Equal Health Care for All (Except the People Voting on it)

For whatever reason, I decided that I'd sit down and give "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" a read. I haven't finished it yet, in fact I haven't even come close. However, I've been taking notes that border on obsessive and I'd like to do a little introduction to the bill in this blog.

First of all, I don't think I would be too much mistaken in saying most members of Congress don't read this shit. Actually, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Attorney John Conyers (D-Michigan)said, "I love these members, they get up and say, read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" You are a lawyer, you doddering old buffoon. If the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who is a fucking lawyer, can't understand the bill, what are the chances that anyone else in Congress can? 168 Representatives and 57 Senators have law degrees, but according to Mr. Conyers, even lawyers need lawyers to help them understand this shit.

So, I'm going to tell you, as I understand it, what this thing is shaping up to look like as I continue reading and learning about it, and I'm going to try not to be biased and paranoid.

If you guys would like to look at it, go ahead: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

How do I even begin to explain this? It's one of the most difficult things I've had to read and follow along with, and I'm a fan of 17th Century political philosophy.

First thing's first I guess, the bill establishes what is called the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee." The Surgeon General will be the chair of the committee and there are around 28 members. Some members are private citizens and some are government officials. It is their job to figure out what benefits should be covered, apart from the essential benefits listed in the bill.

In order for health insurance coverage to be deemed "qualified," it has to comply with a minimum set of benefits and preconditions that will be set by the "Health Choices Commissioner" based on the recommendations of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. There is far too much involved in recounting all of the requirements, but some of the biggies are: no pre-existing conditions exclusion, the ability to renew the plan, plans must offer an "essential benefits package" (tons of shit listed here, read Sec. 122 for a full list), adequate provider network...etc. However, there is a grace period during which insurance policies that are insufficient, according to the government, can make the necessary changes to be in full compliance. So, no matter what, everyone can keep their current health insurance for at least a little while.

If you're enrolled in an individual benefits package on the day before the first day the Act becomes law, your policy is grandfathered in and you can keep your insurance regardless of whether or not the policy is qualified as long as the individual insurance issuer doesn't enroll any new individuals after the first day the Act becomes law, the issuer doesn't increase premiums, terms or conditions. If you have a policy through your employer that isn't qualified, you can stay enrolled for 5 more years, but at the end of the 5th year, if your employer-provided policy is still unqualified, the provider will not be allowed to offer benefits and you will need to find a new provider. If your employer-provided benefits qualified from the beginning or if your the provider your employer uses changes its policies in order to be in compliance, you can keep the package.

If you do not have any insurance as of the day the Act becomes law, you will not be able to get individual private insurance. As of the first day the Act becomes law, individual policies for individuals in the private market, regardless of whether or not they qualify, are no longer allowed.

Where will you get health insurance? Here's where it gets even more confusing, but in order to try and make it a tiny bit less confusing, from here on out, assume that any policy being offered, regardless of who the offering entity is, is a qualified plan.

There are a few places we'll be able to get insurance. There are private providers in the Health Insurance Exchange, the gubment (offered exclusively through the Exchange) and qualified private providers who do not participate in the Exchange. In the case of the last option, qualified private providers may not offer individual benefits policies. If you do not have insurance offered by your employer, you have no choice but to get individual insurance through the Exchange.

What the fuck is the Health Insurance Exchange?

There is established within the Health Choices Administration and under the direction of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.

(Sec. 201(a))

Now, what the fuck is the Health Choices Administration and who the fuck is the Commissioner?

(a) In General- There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration.

(b) Commissioner-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the ‘Commissioner’) who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Now, there are certain types of people and employers who are qualified to get individual or group insurance through the Exchange. While the requirements for individuals listed in Y1 do not change in subsequent years, the eligibility requirements for employers are staggered over three years.

During the first year (Y1, or 2013) the Act is in place, individuals who are not covered as full-time employees through a qualified group plan offered by their employer, for which their employer pays the required amount towards the premium (72.5% of the premium for the lowest premium plan for individuals, and 65% of the premium of the lowest premium plan for a family), are eligible to get individual or family coverage through the Exchange. However, individuals who match that description but are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, or who are members of the Armed Forces (including their dependents), are not qualified to get coverage through the Exchange. Confused yet? Employers who are eligible to get coverage for their employees through the Exchange during the first year are employers with 10 or fewer employees.

During Y2 Individual requirements stay the same. However, employers eligible for the Exchange are employers with 20 or fewer employees.

During Y3 individual requirements stay the same. For employers in Y3 and beyond, any employer that employs 21 or more employees becomes eligible at the Commissioners discretion.

What I've found in this bill, unless I'm just reading it completely wrong, is that in order for an employer who offers coverage to employees through an Exchange-participating plan to remain eligible to continue offering such coverage, they have to meet different contribution requirements. Instead of the 72.5% of the lowest offered premium amount for individuals and 65% for families, they pay an amount, "equal to the average premium for the 3 basic plans in the area for the plan year with the lowest premium levels." So they're paying 100% of the average of the three lowest plans, instead of 72.5% or 65% of the single lowest plan. Honestly, it is hard to tell which of those amounts will be less. This next section sheds a little light on it.

In addition to offering qualified plans, insurance providers interested in being offered through the Exchange must adhere to further qualifications. They have to offer three different tiered plans, while providers who do not participate in the exchange just have to offer the bare bones (they can offer more if they want). Exchange-participating plans must report data to the Commissioner that the Commissioner deems necessary to carry out "risk-pooling" and other information that could be used to address "disparities in health and health care." Risk pooling is a really interesting one, and its definition in the bill deserves its own block quote...

The Commissioner shall establish a mechanism whereby there is an adjustment made of the premium amounts payable among QHBP (Qualified Health Benefits Provider) offering entities offering Exchange-participating health benefits plans of premiums collected for such plans that takes into account (in a manner specified by the Commissioner) the differences in the risk characteristics of individuals and employers enrolled under the different Exchange-participating health benefits plans offered by such entities so as to minimize the impact of adverse selection of enrollees among the plans offered by such entities.

