The Solution to Shootings Is More Guns

Steve Stockman and a supporter. The saner one is on the left, believe it or not.

Of course. Why didn't I think of it? It was left to Texas GOP representative Steve "batshit-crazy-is-ok-by-me" Stockman:

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) on Thursday called on Congress to repeal a ban on military personnel carrying firearms on bases after Wednesday's shooting at the Fort Hood that left four dead and at least 16 wounded.

"This is the third mass shooting on a military base in five years, and it’s because our trained soldiers aren’t allowed to carry defensive weapons," Stockman said in a statement. "Anti-gun activists have turned our military bases into soft targets for killers."

I'm pretty sure that sound military judgment sets policy on military bases, not "anti-gun activists," but why quibble? Still, this brings up a question.

If the solution to gun violence is more guns -- the fallback GOP position -- why isn't the solution to sick people more healthcare? Riddle me that, GOPers...

Oh, the answer is simple, turns out. With more guns, more people will need more healthcare. A solution wrapped in an enigma surrounded by a paradox shrouded by Republican policy. I should have seen it.

But heaven forbid  a surgeon general who believes shootings are a public-health issue...

More guns is totally the answer to more healthcare. We gonna need it...

Charles Koch Is Upset That We Don't Love Him

Charles Koch: A lion in winter? Nah, just another rick prick who hates the poor
because they're not free (at least he doesn't want to pay for them!). Sorry, Charlie,
when you start wholesale lying for political ends, people will start calling you names.

And not to put too fine a point on it, we don't love you, at least we collectivists. Really, truly, he did use that word in his Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he pleaded for love and understanding for the lonely, big-hearted, oil baron that he is.

Right off the bat, Charles, let me tell you why we might not love you, apart from being called collectivists. Now we get that you couldn't use the C-word because that would give away your deep roots within the John Birch Society -- and lord knows you'd sound a little old-fashioned if you called us communists (oops, there I said it!) -- but we do appreciate that you telegraphed so well your inner feelings. Those dear feelings are hurt, and now we know why.

If we are the collectivists, what does that make you? Oh yeah, you're a lord, a czar, a prince, a king. You are our better, like Mitt Romney, and I appreciate that such a status shouldn't make you end up more of a Rodney Dangerfield than a Julius Caesar, but there you are.

You at least have enough reserve that we're unlikely to catch you bug-eyed, twitching as you straighten your tie while nervously intoning, "I get so little respect, I go crazy and all I can think of is spending millions of dollars trashing healthcare reform. And I still get no respect."

Unfortunately, Charles, you aren't a comedian, you aren't funny, and I wish you were because at least you'd be doing something productive. Instead, the creeping awareness that communists collectivists are storming your gates because they we consider you a kleptocrat, an oligarch, a tool, but never a nobleman, a czar, a prince. You aren't funny, sir, and in spite of your wealth we communists collectivists will always tell you what you really are, and that's a crass dickhead who inherited wealth. You love liberty, especially the kind you found in your dad's bank account.

As long as you put your billions to use lying to the American people and playing us for the suckers that some of us are -- why do white, male, working-class stiffs actually think you're on their side? (I could hazard a guess) -- we will fight you, we will call you out, and yes, Mr. Koch, when we can we will mock you, even if that's the only satisfaction we'll likely receive.

There is one other satisfaction we'll no doubt treasure, and that's the knowledge that in the end you and your kind -- heartless bastards that use their money against the common good -- will not only pass from this sphere but be remembered for being the creepy little punks you were.

Because, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the arc of history is long, but it bends toward Denmark.

A swarm of future collectivists crowding the Danish streets.

What Do Conservatives Know About Campaign Finance That Liberals Don't?

Nothing, except that they'll -- for now -- be receiving the bulk of the donations and for obvious reasons. Conservatives, the GOP, know they're the party of the rich.

This isn't a mystery. Anyone in America who doesn't know that hasn't been paying attention.

Things might change -- the Democrats might become the party of the rich, uh, how? -- but for now the GOP has the bucks. About the only thing we can hope for is that David Weigel is not wrong in what he's reporting, that more transparency is baked into this latest decision:

What strikes me, from the majority opinion, is the embrace of the idea that the system of limits—the caps on how much donors could plug into campaigns and parties—was itself a detriment to disclosure.

