tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47290961878117295482024-03-18T02:09:31.088-07:00Bill MaherBill Maher - BLOGGA PleaseBill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.comBlogger199125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-34085896479738410532013-10-01T13:29:00.003-07:002013-10-01T13:29:28.900-07:00BLOGGA PLEASE HAS MOVED!Blogga Please has moved to Tumblr!<br />
<br />
Visit here: <a href="http://billmaher.tumblr.com/">http://billmaher.tumblr.com/</a>Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com213tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-91096741285971902482013-05-24T16:33:00.000-07:002013-05-24T16:33:00.863-07:00Plot Point<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
Rand Paul wrote a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/" target="_blank">fundraising letter</a>
to his "fellow patriots" calling President Obama and "his anti-gun
pals" "anti-American globalists [who] plot against our Constitution."
The same day this statement came out, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/rand-paul-iowa-2016-91210.html" target="_blank"><em>Politico</em></a>
wrote, "Put simply, if you designed a candidate in a lab to match up
with the early GOP primary states, it would probably look a lot like
Rand Paul." Even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/paul-and-rubio-two-republican-up-and-comers-compete-for-the-spotlight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank"><em>The New York Times</em></a> has called him "a rising star."<br />
<br />
Rand Paul can say whatever crazy shit he wants to become more popular
with the Republican base. But when he says the president is "plotting"
against other Americans, it's up to the rest of the civilized world to
dismiss him as a dangerous kook.<br />
<br />
And he's just one cog in the crazy machine. Last week, House Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare for the 37<sup>th</sup>
time. In the Senate, Republicans are blocking Obama's nominees to head
the EPA and the Department of Labor, and have prevented -- for years --
anybody from being named to the new Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. The most important appellate court in the United States, the
D.C. Circuit court (which is like the Supreme Court's mini-me because it
rules on so many federal issues), has had four <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176880559/d-c-circuit-court-operates-with-four-vacancies" target="_blank">vacancies</a>
forever. In fact, John Roberts sat on this court before being appointed
to the Supreme Court in 2005, and his seat is still vacant because
Republicans won't put somebody there who changes the balance of power.<br />
<br />
At what point does obstruction become treason? Isn't that a
reasonable question now, especially with Obamacare? It's the law of the
land, affirmed by the Supreme Court, but Republicans are still trying to
defund it and screw it up any way they can.<br />
Aren't they "plotting" against their country?<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com142tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-76243761619327842102013-05-24T00:00:00.000-07:002013-05-24T00:00:10.216-07:00Pyramid Scheme<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
<em>"Who will buy this wonderful feeling?"</em><em> </em><em>-Oliver/General Dynamics</em><br />
<br />
With everything happening in the world -- terrorism, disease, Reese
Witherspoon going all "Onion Field" on our cops -- it's easy to lose
track of what's really important. Like Egyptian economic reform. But
don't worry, you're paying for it whether you pay attention or not.<br />
<br />
Earlier this year, as The Sequester kicked in, Secretary of State Kerry <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/world/middleeast/kerry-announces-millions-in-us-aid-for-egypt.html?_r=0" target="_blank">announced</a>
that we still had $250 million to give the Land of the Pharaohs for
"economic reform" -- against $1 billion, if we like what we see. The
loan and the "economic reforms" are essential for Egypt to qualify for
another loan, this one for $4.8 billion, from the IMF.<br />
<br />
Who funds the IMF? Oh, that's you again. Over 17 percent of the IMF's funds come from the United States.<br />
The Sequester also won't stop us from sending whoever's in charge in
Egypt 20 F-16s and 20 M-1 Abrams tanks, a total prize package worth over
a billion dollars, addressed to Occupant.<br />
Weird how that tank keeps coming up.<br />
<br />
Right-wing kooks and conspiracy loons think Obama loves Egypt because
he makes Michelle wear a hijab around the house, but it's actually more
banal than that. America is basically Chrysler, only instead of
minivans, we make this tank. And we need someone to buy it, and this is
our version of 0% financing. Because Egypt is much more than a
semi-modern, semi-moderate, squint-and-you-can-believe-it's-true frenemy
in the Middle East. It's also a customer.<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com165tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-28830252837422377192013-05-22T16:28:00.001-07:002013-05-22T16:28:03.727-07:00Benghazi and the October Surprise<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<strong> </strong>
<br />
A new e-book came out this week called A Bad Day On The Romney
Campaign: An Insider’s Account. It was written by Clint Eastwood’s
chair. No it wasn’t, it was written by some whiny grifter named Gabriel
Schoenfeld, who was a “senior advisor” to the campaign. The book focuses
on the day of the Benghazi attack, and how Mitt Romney tripped over his
dick.<br />
The mission in Libya was still on fire when Mitt issued a statement —
based on the Twitter feed of someone in Cairo — claiming it was all
Obama’s fault, because we apologized for that internet movie that
insulted Allah. It was stupid, tone deaf, inaccurate, half-hearted,
phony and entirely beside the point, or what’s now known as The Full
Romney.<br />
Schoenfeld writes:<br />
<blockquote>
“The Romney campaign’s statement of September 11, 2012 had left the candidate naked, embarrassed, and disarmed.”<br />
</blockquote>
Try getting<em> that</em> image out of your head.<br />
But I think it’s important because it helps explain why Republicans
are such crackheads about Benghazi: It — or something like it — was
supposed to win Romney the election. His campaign was designed to stay
competitive, sing “God Bless America,” and wait for Obama to screw up.