Um...You dicks put out a 1018 page bill, a fucking period here and there wouldn't have busted the printer ink budget. What the fuck does that even say? In the course of my little health care bill journey, I've learned a bit about risk pooling. Large employers who offer health insurance constitute their own risk pool, small and medium sized employers who offer health insurance are lumped together with other small and medium sized employers to constitute a risk pool and if you buy individual insurance on your own, you're your own risk pool. Every insurance company participates in risk pooling and in the current system, health insurance companies can deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, thereby weeding out the highest-risk people. If the bill passes, insurers won't be allowed to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. What the Exchange will do is create a HUGE risk pool, but it will limit the amounts Exchange participating providers can charge in premiums. Providers who don't participate in the exchange are not part of this risk pool. Because the Commissioner will set premium limits on how much Exchange-participating providers can charge, and because providers who do not participate in the Exchange do not have to adhere to these limits, Exchange-participating providers will always be able to charge lower premiums. So, even though employers will have to pay 100% of the average premium for the three lowest premium plans in their coverage area, that amount still may be less than 72.5% of the premiums for individual plans not offered through the exchange (or 65% for families). What happens then? Employers become Exchange-eligible according to the staggered schedule, they dump their non-Exchange coverage, non Exchange-participating providers slowly go out of business, and all we're left with is the Exchange.

That's all for now kiddies. And that's actually just stage one in the plot to ruin this country even more. It seems like it'd be really easy if the government just said, "Hey, we're going to drive health care costs down because we're not going to allow Illegals to come to the hospital and get a chest x-ray because they've got the sniffles. We're also not going to let John Edwards sue Doctors for 9128495 trillion dollars because they accidentally put their thumb in little Timmy's soft spot. Now, since the cost of Doctor's medical malpractice insurance has gone down, and since they are no longer being forced to do unnecessary and ungodly tests on people who will NEVER pay them, they'll be able to charge less for their services! Which means, you have to stop being assholes and start lowering premiums."

Why all the need for private options and health choices commissioners and health choices administrations and health benefits advisory committees and health choices ombudsmen and health choices trust funds and on and on and on until my fucking head explodes? Stop fucking with everything. And now, as my pièce de résistance, I'm going to make a funny pun using an old, cliched acronym...drumrolldrumrolldrumroll...KISS: Keep It Simple Socialists! Ha! I'm sorry.

At Long Last...

I'm back. I apologize in advance for what will inevitably be a long, wandering rantings of a sociopath with far too much time on her hands.

The list of reasons I haven't done one of these in quite a while is long, but the abridged version is:
1. I'm lazy;
2. I'm disillusioned; and
3. My work starting blocking Drudge.

But, much to the chagrin of my friends who feel obligated to read this tripe, I've been reinvigorated (and I found this little gem: http://www.drudgereportfeed.com/).

So, I guess I'll dedicate this first back from the dead blog (ZOMBIE BLOGS, OHNOES!) to some shortish sections on various shit I'm pissed about.

First on the list, Ted Fucking Kennedy:

I get it, Ted dying reminded old liberal hacks of the era when the not entirely worthless Kennedy brothers died. This, in turn, brought back memories of the bygone days where spreading VD and listening to Herman's Hermits was a chief concern; a time when the only protestable war was a Republican one. At least they can take solace in knowing that one thing hasn't changed. While I'm sure the nostalgia is, staggering, shut the fuck up already. Stop saying he was a good man. Stop saying he was a good Senator. Stop pretending that there is a respectable bone in his body.

Coverage of Kennedy has been the most dishonest, phony horseshit I've ever encountered. Kennedy was in favor of No Child Left Behind, a view he and President GWB shared. Liberals HATE No Child Left Behind. It's racist, it's sexist, it's homophobic, it's xenophobic, it's arachnophobic (maybe not that last one), but this idiot drops dead and all of the sudden Ted Kennedy is Jesus Christ himself for being such a champion for bipartisan education reform. And, lest we forget, Ted teamed up with John McCain to create the most laughable immigration bill since the last fucking immigration bill he got behind in 1965. Yes, he was the least partisan member of the Senate.

The shitheads in the media, and liberals in general, never missed an opportunity to tell us what a travesty it was that George "nuke-you-ler" Bush went to an Ivy league school that he didn't deserve to attend. There was a barrage of stories telling us how Bush was a privileged daddy's boy who escaped fighting in a war because of political connections. I'm not even saying that they shouldn't have reported these things. Nor am I saying that it doesn't disgust me when undeserving dunderheads get an amazing opportunity or a lucky break because they're politically connected. The only thing that drives me nuts is how blatantly biased it all is. Doesn't the media know that the reason no one gives them an ounce of credibility is because they run down Republicans for doing things that are mild when compared with Teddy's sordid past.

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. Maybe they were unaware that Teddy barely got passing grades and was admitted to Harvard with a C average because of their "legacy" policy. They might not have heard that he was expelled from Harvard TWICE for cheating. (Don't worry media, Ted was readmitted to Harvard. However, the person with whom he cheated was not so lucky.) I guess it could be possible they didn't know that while Ted was expelled from Harvard at the time of the Korean War, the fat sot enlisted in the Army and accidentally signed up for four years instead of two. Imagine media, if you will, a scared young man whose utter stupidity caused him to sign up for military service for two extra years...in wartime no less. Now imagine that same man, but change the last name from Jones to Kennedy. That's right, Good ol' "The Jews Brought it on Themselves" Joe Sr. made certain that his drunken fool offspring spent two peaceful years in Paris.

Now that they know this about Ted, maybe they'll change their tune. However, if those little tidbits don't matter to them, you'd think the fact that he's a FUCKING MURDERER would deter them from canonizing him. But, was it really so bad? I mean, she was preying on a married man, and we all know married men can't be expected to control themselves, especially if their last name happens to be Kennedy. (No joke, I've heard this out of the mouths of brainwashed liberals and I've seen it in print from even more brainwashed liberals.) So, since being a misogynistic, drunken, cowardly murderer (not to mention a terrible driver) doesn't bother liberals, would adding traitor to that list matter?

