are going to use it! I am Tea Party! Hear me roar!!

The Internet....

Just because....

From Very Demotivational. The link is over there on the right. I am so demotivated, I'm not even going to bother pasting it in.

Wisconsin’s governor manufacturers a fiscal “crisis”, moves to crush unions and then threatens to call out the National Guard.

The brazenness of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is truly breathtaking. I suppose I have been so na├»ve that it seemed to me that people like this really don’t exist. No one can be this… Cruel? Cynical? Devious? All while in plain sight, in the garb of “respectability” that is normally afforded a sitting governor.

So, here’s the short version, for those of you who haven’t been following this, from HuffPo.

Enter Scott Walker. Newly-elected GOP governor of Wisconsin with GOP control of both houses, it is understandable that he didn't think he had to ask for permission. But this was way, way over the top, both in terms of procedure and substance.

In terms of procedure, it does not play well to announce a radical bill that will devastate long-standing promises of economic security and then allow only three days for debate before the final vote on ratification. Asked why he did not give the unions even an opportunity to negotiate, Walker's answer joins the litany of the greats along with Richard Daley, Sr., and Huey Long: "To those who say why didn't I negotiate on this? I don't have anything to negotiate with. We don't have anything to give. Like practically every other state in the country, we're broke. And it's time to pay up."

That position was slightly undercut by his insistence that the only alternative would be to lay off 6,000 state workers. It does not quite do to insist that there is nothing about which to negotiate and then to identify a point of negotiation in the very next sentence. All of that, of course, was right before he said that the National Guard is standing by to intervene if public employees try to strike.

In terms of substance, it is hard to know where to begin. Walker's "Repair the Budget" bill is primarily a union-busting measure, many of whose provisions have no fiscal consequences at all. The bill requires public employees to make contributions to pensions and the costs of health care, but union representatives insist that they have no objections to those provisions. They insist that what they care about is the curtailing of collective bargaining rights. But maybe they should read the bill again. Here's a particularly juicy bit:

"Wages would include only total base wages and would exclude any other compensation, including, but not limited to, overtime, premium pay, merit pay, performance pay, supplemental compensation, pay schedules, and automatic pay progressions [emphasis mine]."

In other words, the entire salary grid for teachers would be thrown out, and school districts would be free to define and implement new salary systems from scratch. That's in addition to giving the administration unprecedented authority to redefine Medicaid eligibility (but only downward), and enough other material to fill 144 pages.

OK, I guess that sets the picture. The governor decides that, because of this “fiscal emergency” where the state is absolutely broke, he will gut any and all unions. Sure, that follows. But, if that wasn’t bad enough, guess what? Walker pretty much manufactured the entire “crisis” himself in his first few days in office by giving tax cuts and other gifts to the people and organizations that helped him get elected. Via TPM.

Wisconsin's new Republican governor has framed his assault on public worker's collective bargaining rights as a needed measure of fiscal austerity during tough times.

The reality is radically different. Unlike true austerity measures -- service rollbacks, furloughs, and other temporary measures that cause pain but save money -- rolling back worker's bargaining rights by itself saves almost nothing on its own. But Walker's doing it anyhow, to knock down a barrier and allow him to cut state employee benefits immediately.

Furthermore, this broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.

"Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control," says Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future -- a public interest think tank. "He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts... so he could rush through these other changes."

Got that? The state could have possibly ended up with a surplus this fiscal year if it WEREN’T FOR THE DIRECT ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR HIMSELF!!

And that’s the reason why unions need to be broken up, and the National Guard called out to deal with any striking workers.

I would like to know what all those Tea Partiers who voted for this criminal were thinking. How much worse do they think a Democrat would be in that office? This guy is gutting the future of most of the middle class who are unfortunate enough to work for the state. “Get the government off the throat of the people! And let’s bust all unions and take away all collective bargaining rights at the same time, O.K.?”


Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Islamic Propaganda in our Middle Schools!!

I just saw that home-made flyer in our local post office as I ran out to mail a few things at lunch today. There was the row of little tear-off strips with a phone number at the bottom. I am wondering if it is good news or bad news that there was one of the little strips that had been torn off.

Where do these wackos come from? What evidence is there AT ALL that Islamic propaganda is being taught in our schools? What? These are the same lunatics that imagine that Sharia Law is going to replace the Constitution in our courtrooms and demand that Something Be Done Immediately!!