Benghazi happened and Mitt booted it. That’s why they’ll never let it
go.<br />
Remember the “47%” video? Romney is asked about the October Surprise,
when Reagan got elected and Iran magically gave us the hostages, and
why Romney can’t “duplicate that scenario.”<br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/romney-said-hed-take-advantage-of-iran-hostage-li" target="_blank">Romney</a>: <em>I
appreciate the idea…(blahblahblah Russia, Iran, nukes, China, Jimmy
Carter)…if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find
a way to take advantage of the opportunity.</em><br />
</blockquote>
Something of that nature presented itself — four brave people dying
violent deaths — and Mitt tried to take advantage of it, but he
couldn’t. Because that bastard Obama cheated and rewrote the memo.<br />
And that’s how you understand Benghazi: Work backwards from
“Republicans are supposed to win.” Don’t follow the money. Follow the
entitlement.Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-30780973118113627562013-05-22T16:25:00.002-07:002013-05-22T16:25:58.642-07:00Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough <strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<strong> </strong>
<br />
<em>“Please sir, I want some more.” -Oliver/The Jackson Family</em><br />
<br />
Michael Jackson’s mother is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/apr/28/michael-jackson-trial-family-aeg-live" target="_blank">suing</a>
a concert promoter for employing a doctor whose reaction to seeing his
patient OD was to call a doctor. She wants $40 billion. Because right up
until the end there, everything was going great.<br />
<br />
Now, my feelings about Michael Jackson are best summed up by an
exchange between FBI agents in ‘Red Dragon,’ the prequel to ‘Silence of
the Lambs’:<br />
<blockquote>
JACK CRAWFORD<br />You feel sorry for him.<br />
WILL GRAHAM<br />My heart bleeds for him, as a child. <br />Someone took a kid and manufactured<br />a monster. At the same time, as an <br />adult, he’s irredeemable. As an adult,<br />someone should blow the sick fuck out<br /> of his socks.</blockquote>
The people my heart really bleeds for are the 12 jurors and six
alternates who are going to have to sit through this endless legalized
shakedown as this horrible old lady tries to suck one more drop of toxic
watery blood from her son’s putrefying corpse.<br />
<br />
He was 51 years old. You don’t have to pay his mommy if you were
negligent and didn’t do enough to prevent him from being a junkie.<br />
<br />
Why is this trial happening? Why are those 18 poor jurors being held
hostage? If Somali pirates took them instead of the Jackson family legal
team, we’d send the Seals to blow their brains out.Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-70907583488435389812013-05-22T16:24:00.001-07:002013-05-22T16:24:30.336-07:00The Truthers Out There<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<strong> </strong>
<br />
It’s often said that you can measure the health of a society by
how readily it believes in conspiracy theories. …OK, maybe it’s not
often said, because I just made it up, but it should be. Because it’s
true.<br />
<br />
Now, our fair country has its share of conspiracy theories, and we
may have just added another: that the Boston Marathon bombing was a
false flag operation designed to frighten the citizens so the government
can take away our rights and our guns. Or something like that. I try
not to click on those links so my IP address doesn’t get “pinged” in the
FBI’s PND — Potential Nutcase Database.<br />
<br />
But when anything major happens in America, you can set your watch
and within 48 hours someone will be explaining to you how some nefarious
group wanted this to happen, and also planned it. These are usually
fringe, Alex Jones-type groups, but not always. The 9/11 Truther
movement wasn’t exactly tiny, probably about the same size as the Ron
Paul movement. Because they’re the same people. Then there are the
Roswell/UFO conspiracy types, the U.N. black helicopter conspiracy
people, those who think the moon landing was faked. Not to mention the
people who think all the fat black women in Tyler Perry movies are
actually Tyler Perry.<br />
<br />
But nothing compares to the Middle East, where conspiracy theories
are so pervasive you’d think the whole region was entirely backward and
overly religious or something.<br />
<br />
For instance, a 2011 <a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/" target="_blank">Pew survey</a>
showed that 75 percent of Egyptian Muslims don’t believe that Arabs
were behind the 9/11 attacks. They believe it was…oh, I’ll let you guess
who they think did it. But it rhymes with “Da Blues.”<br />
<br />