It seems that Uncle Teddy tried to strike up a deal with then leader of the USSR, Yuri Andropov. Nothing too serious though, all he wanted was for the Andropovster (that's what his friends called him) to give him a hand with convincing the American people that the USSR isn't a scary genocidal wasteland, but a peace-loving nation with only the best of intentions. To this end, Ted would see to it that Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters took a little trip to the USSR to interview Andropov. Teddy said it was important that these interviews were seen as being requested by America, not the USSR. You know, so the American people wouldn't think Soviet propaganda was being aired on their fucking televisions. After all, would a great patriot like Walter "the war is unwinnable" Cronkite steer us wrong? Surely this would show the American public that Reagan is a lying war monger and that all the blame for the Cold War rested squarely on his shoulders. Just to make sure Andropov had his propaganda correct, Ted suggested that he make a private visit to the affable Andropov (a wonderful, benevolent man who had a strong belief that, "the struggle for human rights was a part of a wide-ranging imperialist plot to undermine the foundation of the Soviet state") before the Ruskie's big American television debut.

My favorite part of the memo, (full copy here: http://tinyurl.com/nulah6) was this gem:

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

If none of this matters, I doubt very much that anything else I say or anything else this piece of human waste ever did will to the scumbags granting him sainthood, but I'll list a few more of Teddy's great life achievements because I refuse to shut up and grab my ankles for the liars in the American media and Government (not that there is much of a difference).

1. Ted (not to mention the rest of the Kennedy clan) left his sister Rosemary to rot in an asylum in Wisconsin because the ever brilliant Joe Sr. decided it'd be a great idea to have his daughter's brain lopped out of her skull. After all, she had mood swings! No one in that family, save for Eunice Kennedy Shriver (The governator's recently deceased mother-in-law and co-founder of the Special Olympics), acted like Rosemary existed. Let me just get this straight, Ted was able to conspire against the President of the United States of America with the leader of the USSR during the Cold War and not get caught, but he couldn't AT LEAST put his sister in a sanitarium that wasn't 1000 miles away from everyone in her family? (OK, maybe this a little more than a "short" list, but fuck it, no one reads this tripe anyhow.)

2. Ted was a huge supporter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, about which he said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset." This makes him either unimaginably stupid, or the biggest liar on earth, or both.

3. Teddy, aka The Environmental Kid, made sure that Cape Wind Associates couldn't build an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound because it would sully the view from his Hyannis Port mansion. While I'm a long way from never shaving my arm pits and setting up camp in the branches of a tree scheduled to be cut down, I do recognize that we need to do something about energy. Wind farm? Sure, why the hell not. If I'll have to pay less for electricity, you can put a wind farm on my front doorstep. However, it seems that Ted was only a proponent of alternative energy that wouldn't be an eyesore while he drank scotch and mumbled almost incoherently, "Jimmy fucking Carter? Seriously? Sure I killed a broad and committed an act of treason...but Jimmy fucking Carter?"

So, what we are left with is a dumbbell who drunkenly stumbled his way through life on the coattails of his shitty, and still somehow incredibly powerful family being made out to be the most compassionate and well-behaved man to grace the halls of Congress. A man who abhorred cheating unless he really needed a good grade in order to play football. Or, of course, if it was on his wife. A staunch defender of human rights unless he happened to drive his car into a river with you in it. A patriot who loved nothing more than his country unless he wanted to win a Presidential election or the country wanted him to fight in a war. This man is being buried in Arlington National Cemetery. I don't give a shit that Bobby and Jack are buried there, but Bobby's service didn't coincide with a war and Jack served in WWII. Ted could've fought but didn't. Apart from that, it has been uncovered that he's a fucking traitor to this country. By showering him with praise and ignoring reality, the media, the government and the American people are complicit in what I consider to be a disgrace of proportions this country hasn't seen in at least half a century. This cowardly blight the face of humanity will be interred in a cemetery dedicated to heroes that served our country with bravery and selflessness. Men and women who fought to make protect this once great nation, only for Ted Kennedy to do his best to shame and destroy it. My boyfriend's grandfather passed away recently, he was a WWII veteran. He will not be buried in Arlington. You won't see his name on the front page of the paper. You won't hear about his life on the evening news. The disgraceful pigs in the United States Government won't shed a tear for him. But he was an infinitely better man than Ted Kennedy could've been if he had three lifetimes to try.

I am ashamed that my peers take the bait from the media and the government. I am ashamed that the media and the government of the country I love are so weak in conviction. I'm just fucking mad.

I'm done now, wait for my next blog about the Health Care Bill. I'm looking at you, Linda Douglass.

I'm Just Fucking Livid

Today I'm feeling particularly angry and fucked over. It started last night when I heard that the Obama administration made it mandatory for terror suspects captured in Afghanistan to be read Miranda Rights. You know the ones, '... right to remain silent...court of law...right to an attorney...if you can't afford one, one will be provided for you.' Instead of smacking them on the bridge of their nose with the ass end of an AK-47 to convince them they need to give up information, we're telling them that they have the right not to say a fucking thing. We're also telling them (just a reminder, when I say 'them,' I'm referring to Muslim terrorists that want to murder everyone in the Western world. Not just men, women and children too. And puppies) that if they don't have enough rupees or whatever the fuck they use, we (and by 'we' I mean the tax-paying citizens of the United States of America. You know, the hard working people that terrorists want to murder)will provide them with a lawyer at our expense. What in the sweet shit is wrong with this man? He has to be the dumbest or the most naive person on the planet. It's cute when 5th graders say that there should be no more wars, everyone should get rid of their nuclear weapons and live in peace and harmony with their fellow man or that we should treat those people over there in Afghanistan nicely. It's fucking dangerous when the President of the U.S.A. says the same shit.

Disclaimer: This next bit starts off sorta liberal douche-esque. You've been warned.

In countless cities, especially big cities, there is a portion of the police force that beats the shit out of people. I'm well aware that this isn't something all cops do and I'm also aware that there are some places where this is more prevalent than other. And don't get me wrong, if a police officer is strolling down the street and happens to see a mugger steal an old woman's purse or punt a baby down an alley, you wouldn't hear word one from me if the cop whacked the guy in the head with his big cop flashlight. But if they hear on their police scanner that there has been a robbery in the city of Chicago and the suspect is a carbon-based life form, between 4'1'' and 7'2'', is wearing clothing and needs food and water for survival, can we try to narrow it down a bit before we start clubbing people over the head?