"Disclosure of contributions also reduces the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system," writes John Roberts, quoting portions of Citizens United. "Disclosure requirements, which are justified by a governmental interest in 'providing the electorate with information' about the sources of election-related spending, may deter corruption 'by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.' "

This theory finds common ground with liberals and their war against "dark money." When I called Republican attorney Jim Bopp, who's single-handedly worn down the campaign finance legal system with lawsuits (Citizens United among them), he suggested that McCutcheon would usher in new transparency.

I ain't buying it. Sure, we might know a bit more about who is helping who on the individual level, but please don't tell me the super-rich will back off of the scads they donate anonymously via the super PACs. Anonymous has a great appeal, and, besides, they can now do both!

We liberals, right?!? Well, vaccines, Africa...sure!

To be clear, Gates might be thought of as liberal, which is fine, but mostly he doesn't play the political game, so his riches are not in play, either way.

The Supreme Court Has Moved to Fantasyland -- or Have They?

The campaign contributions decision was too liberal for Thomas,
who wrote his own opinion banning all caps on all contributions.

The Supreme Court has decided reason or experience is no excuse for judicious decisions. This crap is way better:

"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Roberts wrote in the ruling. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."

Oh yeah, that's for sure completely true. Who would ever be influenced by gobs of money? An American politician? Maybe Italians, but Americans? Never.

As Atrios often says, we are ruled by idiots. In this case, it's worse, I don't have to tell you.

Hey, Tony, would we be deciding like this if the Democrats benefited?

News Flash! Paul Ryan Hates the Poor. Who Knew?

Paul Ryan: I love the poor so much I'm cutting their programs for their own good.

Because, you know, hammocks.

But don't take it from me, let's look to the nooze peoples:

• Slate's Jamelle Bouie doesn't like the new Paul "Boy I loves the poors" Ryan's budget.
• ThinkProgress ThinksPoorly of it, pointing out the problems with cancelling Obamacare.
• The NY Times covers it as nooze but points out the smoke and the mirrors:

Mr. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman and a possible White House contender in 2016, laid out a budget plan that cuts $5 trillion in spending over the next decade. He said it would bring federal spending and taxes into balance by 2024, through steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and the total repeal of the Affordable Care Act just as millions are reaping the benefits of the law.

Defense spending would increase. Domestic programs would be reduced to the lowest levels since modern government accounting. And Medicare would be converted into a “premium support” system, where people 65 and older could buy private insurance with federal subsidies instead of government-paid health care.

“We need to be a proposition party, not just an opposition party,” said Mr. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin. “We believe we owe it to the country to offer an alternative to the status quo. It’s just that simple.”

Even with those tough political choices, the budget would balance in 2024 only because Mr. Ryan is assuming his cuts would prompt a burst of economic growth to raise tax revenues above what independent economists forecast. He also does not adjust the government’s revenue ledger to reflect the cost of repealing the health care law’s tax increases and Medicare cuts, which could total $2 trillion.

The last paragraph is the smoke part, in case you didn't notice.

No good Paul Ryan budget release can escape without a Paul Krugman rebuke, but nothing yet. Stay tuned. Instead, here's a reasonable takedown of the smoke and the mirrors, Medicare Edition, from HuffPo:

"By repealing Obamacare, we stop [the] raid and that money stays within Medicare," Ryan said. "So it actually helps make Medicare stronger and more solvent, more secure."

Asked if it would nonetheless complicate the GOP's message if, under his budget, Republicans were also voting for steep cuts to Medicare, Ryan disagreed.

"No, not at all," Ryan said. "We're spelling out a comprehensive plan to save and strengthen Medicare with premium support, with the traditional Medicare option alongside of it.

"We want to make sure that all the savings that come from Medicare go back to Medicare to shore up its program," Ryan added. "And if we have problems with Medicare, for instance say Medicare Advantage, we have created a system to address that as those problems arise."

...

The Affordable Care Act does not actually "raid Medicare," but is partially financed by reductions in Medicare payments to providers and by reductions in subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans. Some of those on Medicare Advantage plans may lose extra benefits other Medicare enrollees don't get, but no regular Medicare benefits have been cut under the health care law.