But there’s a reason people in the Middle East believe in so many
conspiracy theories — because their governments are often so corrupt and
evil, <em>they are</em> working behind the scenes to screw their
people. And then blame it on America and the Jews. In the Middle East,
people are also usually confined by a state press and have no history of
not being lied to.<br />
<br />
Also, we’re now in an era where, in addition to porn and bomb-making
guidelines, you can see any amount of crazy information you like on the
internet, whereas before you could only communicate with like-minded
losers via ham radio or at a Star Trek convention.<br />
<br />
But we should be way ahead of societies where everything the
government does is greeted with automatic suspicion, and I’m not sure we
are. In America, there seems to be a very thin wall separating those of
us who are being critical and skeptical and those who are just being
conspiratorial and crazy.<br />
<br />
Isn’t that, you know, bad for democracy?<br />
<div class="post_footer_links with_tags ">
<span class="post_tags_wrapper" id="post_tags_wrapper_51104760455">
<span class="tags " id="post_tags_51104760455">
<br />
</span>
</span>
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-42779412271935243872013-05-22T16:21:00.000-07:002013-05-22T16:21:07.124-07:00Tanks, But No Tanks<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
With the advent of Netflix, Blockbuster video stores all over America
are closing their doors. People simply don't need their services
anymore. That's the free market. But what if President Obama said, "You
know what? Blockbuster employs a lot of people, so I'm going to earmark
billions of taxpayer dollars to keep these franchises open. Sure, they
have no real customers, but hey, there's no work like busy work."<br />
There would be an outrage. The <em>Drudge Report</em> banner would scream, "Socialism!" and Fox New would have a permanent graphic that says "Blockbuster-gate."<br />
<br />
Well, this type of thing is going on. But it's not President Obama
that's doing it; it's Congress. The Army doesn't want any more Abrams
tanks. They have plenty. More than they need. They've, in fact, told
Congress, "We're good." But Congress keeps ordering up more Abrams tanks
to the tune of half-a-billion taxpayer dollars just over the last two
years. And they're asking for $436 million more in funding.<br />
Why? Jobs. General Dynamics (who spent nearly $11 million on lobbying
last year) builds the tanks using more than 560 subcontractors
strategically placed in congressional districts throughout the United
States. Forty of those companies are in Pennsylvania where Democratic
Senator Rob Casey keeps demanding funding for tanks the Army doesn't
want or need.<br />
<br />
The main Abrams tank plant is in Lima, Ohio which is why this
unwanted and unnecessary funding is championed by Republican deficit
hawks Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, as well as liberal
Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. In the name of jobs in their districts,
Congress keeps dumping more Abrams tanks onto the Army's plate like an
Italian mother serving unwanted third helpings to a dinner guest who's
already full.<br />
Isn't <em>this</em> socialism?<br />
</div>
<span class="post-snippet-1">
<div class="cf_widget cf_widget_manualconfig cf_w_MaherCommentsNew" id="MaherCommentsNew">
<div class="cf_hbo_comments">
<div class="cf_hbo_comment_prompt">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-58280418160255814092013-05-22T16:19:00.002-07:002013-05-22T16:19:41.420-07:00Gappy Days Are Here Again<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
Great news: According to the <a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/" target="_blank">Pew Research Center</a>,
the wealth of American households (the sum of all assets and holdings,
including car, home, possessions etc., minus household debt) rose by 14%
in the period between 2009 and 2011. We're back, baby! We are all a
whopping $5 trillion richer. And by "all," I mean not you, but rich
people.<br />
<br /><span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><img alt="" src="http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/storage/pew-research.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1368218660980" /></span></span><br />
<br />The
reason America got 14% wealthier on average is because the household
wealth of the richest 7% shot up from about $2.5 million to about $3.2
million during that two-year period, while the bottom 93% of households
saw their wealth dip from $140,000 to $134,000. So fuck you, takers.<br /><br />Looking
at it another way, in 2009, the average household in the richest 7% had
roughly 18 times the wealth of the average household in the lower 93%.