Anyhow, I got off topic there. What I'm getting at is that one of the most notorious cities for police brutality is Chicago. There is always a story about the police here beating people up. Suspects, people who know suspects, people who might have played a game of pick-up basketball with a suspect in 1993. As it happens, our president was a senator in Illinois and lived Chicago. He didn't do one fucking thing to stop it. Weird, right? He told the people here to go fuck themselves and hightailed it right out of the shithole that is Chicago to go to D.C. and make sure we don't beat terrorist murderers like we do teenagers who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. What is most enraging about this is that, if you have any brain cells at all, you know many of the innocent people getting their heads smashed in are minorities. This man has been touted as the best thing to happen to the black community since The Emancipation Proclamation. Schools are named after him for fuck's sake. Yet, he flipped the bird to every 15-year-old kid who was within a 40 mile radius of a crime scene and caught a cop's size 10 to his head, opting instead to make sure terrorists in a war zone know that they don't have to tell us shit if they don't feel like it. Why aren't minority groups outraged by this? Why don't I see anyone throwing a fit because Obama is putting in more effort to protect terrorists than he did to protect innocent American civilians? Not surprising, everyone is a fucking hypocrite and damn near everyone is dumber than a rock with no interest in changing it. Caring is a burden.

The other thing that bugged me today was a story on Drudge about the gay community's reaction to Borat 2: Electric Boogaloo. Apparently, Sacha Baron Cohen is coming out with a movie about one of the characters he does called Bruno. Bruno is flamboyantly gay and the movie is meant to be a satire about homophobia and its many irrational worries. Seems kinda cool right? A sort of throwback to the 17th and 18th century political satires for which Jonathan Swift is so famous. Wrong. It seems that we're too stupid to understand satire. Some guy from Human Rights Campaign said, 'We strongly feel that Sacha Baron Cohen and Universal Pictures have a responsibility to remind the viewing public right there in the theater that this is intended to expose homophobia.' That's a perfect way to convince the general public to get behind gays (pun completely intended), tell them you think they're all inbred retards who would think a movie depicting a comedic character having sex with another dude in front of a baby was a documentary. The other thing about this that really pissed me off was some GLAD spokesfruit saying, 'Some people in our community may like this movie, but many are not going to be OK with it.' So fucking what? Some people in your community will go see it, some people won't. Do movies have to be 'OK' with every member of the gay community in order to be made? I'm not OK with M. Night Shyamalan being allowed to own any type of recording device, but he continues to make those things he inaccurately refers to as movies. You know what else, I'm not OK with cancer, headaches or stubbed toes. It doesn't fucking matter though does it? Shit you don't like will always be around and there is not a single thing you can do about it. How about you get as organized and outraged about the fact that you're not allowed to get married as you do about a silly movie by some weird English Arab Jew? Put as much effort into gay rights as you do into crying like girls about a movie that is actually on your fucking side. It's mind boggling. The fact that this is something I'm even thinking about hurts my soul. Ugh.

My Take on Shit that Happened Days Ago...

I was far too angered to really address this the past few days, but I guess I'll talk about it now. We all know that President Obama can't stand the thought of someone not liking him. He's the leader of the free world and a fat high school girl all rolled into one. Obama to American voters: 'I'm NOT a Muslim! I'm a Christian!! Lookit meeee, I went to this church for like two decades. Oh, shit, nevermind, that church stinks since you don't like it. That guy's a nut! I'll have to find a new Christian church for my Christian morals and values!' Obama to Middle East: 'Asalamulakum, did you know my middle name is Hussein? Did you know my daddy was a Muslim! All his family were too! Lookit, me and you having so much in common! Pleaseeee love me!'

Ugh. Then, in his HOUR LONG speech in Cairo, he boasted about how this country has brought cases to court in favor of letting Muslim women wear their head-scarves and anyone who doesn't think they should be able to is a jerk-face. It's ok for them to wear their head-scarves but it's not ok for them to be unequal. Why, oh brilliant man with Muslim background, do they wear the head scarf? Did they all just get a permanent? Do they all have cancer? No, dummy, it's because they're viewed as unequal. In the Islamic world they wear it because if they don't they're breaking the law, in the Western world they wear it because they'll likely have cinder blocks throw at them when they get home if they're wearing a nice Lacoste polo instead of a burlap bag. Yes, it's part of their culture and their religion, but so is murdering women who claim to be raped and stoning gays to death. Do we have to indiscriminately allow all cultural rituals just because they're cultural rituals? Guess what, in my culture we run around naked humping inanimate objects (including people who are sleeping and only appear to be inanimate). Is that ok? Fuck no it's not. The historical rituals of some cultures fall out of favor for a reason. We don't have slaves anymore. That was something we always had. Women can vote now (might not have been the best idea. I think I'd forfeit my right to vote if all the piggish soccer moms who vote solely on the candidate's hairline and whether or not his wife dresses pretty would also be disallowed). The point is, just because a large group of people practice a certain behavior, doesn't mean it's acceptable (or safe) for society as a whole. When some Muslim woman's husband shoves a homemade bomb in her box and sends her to the supermarket, I'd kinda like her face to be captured on the surveillance camera. I know it's probably arrogant of me to say this, but do you really think that these women want to cover every inch of their femininity? Or do you think that they do it because that is how they were raised and they know the consequences if they don't do it. It's not a fashionable thing, it's a self-preservation thing. They either don't know it's not OK to view women as less than men, or they know it but are too afraid of what will happen to them if they speak out. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Obama really is a sheltered, self-important ass if he thinks that this practice does anything other than grand inequality to women.

The second thing, which is relatively new, is the 'Special Master of Compensation' that Obama is about to appoint. It sounds exactly like something out of 1984, I know. The point of the position is to enforce rules on companies that received bailout money. The rules will be about silly little things like how much a company is allowed to pay its employees. You know, insignificant things like that. It's said that Kenneth Feinberg is going to take this post and that he will report to Tim Geithner but will have 'wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted'. So, he won't make the rules, Congress will write some vague cluster fuck of a rulebook and Feinberg will have carte blanche as to how he thinks it should be interpreted. So the government says to companies, 'we're offering you this money, if you don't want it, you're competitors will and you'll lose business. Not to mention the IRS auditors that will be knocking on your door. Oh, and one more thing, you're not allowed to pay us back when you want to and we're going to tell you how much you're allowed to pay your employees'. This is fucking nuts, it's getting worse every day and none of the disgusting mouth-breathers in this country will say a word. I can't wait until all the Obama voters actually see what they've done, I'm just worried about how much it will actually take to show them.