We are never going to fix the problems in this country. These lunatics are driving the entire conversation. Meanwhile, the rich and powerful are consolidating their hold on the money and power of this country, and we will never recover.

Does anyone remember that video of that older woman at one of the Town Hall meetings, crying and saying that she "wants her country back"? I certainly do.

That's exactly how I feel about it as well. I want my country back, because I sure as hell don't know what happened to it.

Wow, this is just so crazy. South Dakota wants to redefine “homicide” so that murdering an abortion provider is O.K.

The conservatives of this country have just gone completely over the edge. I had no idea that we had so many damn crazy idiots in our entire country, much less being elected officials.

Check this out, from Balloon Juice.

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state’s legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman’s father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators.

“The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers,” says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. “This is not an abstract bill,” Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a “misguided extremist invokes this ‘self-defense’ statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer,” the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week.

How crazy is that? Legislation has been introduced in one our our 50 states that would essentially allow murder to prevent what is now a legal procedure.

What I find just about as astounding is that the conservative position is that, once a child is born, then the government should provide essentially no help to the parents at all. It doesn’t matter if it might be a low income family that is having trouble paying for food or their heating bills, or maybe they are getting thrown out of their house, or maybe they don’t have enough money for the kid to have lunch at school… The family is ON IT’S OWN! Touch luck, kid. And you will have REAL problems if you were born in the country but your parents are here illegally. You are royally screwed, even though conservatives really were glad you were born.

How can conservatives justify this position? The government can do everything up to condoning murder in order to prevent abortion, because life is so precious and all, and yet, once a child is born, the government should have absolutely nothing to do with any sort of assistance at all?

This is absolutely insane…

Saturday, February 12, 2011

I just truly do not understand how middle and lower class people can vote for Republicans.

Republicans all across the country seem to have declared war on the middle class. Everything that they are doing appears to be for the benefit of the wealthy and big business, at the expense of working class Americans.

Here’s the latest example from Wisconsin, via Washington Monthly.

Citing Wisconsin's gaping budget shortfall for this year and even larger ones expected in the years ahead, Gov. Scott Walker proposed a sweeping plan on Friday to cut benefits for public employees in the state and to take away most of their unions' ability to bargain.

The proposal by Mr. Walker, a Republican who was elected in November after pledging that he would get public workers' compensation "into line" with everyone else's, is expected to receive support next week in the State Legislature, where Republicans also won control of both chambers in the fall.

The prospect left union leaders, state and local employees and some Democrats stunned over the plan's scope and what it might signal for public-sector unions in the state.

On Thursday, the newly-elected Republican governor said he would refuse to negotiate with unions, and on Friday, Walker said he's contacted the Wisconsin National Guard, making sure they're prepared to respond to a protracted labor dispute, doing some of the jobs union members currently do.

Even by GOP standards, the scope of Walker's union-busting efforts is striking. We're talking about a governor effectively stripping nearly all government workers of their collective bargaining rights, and then trying to break the backs of unions themselves.

Mr. Walker made several proposals that will weaken not just unions' ability to bargain contracts, but also their finances and political clout.

His proposal would make it harder for unions to collect dues because the state would stop collecting the money from employee paychecks.

He would further weaken union treasuries by giving members of public-sector unions the right not to pay dues. In an unusual move, he would require secret-ballot votes each year at every public-sector union to determine whether a majority of workers still want to be unionized.

And in case that wasn't quite enough, Walker then added that union members would no longer be allowed to negotiate for better pensions or health benefits at all.

The governor is working with a newly-elected Republican-led legislature, and he's expecting lawmakers to pass his anti-union plan quickly.

And here’s the latest of what is going down in Florida.

Florida's Tea Party-backed Governor Rick Scott proposed cutting more than $5 billion from state spending on Monday while also slashing taxes as he laid out his first budget proposal aimed at closing a deficit of nearly $4 billion.

The Republican, a former healthcare executive, proposed saving nearly $4 billion over two years by reforming Medicaid, the health insurance program for poor people.

He also saw savings of $2.8 billion over two years through an overhaul of Florida's relatively healthy state pension system. Scott also proposed cutting taxes by more than $4 billion over two years. This would include a roll-back of corporate income taxes from 5 percent to 3.5 percent and reductions in property taxes.