Just two years later, they enjoyed 24 times the wealth of those same
less affluent households. <br /><br />Shouldn't we be doing something about wealth inequality?<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com308tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-46377561181702270832013-05-22T16:18:00.003-07:002013-05-22T16:18:58.129-07:00The Police Spate<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
My usual friends on the right can’t believe that I said that, during
the hunt for the Tsarnaev brothers, Massachusetts looked like a “police
state,” just because it was a state full of police. But<em> <a href="http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/26/video-surveillance-boston-bombings/" target="_blank">Fortune</a></em> just did its own review of homeland security spending, and here are some of the highlights:<br />
<blockquote>
• Post-9/11 federal spending on homeland security exceeds $790
billion. That’s larger than TARP and, adjusted for inflation, the New
Deal.<br />
• Last year, Massachusetts received $4 million in homeland security
grants, ranking it 34th in homeland security grant spending per capita.<br />
</blockquote>
In short, homeland security is a money pit. And Boston looked like
District 9 two weeks ago, when the black tanks and the body armor came
out, but it’s actually under-porked, compared to most places in America
that got on the homeland security tit and sucked hard.<br />
Two examples from <em>Fortune</em> of homeland security graft in Nowheresville:<br />
<blockquote>
• An Indiana county bought a $300,000 “Electronic Emergency Message
Boards” system and used it to advertise the volunteer fire department’s
fish fry.<br />
• Western Michigan counties bought thirteen $900 Sno-Cone machines.<br />
</blockquote>
Since 9/11, “homeland security” has been “open sesame” for federal
money. It’s cops (it’s impossible to spend too much on cops) and the
military (again, too much ain’t enough). And the result is Grand Rapids
gets a sno-cone machine and Watertown, Mass can’t catch an unarmed
bleeding teenager without looking like the Battle of the Bulge.<br />
And, because it’s <em>Fortune</em>, there’s always a kernel of
investment advice in any article, even one decrying government waste.
See if you can pick it up from these clues:<br />
<blockquote>
• The video surveillance market was slated to grow from $11.5 billion in 2008 to $37.5 billion in 2015.<br />
• There are 4,000 security cameras in Manhattan.<br />
• Chicago has 10,000 linked public and private security cameras. London has a half-million.<br />
</blockquote>
The answer is that we’re under-photographed compared to London. So
invest in closed circuit camera companies. You have nothing to lose but
your shame.Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-54884727514595991212013-05-22T16:18:00.000-07:002013-05-22T16:18:36.034-07:00Background Check, Please!<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
Recent polling suggests that some of the senators who voted against
background checks are taking a hit for it, and Joe Manchin, one of the
sponsors of the bill, is saying he's going to bring it back up. But
here's the problem: it's not a great bill in the first place, and even
if it were, it could never pass the House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
If the anti-gun people really want to get guns off the streets, they
have to start thinking more like the anti-abortion people. Part of that
is getting states and localities to restrict guns more -- that's already
happening in places like New York and Colorado. But there's something
else they could do: go after providers and make it unbearable for them
to be in the killing machine business. This is essentially what the
anti-abortion movement has done with abortion providers. The results?
Today, 48 states have fewer abortion providers than in they did in 1978.<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-33983430181364112312013-05-22T16:15:00.002-07:002013-05-22T16:15:38.227-07:00Sticking It to Plan B<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
Last month, a federal judge in Brooklyn ordered the FDA to make the
morning-after pill available without a prescription. He basically said
that the science was in, and it was safer than Motrin, and the only
reason it hadn’t been approved in the first place was Jesus politics.