I'm Still Alive...Barely

I've been gone for quite some time, I'm not dead, I've just been busy. Rest assured I've been no less annoying and imposing with my political views. Especially about this Sotomayor person. Unlike Harry Reid, I decided to read some or her opinions. It's very boring shit and I'm going to attempt to make it slightly less boring shit.

Ricci v. DeStefano is the case everyone is talking about. This is the case in New Haven, Connecticut where a group of firefighters (17 white, one Hispanic) brought a lawsuit against New Haven because of 'reverse discrimination'. (Side bar: What the fuck does reverse discrimination mean anyhow? It's not reverse anything, it's just discrimination. I understand that the majority is the one claiming to be discriminated against, but even though the majority of rapists are men, a female who commits rape isn't called a 'reverse rapist'. That term fucking infuriates me). Anyhow, a group of firefighters took a test to see if they qualified for a promotion. The city claims to use something called 'The Rule of Three' which means that the person chosen for the position will be picked from the top three scorers on the test. Crazy right? The people who did best get the job. That is, of course, unless the people who do best on the test are white. I won't bore you with the numbers, but there were seven openings for captains positions and only one or two Hispanics and no blacks scored high enough to be considered, and out of eight openings for lieutenant, no blacks or Hispanics scored well enough to be considered. Here's where it gets weird, because any sane person would think, 'Oh, I guess there won't be any black captains or lieutenants, and there might be one or two Hispanic captains. Guess they'll try harder for the next exam'. Not so much. The city of New Haven decided to chuck the test results and promote no one because the blacks and Hispanics didn't do as well as the whites. The firefighters who sued would have all been eligible for a promotion had the test results not been thrown out. They lost. They appealed to Sotomayor's court, they lost again. They appealed again to the Supreme Court, where the case is now being heard.

What lesson does that teach? If you're a minority and you don't do as well as a white person, we'll penalize the white person who worked harder than you so you don't get your feelings hurt? How the fuck can a standardized test, created by an independent agency to test firefighters for promotions, be biased? Is it possible that the 68 white people who took the test just did better than the 50 minorities that took the test? Why in the fuck is that so hard to believe? That can never be the case though right? Even if it's true, the minorities might get their feelings hurt and just give up. They wouldn't take that failure and what they've learned from it and apply it to future tests they may take, they'll just quit all together. Apparently, the only time minorities don't do well on tests is when they're being discriminated against. Isn't that what these fucking racists are saying? And this isn't even something that the minorities who did poorly on the test brought about, the city of New Haven threw the scores out because they were afraid someone might think their test was racist. In doing so, they're just perpetuating perceived racism that isn't even there. If white officials keep patting minorities on the head and saying, 'There, there, you did really well! Well, you would have if that evil test wasn't so racist! Don't fret, we'll just give you a different test and maybe you'll do better on that one'. If, just one fucking time, someone in charge would say to those crying racism, 'Study harder next time mother fucker, then you might get a promotion', we'd get somewhere with race relations. Not every fucking failure in your life is because people are out to get you, sometimes it might be, and other times it's because there are people out there who are better, harder working, smarter or more diligent than you are. I suspect a lot of minorities know this, but they also know that if they fuck up and don't do well, the guilty white liberals will blame it on racism and they'll get whatever they want anyhow.

This case worries me because our next Supreme Court justice agrees with the decision here. It's fucking racism. Not to mention her comments about how she makes better decisions because she's a Hispanic woman and not a white man. No Republicans are causing a fuss because they're all castrated faggots and there is really no hope in sight.

I'm depressed. Anyone want to start a third party with me?

Easy Targets

I initally intended to write this blog only about the Pope and his recent visit to Israel, but I was reminded of another easy target. Carrie Prejean, Miss California, thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman. I happen to disagree with her, but that isn't the point. I also happen to think she's about as articulate as an autistic toddler. That isn't the point either. The point is she stammered her way through a response detailing her beliefs and was attacked for it. Then some pictures were released that were mild in comparison with what most teenage girls display on their facebook pages. Donald Trump just held a press conference saying that the photos were fine and she wasn't going to be dethroned, or whatever you do a beauty queen. Trump and Prejean both pointed out that President Obama holds the same view with regard to marriage as does Prejean. (Who would have ever thought I'd be to the left of Obama on an issue?) There's nothing the liberals can say about this now. She's right, Obama believes the same as she does. They're just fucking screwed, their savior is on the side of the hateful Christian Miss California. Haha.

On to my original point, the Pope. Apparently he went to Israel and spoke at the Holocaust Memorial there and boy are the Israeli's pissed. 'Israeli critics accused the German-born Benedict XVI of failing to express enough remorse for the Holocaust.' Parlaiment speaker Reuven Rivlin also said, 'The pope spoke like an historian, as somebody observing things from the sidelines, about things that shouldn't happen. But, what can you do? He was part of them. With all due respect to the Holy See, we cannot ignore the baggage he carries with him.' Can everyone give it up already? In Nazi Germany, being defined as a 'youth' meant you were forced to join the Hitler Youth. It's not like the Pope ran out to join, he was a 14 year old kid with no other choice. Well, I'm sure he could've refused to join and have his whole family thrown into a concentration camp. Then, at 16, he was conscripted into the army. He fell ill and wasn't able to even fight. He fucking deserted for christ's sake. For people to run around saying that the Pope was 'part of them' is more than disingenuous.

Let's play a little game of, 'Who Said It?'. I'll provide three quotations, you tell me which one was made by a person being widely and very vocally attacked by Israel, and which two were made by people about whom Israel bashfully complained.

1. 'The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotted tree which will be annihilated with one storm.'

