The GoP in the House want to declare 2010 “The Year of the Bible.” Why not the Koran, the Talmud, the Gita, or, for that matter, Thus Spake Zaruthstra? Oh, because “the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans…” Is that it? A whole year for that?

No good will come if this, and if we are very lucky, no good means no bad either. At the very best, the country will ignore this as thoroughly as we ignored it in 1983, which was also designated The Year of The Bible. Do you remember that? Me neither, and I was in Kansas at the time, where the Bible has a little more presence than some other places. Read the rest of this entry »

Go read this article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19credit.html and give me YOUR spin on it.

This article was brought to my attention by someone who I will not name, out of respect. I mean, he’s an otherwise nice guy. But he posted a link to this article, and then said, “If I pay my credit card bills before they draw interest, it’ll mean I pay for it in other ways, more than those who carry debt…That’s a great law!! We end up paying for people who don’t pay…good thinking here!” (I changed the wording, because I don’t want to appear to be sucker-punching him in a place he cannot respond. But this is the gist.)

In response, someone else wrote “Another amazing Washington accomplishment! Gotta love those flippin goof balls!” (I didn’t change this one. I don’t know this guy). Read the rest of this entry »

I’m what you call an expert political analyst, not from the standpoint of knowing what I talk about, but from the stand point of NOT knowing what I talk about. Chances are, you do not have a degree in political science, or a back ground in politics. Neither do I, so we’re on the same wavelength. I’ll go read up on Pennsylvania Phil*, then tell you what I think about it, and I’ll do it in language you and I speak.

I’ve used the analogy before- when experts write how-to books, they are writing them for people who have the potential to be experts. And really, the one way to be really great at something is to do it a lot. No how-to book can take the place of practice, and once you’ve logged a thousand hours practicing, no how-to book is going to tell you anything new.

So on to Mr. Specter. He’s leaving the GoP to become a full-fledged democrat. Hooray? (Sure—if only because it makes the pundits mad.) Rush Limbaugh is glad Arlen’s leaving, since now the republican will be even more conservative than before. Specter was too liberal, you see. Hannity had the same thing to say, speaking with Newt Gingrich. With Specter going, the GoP has even better chance of showing themselves off as the party diametrically opposed to Obama.

So much for bipartisanship. Both Limbaugh and Hannity point out that Specter has been losing ground back at home, and he switched sides so he wouldn’t have to fight for the republican nomination. This is all about getting elected they say. Then what do you call it when you declare the party must define itself as the anti-Obama party? Newt compared it to what Reagan did going up against Carter. If that’s not about getting votes, I don’t know what it is.

It’s certainly not about getting anything actually done.

That’s my take on it, anyway. There’s a bunch of nonsense about some bill that involving union voting, and how Arlen’s going to have to flip-flop now that he’s flip-flopped. (Remember: real conservatives hate worker’s rights).

I’m going to go see what Coulter has to say. Then I’m going to watch the Daily show and the Colbert report and get, you know, real analysis.

*This is supposed to be a joke about Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog, and seeing one’s shadow, and winter, and all manner of metaphor that I pretty much lost track of before I even started.

Yes, it has been a long time since I’ve written anything here. I’m afraid I’m just lately unenthused by the usual shenanigans. Or enthused enough to realize I don’t feel like writing about. Too often, things sail below even that radar.

Thought I’d find the energy to show you this though. Read it for yourself, but in a nuthsell: a congressman didn’t like a proposed bill, so he added language to it that said it would not be used to prohibit surveillance on terrorists. That language means the thing has to be re-reviewed, and so the bill as yanked from being voted on while they decided what to do with it.

And, of course, those opposed to the bill’s supporter’s are saying they yanked the bill because they support the terrorists. This is a rape of procedure, in my opinion. This is the sort of thing that toppled the Roman empire. This is such an abuse, I really do want to win the lottery, so I can put ads in that congressman’s constituents’ newspapers telling them what he did.

This is when one starts hoping there is such a thing as karma, and that the crazed weasel truck crashes near his home.

Disgusting.

Election Central | Talking Points Memo | GOP Maneuver Succeeds: House Dem Leaders Postpone FISA Vote Until Next Week