Bachmann 20Never

It is possible that Michele Bachmann is a lovely person on some level though I have only seen her despicable side so far (see Bachmann-King Overdrive). Bachmann is surrounded by people who have American tax dollars to thank for some of their professional remuneration, and they don’t work for the government. At the same time Bachmann riles up the Tea Party into a froth on how much money the government spends. The problem is not that her husband’s mental health clinic accepts Medicaid patients. That is great if you want a cure for your shame issues and don’t have insurance. I think Bachmann and Associates should accept MORE Medicaid patients. The problem is that Michele Bachmann should just take the checks and STFU. Opening her mouth about government spending makes her a hypocrite when government checks are being deposited into her bank account.

Recently, the lamestream media chorus has been gushing over Bachmann’s meteoric rise. She shined at the debate. She’s shooting up among Iowa Republicans. Her message really resonates with the Tea Party, and on and on. This is all preface to the news montage of her most recent gaffes though. Like Palin, her attempts to justify her gaffes become gaffes themselves. It makes one wonder if Ed Rollins knew what he was getting into when he signed out to run her campaign. To her credit, Bachmann seems capable of learning, unlike Palin. Bachmann has cooled the tribal assaults on Obama. I think that is part of the Rollins effect. The downside of the Rollins effect is that what made Bachmann such a hit at the Tea Party was that her disdain for Obama was so open and unrestrained. Now it’s not Michele Bachman running for president. It’s more like Ed Rollins in a Michele Bachmann suit. Ed Rollins seems like a nice guy but no one is voting for him. 

If I started a political party, its symbol would be the baby panda. That would keep the dicks out.

Timing Wikipedia

Wikipedia map indicating states that have legalized gay marriage in a lovely solid navy blue.

It is 2130 pst on June 24, 2011. Governor Cuomo has just signed New York's gay marriage bill into law within the past hour. As of this moment, the Wikipedia page on same-sex marriage in the United States still classifies New York only as recognizing same-sex marriage performed elsewhere. How long will it take for this page to be updated? The clock starts now...


UPDATE:
It is 0011 pst on June 25, 2011. I have just finished watching "They Call Me Mr. Tibbs" (boring), sequel to the classic "In the Heat of the Night." Upon checking the Wikipedia sight on Same-sex Marriage in the USA I noticed the map showing states in which same-sex marriage is legal now includes New York. The text in the intro paragraph has yet to be updated. 

UPDATE:
221 pst June 25, 2011. No other changes noted. Must get sleep.


UPDATE:
1047 pst June 25, 2011. Checked Wikipedia on cell phone between 900 and 1000 hrs. Noticed intro text changed to include "Same-sex marriage in New York will be legalized on July 24, 2011, 30 days after Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill doing so into law.


This tracking report is meant for entertainment purposes only. Neither AOTL or any of its subsidiaries make any claim to the scientific validity of the data presented. Anyone who uses the information stated in this post as legitimate verification of any point does so at their own risk. 

DEAR DEAF ELEPHANT - Practical Advice From the Republican Perspective

Dear Deaf Elephant,
Over the past 30 years, wages have frozen while corporate profits have surged in the same period. Economic inequality is growing instead of shrinking in this country. Why doesn't your party address that, ever?
Sincerely,
Frozen Salary

Dear Frozen,
You are right. Taxes ARE too high. When job creators keep more of what is theirs, it moves the economy forward. On the other hand, for each dollar the government spends, another private sector job is killed. We can do better.

******

Dear Deaf Elephant,
I am married with two children. My husband and I both work. I have taken on a second job so we could keep up with our mortgage payments for a home on which we are now upside down. Though my husband's company has been profiting steadily, they have removed insurance coverage from their benefits package. What are we supposed to do when our kids get sick?
Yours truly,
Sinking Fast

Dear Sinking,
You couldn't be more right. Raising taxes is not the answer. We all do much better when we allow businesses to keep and reinvest their money rather than give money to the government who only spends money to make you poorer. We can do better.

******

Dear Deaf Elephant,
Each year we see more and more weather extremes as foreshadowed by climate scientists who warn us about the danger of excessive CO2 emissions. This year alone there has been unprecedented flooding all over the world. Where does your party stand on reducing our carbon output?
Yours,
Hot and Wet All Over

Dear Hot,
You are right. We DO need to lower taxes. Companies have been going broke because our oppressive tax system does not allow them to innovate. In the year before going out of business, Walmart paid $14 trillion in taxes. In that same year, the government spent $14 trillion on a study to find more ways to spend money. We can do better.

Sending Pictures of Your Political Junk in the Old Days

As I discussed with my good friend Ray Richmond yesterday, the pols who get caught with their pants down are just the tip. There must be far more who don't get caught. Imagine if for every (unfortunately named) Bob Packwood, or Barney Frank, or Anthony Weiner there were a mere two other government pervs skulking the halls of Congress. And that's a conservative estimate too. Who knows? Today's instant access gives anyone the potential to be a techno-lecher in a way that could not be achieved in an earlier political era.

WWALD? The fact that Mary Todd Lincoln had some temper issues would not make her husband an automatic candidate for inappropriate relationships via state of the convenience media, but what if he was? Assuming he had the acquaintance and address of a woman in, say, Seattle, he would then have to summon noted shutterbug of the day Mathew Brady to the White House for an impromptu photo shoot. After about five days, Brady would rush in to see the president, having come as soon as he got word. The following conversation could have then taken place:

ABE: If I have you take some closeups of my groin can I trust you to keep quiet?

MATHEW: Sure. Don't worry. Buchanan and King had me take some freaky shots of them together. Hoo boy. You know they were homos, right?

ABE: Maybe this wasn't a good idea.

MATHEW: Come on! Who am I gonna tell?

Three days later Lincoln would have his photographs which he could accompany with a saucy incriminating note, and address and send it via post on the same day. By horse, it would have arrived in Seattle in two weeks or so. That would be the end of that 22-day flash of licentiousness if the object of Lincoln's lust were discreet. But if she felt compelled to go to the press, expect a scoop like that to lead the  news cycle in about two weeks.

The 1860s seem like a lot of work if you wanted to move a scandal forward whereas all those events recently transpired within the span of a day here in 2011. I know I am not alone when I imagine earlier times to be boooooring. If you were in a profession where you spent all day reading, you would then go home and read more because there was nothing else to do. Of course people were clearly smarter then too. With each gadget or application invented to send communication and dirty pictures faster and farther, the English language loses another correct spelling. It also makes people do dumber things, apparently.