2. 'They [Holocaust victims] lost their lives, but they will never lose their names. These are indelibly etched in the hearts of their loved ones, their surviving fellow prisoners, and all those determined never to allow such an atrocity to disgrace mankind again.'

3. 'Some minorities, descendants of the same ones who killed Christ, took all the world's wealth for themselves.'

If you guessed quote number two, you'd be correct! But since the Pope didn't say 'murder' or 'Nazi', he's just an asshole. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (quote one) and Hugo Chavez (quote three), have never been blasted this bad. Venezuelans and Iranians are still reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if it were pure nonfiction. I'm not Catholic by the way, so I'm not beholden to stick up for the Pope by any means. I'll poke a little fun just to show you.

A Vatican spokesmen said, 'The Pope was never in the Hitler Youth, never, never, never.' The Pope admitted it himself in a biography, so why the Catholic church thinks that everyone on planet Earth is a fucking retard is beyond me. They're already out of touch with the normal person, blatantly lying is probably not the best thing in the world to be doing right now. It is silly for them to be taking the time to deny something that is established fact when they could open up a discussion about something which is still being debated.

In all the articles I've read on this, some form of this quote was included, 'Newspapers lambasted him for failing to apologize for what many in Israel see as Catholic indifference during World War II.' There is absolutely no consensus amongst anyone, let alone Jews, that the Catholic church was 'indifferent' during WWII. Perhaps the Church should enter into an intellectual, historical discussion about something instead of saying the Pope wasn't in the Nazi Youth even though they're are probably pictures of him wearing swastika underpants that say 'Property of the Fuhrer' on them. It chips away at whatever credibility the Catholic church has left with the global religious community, and furthers their laughing-stock status among the global secular community.

This isn't very interesting, I was just looking for an excuse to read further about the history of WWII and the Holocaust, it's fucking fascinating stuff.

Comedy and Politics...

I've always found that there are different standards when it comes to politicians, the media or really anyone that isn't a comedian telling a joke. I laugh at jokes Obama or Bush tell, but I would spit on a comic telling the same jokes. At last night's White House Correspondence Dinner, Obama said, 'Dick Cheney was supposed to be here but he's very busy working on his memoirs, tentatively titled, 'How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People.' I chuckled at that because the President isn't a comedian and he's playing along with the little Presidential comedy routine good-naturedly. I guess it's the same thing as when your dad throws out a punny knee-slapper like 'how can a door be a jar?' or 'my friends think I'm a mushroom...you know, a real fun-guy.' Or, I guess it's like giving your dog a treat for sitting down. It's not that fucking impressive, but dogs are stupid and dads and Presidents are generally unfunny, so we give them an A for effort.

Now, when you get a comedian telling political jokes, it can become legitimately funny. The only problem is that once funny things begin to be said, politicians panic and don't want to offend anyone. Even if they think it's funny, they have to try to distance themselves from the whole situation. If I say, 'Go fuck yourself. Just kidding!', everyone is in agreement that I don't really want you to go fuck yourself (even though I do, sincerely, just kidding!). When a comedian speaks, we should be operating under the assumption that everything that person says, is a fucking joke.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because there are two stories in the news today about 'tasteless' jokes and all the fake outrage about them. Wanda Sykes, who I hate and rarely find even slightly amusing, spoke at the White House Correspondence Dinner yesterday. She addressed the fact that Rush Limbaugh said he hopes Obama's policies fail. She then said,"So you're saying, 'I hope America fails' you're like, 'I don't care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq' He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason." Poor Wanda is too busy thinking about vaginas to use reason. After that she said, 'He's not saying anything different than what Osama bin Laden is saying.' No, no joke yet, don't be alarmed. Wanda is simply trying to win the 'longest and least funny set up to a semi-funny joke in the world' contest. Here it is folks, the moment you've all been waiting for, the punchline, 'You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight. Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails. I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good water boarding, that's what he needs.'

I'll give you all a moment to pick yourselves up off the floor, you're no doubt rolling around in hysterics. It was sort of a funny line, the long meandering path she took to get to there was a little unorthodox, but so what. And Obama laughed. Who gives a shit? It's another inconsequential side item for everyone to get up in arms about instead of paying attention to things that really matter. Today, the White House, amid major public outcry, said, '9/11 is a topic better left for serious reflection than comedy.' I really hope Wanda Sykes does not apologize for it.

That brings me to the next attempt at humor that is drawing criticism. David Feherty is some Irish guy who used to golf and now lives in Dallas, writes for a shitty Dallas magazine and whispers about putters and seven woods for CBS Sports. It is said that he is known for his wit. I'll never understand how you can say anything witty during golf coverage, but he manages to do it. He was writing an article for D Magazine about George W. Bush moving to Dallas. The tone of the article was obviously comedic, and in the article he said, 'From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though, despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden would be strangled to death.' Apparently this is an old cliched joke, a mad lib for whatever people are hated at the moment. That joke has been removed from the article online, Feherty has apologized and the PGA and CBS have roundly bashed him. Again, who gives a shit? It's no amazing revelation that people dislike Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, just like it's no surprise people hate Rush Limbaugh.

The only problem I have with this is that one person is receiving more widespread criticism than the other. Can you guess who that might be? If you said the middle-aged white guy making fun of Democrats, give yourself a gold star. If you said the black lesbian who was making fun of a middle-aged white guy, you're the dumbest person on the internets and you should seriously consider suicide. Of course Hannity and Beck were railing on Sykes for this, I didn't get a chance to hear any of Rush's show today. Other than those few hosts, I'm not hearing much. Obviously the Conservatives are squawking about it, but no major news outlet has expressed their outrage. The New York Daily News says that while Feherty shouldn't get a free pass, Sykes shouldn't either. It noted the double standard, as I have, but they're going the opposite direction with it. I think they should both get a free pass. There were no threats made, no creepy notes written with letters cut out of a magazine. They were just jokes, and I really don't think anyone should get in trouble for telling them. If they're not funny, the market will dictate how long the person stays around. Wanda Sykes is about as famous as you can get, so apparently people like her brand of humor. David Feherty, well I have no clue who the fuck he is, but I bet my dad does, and I bet he loves his biting golf wit. Shut the fuck up with the phony outrage over words with no intent behind them. Sure, there may be meanness, but just about everything I say is mean spirited and I wouldn't hurt a fly...well maybe a fly. I wouldn't kill a puppy, that's for damn sure.