Yep, smoke and mirrors with a dash of malarkey, but that's a Paul Ryan budget!

I feel for the poor, I really do, but my budget cuts their programs because I can.
Who am I going to take from, the rich? Don't be ridiculous. They're my crew...

Hobby Lobby Surprise! They Invest in ALL the Contraceptives They Hate

(Updated below. Washington Post does cover this story, sort of.)

Owned by lying, cheating bastards. Money talks, Catholicism walks!

Why didn't we know this? We do now, thanks to Mother Jones:

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Greens object to covering Plan B, Ella, and IUDs because they claim that these products can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus—a process the Greens consider abortion. But researchers reject the notion that emergency contraceptive pills prevent implantation the implantation of a fertilized egg. Instead, they work by delaying ovulation or making it harder for sperm to swim to the egg. (Copper IUDs, which are also a form of birth control, can prevent implantation.) The Green's contention that the pills cause abortions is a central pillar of their argument for gutting the contraception mandate. Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the plan.

 Will this affect the outcome of the Supreme Court case? Of course not. Will the mainstream media run with this? Probably not. I'll report if it does. Not holding my breath. Let's look at the owners of Hobby Lobby who are the Religious Believers Christian Catholic Deceivers:

David and Babara Green have a hobby: bullshitting us.

Money talks, Catholicism walks. Boycott Hobby Lobby, not for religious reasons but because they are liars and cheaters. I bet they voted for Mitt Romney, another great moral leader.

Bonus fun fact. From Mother Jones:

All nine funds—which have assets of $73 million, or three-quarters of the Hobby Lobby retirement plan's total assets—contained holdings that clashed with the Greens' stated religious principles.

Evil or stupid? Just evil. And so religious.

Update. WaPo does cover this story, but only as a lower-eschelon link in its Morning Mix section, entitled "Hobby Lobby's abortion embarrassment." Yeah, it's an "embarrassment when people find out you're lying, cheating whores for money instead of First Amendment Religious Believers Marching for Jesus. In fairness to the WaPo, the article itself is thorough, referencing the Mother Jones story and adding a splash of blog reax. This graph is apparently based on Mother Jones' reporting, but I missed it in the first telling:

The kicker is that there are “faith based” investment options for companies like Hobby Lobby that are particular about whom they do business with. Dan Hardt, a Kentucky financial planner who specializes in faith-based investing, told Mother Jones that the performances of funds like the Timothy Plan or Ave Maria Fund, which screen for companies that make abortion drugs or support stem cell research, are about the same as if they had not been screened.

So, the Religious Zealots Who Need the Supreme Court to Save Them From Sodom and Gomorrah didn't do their homework or don't give a shit. What would Jesus do? (Hint: He's mum on the subject...)

The CIA Lies to the Senate and the American People. Surprise!

Details of a Senate report on bad behavior by the CIA have come out. Surprise!

Fire all of the head spooks. Here they are:

John Brennan, Director of the CIA, lying asshole. Fire him, now.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, lying asshole. Fire him, now.

Keith Alexander, retiring Director of the NSA, lying asshole, too late to fire him.

As for the war criminals who caused all this?

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, war criminals, they'll never
be tried. Big travel warning, though! Stay in the U.S.!

Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, knew about it all.
By their silence, war criminals. Big travel warning!

Left : George Tenet, former CIA Director. Center: Colin Powell, former
Secretary of State. Both culpable, Tenet more than Powell. They'll never
be tried. But remember them. They're a complete disgrace to America.

That's Tenet saying two things: We don't torture people, and here's why we tortured people: We were freaked out! Assholes, every one of them. They should all be made to pay. Between Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the deep blue sea, they never will. It's a disgrace. Meanwhile those we tortured -- those still alive -- are at Guantanamo, awaiting trial. Go figure.

The UN released a report about U.S. human rights abuses. It's not pretty. So the CIA's bad behavior isn't being viewed in a vacuum.

Speaking of a vacuum, what about the interior of Dick Cheney's heart?

Dick Cheney is a special kind of monster. He makes me wish there was a heaven and a hell.