Okay, he didn’t say those things but that’s what it came down to.<br />
<br />
That’s not going to stop anti-abortion people from making things up
about the morning-after pill killing everything it touches, and then
eating through the floor like the blood from an alien.<br />
But it made me think about the horrifying warnings in ads for
prescription drugs, the ones that always sound at least as bad as the
disease. You know, “You may experience dry mouth, and grow a tail and
gills. Ask your exorcist.” Here’s the major side effect of not taking
Plan B: A foreign body incubates inside you. Then it takes over your
life and ruins it.<br />
<br />
Here’s<strong><em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/04/23/over_the_counter_birth_control_pills_oral_contraceptives_are_safer_than.html" target="_blank">Slate</a></em></strong> putting it in gentler terms:<br />
<blockquote>
<em><strong>The reality is that oral contraceptives help prevent a much more serious condition: pregnancy</strong>,
which brings with it huge medical, emotional, financial, and legal
risk. More specifically, the main health concern with oral
contraceptives is an increased risk of blood clots, but as the American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists points out, that risk is
“extremely low.” It’s also “significantly lower than the risk of blood
clots during pregnancy and the postpartum period.”</em><br />
</blockquote>
The morning-after pill is better for you than pregnancy. So we can
debate abortion, but we can’t pretend it’s about some global-warming
type mystery about women’s health.Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-86438401124262321742013-05-22T16:14:00.001-07:002013-05-22T16:14:25.466-07:00Haters Gonna Hate <div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
There's a new push by the right to paint the Obamas as President Nero
and his wife Marie Antoinette. It cropped up most recently after the
White House Correspondent's Dinner: How could they, especially <em>now</em>, when we're overtaxed and the government is supposed to be cutting back, be having <em>dinner</em>! Don't they know we're in the middle of a series of (politically manufactured) economic crises?!<br />
<br />
This particular "outrage" doesn't even make sense, really, because
there's nothing especially opulent about renting a ballroom in the
Hilton and having your trade association's annual banquet. But the
criticism has to be leveled, because the formula is now always "How
could Obama be doing <em>x</em> while the country is in such dire straits?" Where <em>x</em> equals <em>every single thing Obama does</em>
-- eating, traveling, seeing shows or sporting events, entertaining
dignitaries -- really anything that doesn't involve sitting behind his
desk in the oval office and signing documents by candlelight.<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-58945118484745247162013-05-22T16:12:00.001-07:002013-05-22T16:12:54.881-07:00Capitalism Fails the News<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
At the <a href="http://whca.net/dinner.htm" target="_blank">White House Correspondents' Dinner</a>,
just about every media outlet was taking shit from the presenters about
how often they got it wrong in these last few weeks. CNN, for its
ridiculous and inaccurate coverage of the Boston bombings; Buzzfeed, for
getting it all wrong too; MSNBC for being in the pocket of the White
House; Fox News for being in the pocket of evil. The verdict was in, and
it was that, other than Pete Williams and The Boston Globe, every
traditional media outlet -- especially those on TV -- is running a sad
rumor mill factory, obsessed with sensationalism, when they're not being
partisan hacks shilling for their home team. And hey, enjoy the filet.<br /><br />But
here's what you didn't hear at the White House Correspondents' Dinner:
"Something, something, Gwen Ifill. [Laughter] Something, something, Ray
Suarez. [Hollering]" Because what everyone seems to be forgetting is
that there's a great news outlet on TV that always gets it right: the
PBS Newshour. And why? Because they're allowed to be a news
organization. Because they're not chasing ratings with giant BREAKING
NEWS graphics and Megyn Kelly's legs and segments about the day's funny
web videos.<br /><br />Back in the day, the network news broadcasts weren't
designed to make money. They were a loss leader. Because people
understood the difference between news and entertainment: one was
something you needed to eat, and the other was dessert.<br /><br />But then capitalism took over the news business. And since then, the news has gone down a downward slope of suckitude.<br /><br />Hey,
don't get me wrong -- capitalism is a great thing. When it comes to
designing America a new ketchup bottle that sits upside down so all the
ketchupy goodness has already moved right to the opening so that you can
then squeeze it on to your fries and avoid all of that needless
pounding on the bottom of the old glass ketchup bottles, capitalism is
the way you want to go. Because capitalism gets you what you want, and
at the lowest price.<br /><br />But in a democracy, there's a difference
between what you want -- my ketchup to come out of the bottle on cue --
and what you need, which is an informed citizenry. <br /><br />Our problem isn't that we have capitalism and that we have democracy. It's that we think they're the same thing.<br />
</div>
<span class="post-snippet-1">
<div class="cf_widget cf_widget_manualconfig cf_w_MaherCommentsNew" id="MaherCommentsNew">
<div class="cf_hbo_comments">
<div class="cf_hbo_comment_prompt">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-51287339395170857412013-05-22T16:10:00.000-07:002013-05-22T16:10:06.454-07:00Threat Assessment<div class="MsoNormal">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What do we do when there's no evidence that someone