Addendum: After having listened to all of Wanda Sykes' appearance at the correspondence dinner, I have to say that it was funny as fuck, aside the aforementioned part, which I still think was poorly set up but still a bit funny. She's got balls, I'll give her that, even though she wouldn't take them if they were dipped in gold.

And They Said We Were Mind Numbed Robots...

Just before President Obama's inauguration, only 19% of the population had a positive outlook on the economy. Just after his inauguration, that number jumped to 50%. Nevermind that the unemployment rate has been increasing consistently, in December 2008 it was at 7.2%, numbers just released for April, 2009 were at 8.9%, a 25 year high. Even more bailouts have been passed, yet Americans seem to be more optimistic about the future. Why? Is it possible that the water heads who voted for Obama heard the word 'change' and they just believed it regardless of what is actually happening? It's akin to smashing a hammer onto your hand with increasing force and continually saying it will hurt less next time. I have been losing faith in the populace of this country for a long time now, but fucking seriously? The complete idiocy of this country seems impossible to fix and the Obama administration is banking on it.

I read an article in time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153-2,00.html?iid=perma_share) that detailed just how much Obama is depending on the public staying stupid. During the campaign, Obama had a 'behavioral dream team' commissioned to figure out what 'makes people tick' in order to help Obama win the election. You'd think these people would be advising Obama on policy issues, but as we all remember, that fucker barely mentioned anything about policy. He said change! That must be good right? Oh, what's he going to change? I don't know, but change means something different than what is happening now and what is happening now is that I can't pay my mortgage.This is all old news, but what is in this article is some seriously scary shit.

The basis of Obama's economic policies will be behavioral, not neoclassical economics. For those of you who aren't Ben Stein, here's a short description from the article, 'If neoclassical economics wants government to let us alone to do what we want, behavioral economics leaves room for government action to help us do what we would really want if we were rational agents'. Holy shit. Land of the free? I guess not. Who is to be our compass for this rationale we all obviously lack? Murderers, sexual maniacs, tax cheats and a myriad of other criminals...the United States Government! Apparently, if we were rational agents we'd send lewd text messages to pages, solicit sodomy (or at the very least a nice glory hole session) in airport bathrooms and drunkenly drown our mistresses in rivers. I'll stick to my current behavior if you don't mind. Ah, but they certainly do mind, 'There's new interest in taxing gas, alcohol, electricity and even trans fats to discourage undesirable behavior while closing budget gaps'. Since when is drinking a beer while eating french fries in my well-lit living room undesirable behavior? How in the fuck does the government think they have the right to control my behavior? If I don't drive drunk into a Sunday school picnic, I should be able to drink whenever and however much I want. I should be able to get fat if I want as long as I don't sit on a small child.

The First Lady said, 'Barrack is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your divisions, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better'. Fuck that, he doesn't have the right to make demands of me. Last time I check, we're his boss. Imagine if you walked into your boss' office and told him what to do. You'd be fucking fired right? Not Barry though, his idea of 'good behavior' is what is supposed to be the social norm. And as the article says, 'What works is an appeal to conformity' and, 'We are a heardlike species'. When talking about an eco friendly initiative in Oregon, the article says, 'What worked was creating a sense that we're all in this together and you're a social deviant if you don't join us'. Doesn't anyone see how fucking dangerous this is? They turn the office of the presidency into a shrine to pop culture and then expect us to do whatever he says. The article says that 'Michelle Obama's White House garden is meant to urge us toward fresh fruit'. How did we become so weak minded to even give someone the idea that we'd all start gardening if we saw this linebacker with an under bite doing it? The conservatives are always the brainwashed idiots, what about now you fuckers? Now we're social deviants because we pose questions? Oh yes, racists too. Racist social deviants. I know that there is a faction of the Republican party that are brainwashed, but it seems as though more than half the nation has fallen under this spell, and it will result in irreparable damage to our country.

Why am I the only one offended by this? Obama cut $116 billion in payroll taxes but he didn't give it to us all at once. If he did that we'd save our money and that would be fucking preposterous. If we get the money little by little we'll be less likely to notice it. An Obama aid said, 'The idea is to manipulate us into spending the extra cash'. Manipulate us? Are you fucking serious? And how irresponsible is it to be telling everyone to spend money when that is what got us into this shithole in the first place? The whole Obama campaign and presidency have been based not on actually doing something, but saying things to make people think you will. Subtly or otherwise, saying things to give Americans certain ideas with no regard to reality.

Michell has new shoes! Swine flue pandemic! 'Scareforce' one! unemployment at 25 year low, shhhhhh. Obama bought a cheeseburger! Obama got a dog! I'm really excited to have my telescreen installed and my Newspeak dictionary delivered, aren't you?

Pull your heads out of your asses. Seems like a simple enough task since the dangers are so obvious, but apparently not.

Good News, Rape is Legal!

Well...something like it at least. I know this stupid fucking bank bailout stress test crap is confusing and boring, but I'm going to try and make it fun for everyone. How? By comparing it to rape and the Irish Travelers, of course. It's only comparable to rape in that a person makes you do something against your will. Normally, the consequences of trying to fight are worse than just giving up. Ok...it's sort of familiar. Maybe not every rape, just date rape. It's like you're getting pressured to have sex with Bill, the drunken frat boy. If you don't do it, you'll get the reputation of being a prude and Bill will probably beat the shit out of you. So you give in to Bill because he's stronger than you and the consequences of not doing it are worse than fighting. Hypothetically. (Fuck you, Bill.)

A better example is that of the Irish Travelers. You might remember the dumb show about them starring Minnie Driver and her fantastically large jaw. They go around running scams on stupid people by scaring the shit out of them and convincing them that they need help or their children will probably die. A great scam is one in which the Travelers go to someone's house and inspect it for termites. Wouldn't you know it, there are billions of termites underneath the house and they need to be removed or you're likely to wake up on the bottom floor of the house with shingles on your head. Of course the homeowner believes them, and they're certainly not interested in star gazing from their kitchen floor, so they pay the Travelers to rid them of the infestation. As it happens, there really were no termites anywhere near the house and you've just been had by someone I imagine looking like an overweight, unkempt version of Brad Pitt in Snatch. They scared the shit out of you, gave you the worst news possible and left you with no other choice than to do whatever the experts tell you to do to save your shit.