Critics of the budget plan from Scott, who was elected in November on a pledge to create 700,000 jobs in seven years, said it would cut nearly 9,000 positions from state payrolls and slash billions of dollars from spending on education.

"This budget from the governor is a frontal assault on the quality of life of every Floridian and will not create a single job nor spur our economy forward; instead it takes us further into the economic ditch," Florida Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith said in a statement.

And, of course, no discussion of this type would be complete without talking about New Jersey’s Chris Christie and his apparent hatred of school teachers.

And, lest us not forget that apparently every single Republican in the country wants to scale back or get rid of Social Security altogether.

Yeah, I know that everyone is hurting everywhere, and all states are experiencing some major budget crises. But why are all the “remedies” always aimed directly at the working class? Why do we NEVER hear about making big business and the upper crust of this country bear some of the burden? This IS the country that allowed them all to amass all those riches, after all. What is wrong with spreading the pain around, especially to those people who can actually deal with the pain?

If it comes down to a choice between middle and lower class people being able to afford housing, food and a relatively stable future for themselves and their children, and a bunch of rich people not being able to afford luxury homes, or a second home in the Hamptons, or a yacht, I know what I would choose.

What is wrong with these people? And why do lower and middle class voters KEEP VOTING FOR THESE A**HOLES?

I just do not understand…

Friday, February 11, 2011

Mubarak is out in Egypt!

Amazing what a couple of weeks of really intense public demonstrations can do.

Now, what I want to know is this. When are Americans going to take to the streets, en masse, just like their Egyptian brothers and sisters so we can force Obama and his corrupt administration to give insurance companies back the right to take away people's insurance when they get sick and to stop making insurance companies cover kids with pre-existing conditions? Huh? When!

The whole world's watching!! All power to the insurance companies and the Koch brothers!!

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

It occurs to me that this is pretty extraordinary.

But somehow, I bet it won’t be covered much in the MSM.

From Think Progress.

Former President George W. Bush canceled a February 12 visit to a Jewish charity gala in Switzerland, reportedly out of fears that legal action would be taken against him for his role in authorizing torture. Human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights, and Center for Constitutional Rights, said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in Geneva “on behalf of two of men, Majid Khan, who remains at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Sami al-Hajj, a former Al Jazeera cameraman who was released in May 2008.”

The Jewish charity group, United Israel Appeal, said it was canceling Bush’s invitation on security grounds, not due to legal action. “The calls to demonstrate were sliding into dangerous terrain,” Robert Equey, a lawyer for the organization, said. Protesters urged attendees of the rally to bring a shoe, recalling the moment when an Iraqi journalist threw one at Bush.
The human rights groups had a different interpretation. “Whatever Bush or his hosts say, we have no doubt he canceled his trip to avoid our case,” the Center for Constitutional Rights and others said in a statement. “He’s avoiding the handcuffs,” Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.

Oh, sure. There is a bunch of chaff throwing and excuses being made to make it just possible that this isn’t the reason that George W. Bush, who admitted to war crimes, isn’t making this trip. But I wouldn’t put much money on it.

How extraordinary is this? Very, I would say. This would put George Bush in the same category as, say, Augusto Pinochet or Jean Bertrand Aristide.

I am of the opinion that it will take a very long time for the country as a whole to come to grips just what was done in the eight years that George Bush was president. If we aren’t rewriting history or pretending unpleasant things didn’t really occur that undermined who we are as a nation, then we seem to be trying to convince ourselves these things really were for the “protection of the country.”

Self-reflection isn’t a strong suit for us right now.

Friday, February 04, 2011

Well, that whole conversation about gun control sure vanished quickly, didn't it?

Not that I expected anything different. An assassination attempt that was incredible not for the fact that it happened but in that it didn't succeed on a sitting U.S. congresswoman, but did manage to claim the lives of a number of other people including a 9 year old girl and a District Judge was just a few weeks ago. It appeared that we MIGHT actually finally getting around to addressing issues like how an unstable person managed to get a gun at a gun show, and maybe that clips that hold 30 bullets maybe aren't really all that necessary. But no. That is now "Old News." It is been overtaken by Egypt and whether or not Republicans are still going to try to satisfy their base by trying to repeal "Obamacare." We are now talking about whether or not Obama "lost" Egypt and that Bill O'Reilly believes that God causes the tides and not the moon.

Jesus, what a country. We deserve every single thing that happens to us.