The stress test looks at the financial situation of each individual bank, and then sees what would happen to the bank if a financial apocalypse happened. Specifically, 10.3% unemployment, a 22% decrease in home prices and and overall downturn in economic growth of 3.3%. They don't know if that will happen, they're just looking at the worst possible scenario. If a bank fails the test, they have to take the money. If they don't want it, fuck them they get it anyway. If they'd like to pay it back, not going to be easy. The government is saying to banks, 'We are going to do a test of your institution and see whether or not your institution will be viable if the worst possibly thing happened to the economy. Who made the test? Nevermind it. We're just going to give your bank a little test, and if you fail it we'll give you money! Hooray for you! No, no, you're not understanding. You have to take it. All your competitors are taking it, you'll be in a really shitty position if they get money and you don't. Sure you can pay it back, as long as you can prove to us that the FDIC will loan you money again and as long as you go along with these rules we've set in place about employee compensation and bonuses! Everyone wins!'

This is fucking insanity. It makes my brain hurt. How in the sweet fuck can the government tell businesses that they absolutely have to take the money they're being offered, and that they aren't allowed to pay it back until the government says so? The banks can do nothing other than take it. The government gets pissed when you don't do what they want you to. 'We're going to do a test so see if you need money. Even if you don't want or need money, we're going to pressure you to take it anyhow, and we're the government. You've heard of a little organization called the IRS right? Say, don't you have quite a few tax credits? That's what we thought. Now, about that money we were so generously offering you...'

It's not really surprising that the government are being bullies, it's just surprising that they're not trying to hide it a little bit.

I'm going to finish working and get ready to go to a baseball game. It's going to be the cutest thing in the world! I'm a fan of the away team, my boyfriend's a fan of the home team, so we're going to be wearing the paraphenalia of opposing teams! Isn't that ironic? I fucking hate myself because I didn't make one word of that up.

Cinco de Mayo, Rahm Emanuel and Crazy Britons

I guess the swine flu is over. I can now celebrate Cinco de Mayo sans Sars mask. Today is an example of why I love this country so much. We actually said to Mexico, 'Look, we know you celebrate your independence on September 16th, but May 5th works better for us. So we're going to celebrate your independence on that day. Plus Dieciseis de Setiembre doesn't exactly roll off the tongue'. So happy 'arbitrary date Americans have chosen as the anniversary of Mexico's Independence in order to better indulge their alcoholism' day everyone!

Drudge is now back to reporting on actual news. Well, some actual news and some stories about selling blood, plasma, sperm, eggs, hair and first born children in order to survive in these troubled economic times. Although, hearing that you can sell your eggs for $5,000 a pop does make me rethink my career choice. I have at least an egg a month, I'm not using them for anything and that 5k would be pretty sweet every month. It can't be that hard can it? Holy shit...I just googled it, nevermind.

Like my last entry, and probably most of my future ones, I'm going to use a few quotes. This is mostly to make myself look smart and well read. It's also to try and avoid being unfair or speaking on issues about which I know nothing. You've been warned.

Rahm Emanuel hates being a Jew. Take a look at his boss. (Not the black part, although the blacks aren't known for their love of the Jews. Please refer to the 'hymietown' incident if you think I'm making things up.) I mean the Muslim part. Obama says he isn't a Muslim, but his dad was. And his step-dad. He also seems to be quite sympathetic to them. If you weren't aware, Muslims aren't too fond of Jews which is what started me on this journey of hackneyed psychoanalysis. Rahm said that Iran probably won't do anything with regard to stopping its nuclear proliferation unless those uppity Christ killers in Israel make nice with Palestine. That's a direct quote too. The potty mouth on Rahm...geez. What happened? I thought we liked Israel? Emanuel is basically saying to the world that the only reason Iran has been developing nukes is because Israelis are a bunch of stubborn asshole and that if something terrible happens with an Iranian nuclear weapon, we've only got the Jews to blame. Had those dicks just sat down and had a little talk with Palestine, nuclear war wouldn't have broke out...Rahm, you're Jewish. Your father was born in Israel. I get that it's your gig to do Obama's bidding, but at some point you've got to have some fucking self respect. And you're not the only one, I'm looking at you Henry Kissinger.

On to the crazy Britons. The United Kingdom has decided to release a list of people they have banned from entering their country. On the list are racist murderers, religious fanatics and Michael Savage. I like Savage. I don't always agree with him, but I relate to his passion about everything. So he isn't allowed to travel to the UK because they view him as,'someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.' The British are such fucking insane monkeys that the mere entry into their country by a talk radio host will cause rioting in the streets? Get a hold of yourself, English faggots.

Besides the apparent self control issues the British citizenry have, they get the hypocritical cunt of the day award for this dumb ban. The United Kingdom has their own freedom of speech laws, and are also signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, which says, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.' So the regardless of frontiers doesn't apply to our frontier? We're supposed to impart the rights of American citizens to terrorists and illegal immigrants, but Britain doesn't have to impart its rights to talk radio show hosts? If the US came out with a list today that banned an English radio host from coming to the country, we'd never hear the end of it. 'So much for land of the free, aye mate?' (Impressions aren't my strong suit.) I understand that they want to ban people who actually say 'I hate all racial and religious minorities and I'm probably going to kill some of them in between my trip to the Houses of Parliament and my ride on the London Eye.' Michael Savage says nothing of the sort, and as a listener to his program, I can attest to the fact that he doesn't incite me into a racist, homicidal rage. He isn't even talking about English politics, what the fuck do they care what he says. Savage is being denied the magnificent sight of 10 Downing Street from 100 feet away behind seven or eight gates and two or three of those big hat wearing British military fruits because he's against illegal immigration? It just goes to show that the US is the best place to live, no matter how big a piece of shit it is at the moment.

Now I'm going to smoke a cigarette and anticipate what is sure to be quite an eventful Michael Savage show.