is actually planning to do something dangerous, but there are clearly
warning signs? For example, the FBI <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/2011-request-for-information-on-tamerlan-tsarnaev-from-foreign-government" target="_blank">confirmed</a>
it investigated Tamerlan Tsarnaev a couple of years ago due to a
request from Russia, but didn't find "derogatory" information that would
require proceeding.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And then there's the Benton County, Arkansas Republican Party. Here's an excerpt from one of their recent <a href="http://www.nogy.net/bcgop/Apr_2013/index.html" target="_blank">newsletters</a>, which, of course, I receive every month because I'm one of their biggest donors:</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em>"We need to let those who will come in the
future to represent us [know] that we are serious. The 2nd amendment
means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem
simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and
stopped responding as representatives. It seems that we are unable to
muster that belief in any of our representatives on a state or federal
level, but we have to have something, something costly, something that
they will fear that we will use if they step out of line."</em></div>
</blockquote>
Do we have to wait for them to do "something costly," or is there
anything we can do right now? Because this goes right up to the line on
the First Amendment, and when you're this paranoid and openly violent
about the government taking away your guns, maybe the government needs
to take away your guns.Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-23927501557927939562013-05-22T16:05:00.002-07:002013-05-22T16:05:57.786-07:00Those Lovable Freedom Fighters<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
What's not to like about the al Nusra Front? They're among the Syrian
rebels' most well-trained, well-armed, and well-organized opposition
groups. They're so strong and well-positioned that other opposition
factions feel they can't afford to alienate them. And this month they
literally came out and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099" target="_blank">pledged allegiance</a> to al Qaeda and Ayman al-Zawahiri.<br />
<br />
There are headlines about other rebel groups "slamming" al-Nusra over
their pledge, but in fact most aren't, and the ones that are seem to be
adopting the "Shh! Not in front of the infidels!" approach.<br />
From al-Nusra's sharpest critics, the <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130414/syria-rebels-slam-al-nusra-over-qaeda-pledge" target="_blank">Syrian Islamic Front</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>"We protect the principles of Islam like the Islamic state,
fighting in the name of God and his prophet Mohammed, Islamic law. But
all reference to certain names that create a strong reaction around the
world against the Syrian people must be avoided. You do not need to say
that you belong to this name... when you know that this will hurt the
Syrian people and help the tyrant."</em><br />
</blockquote>
Oh yeah, <em>that</em> sounds like a rousing denouncement of all al Qaeda stands for<br />
.<br />
Nobody watching this should be surprised. Unless your name is <span>John McCain, who</span><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9302114/John-McCain-its-time-to-arm-Syrias-opposition.html" target="_blank"> said last year</a>, <em>"It's time to act. It's time to give the Syrian opposition the weapons in order to defend themselves."</em> Or if you're Joe Lieberman, who concurred: <em>"This
will not get better until the rest of the world at least gives the arms
to the Syrian freedom fighters with which they can defend themselves
and their families."</em><br />
<br />
Or if you're McCain and Lindsey Graham, who last month offered a <a href="http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=84315d03-b017-6943-0169-f18538e13669&Region_id=&Issue_id=73379446-ed00-4a32-8ef1-9f1e12737746" target="_blank">joint statement</a>
saying that if the Syrians had indeed used chemical weapons, the
response "should include the provision of arms to vetted Syrian
opposition groups, targeted strikes against Assad's aircraft and SCUD
missile batteries... and the establishment of safe zones inside Syria to
protect civilians and opposition groups."<br />
<br />
Come on guys, <em>this</em> time they'll love us. We just <em>know</em> they will! Let's roll!<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-50899909320462348542013-05-22T16:04:00.001-07:002013-05-22T16:04:53.255-07:00Ball and Change<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
<em>"How can you stand next to the truth and not see it?"</em> - U2<br />
<br />
Earlier this month, an <a href="http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708688-nbcwsj-poll-53-percent-support-gay-marriage?lite" target="_blank">NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll</a> found that 53% of Americans now support same-sex marriage. (An earlier <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/march-2013-postabc-poll-samesex-marriage/2013/03/26/aeb55690-8ff5-11e2-9173-7f87cda73b49_page.html" target="_blank">ABC News/Washington Post survey</a> puts the number at 58%.) But here's the striking thing about the NBC poll: It found that 66% of <em>Republicans</em>
are still against marriage equality. That means, for the foreseeable
future, in a system where voters still only have two choices per
election, one of them is still going to be operating on instructions
from Jesus to hate fags.<br />
<br />
It made me think about that new Jackie Robinson movie, "42." It was
the #1 movie in America last week and received a seldom-seen A+
CinemaScore from audiences. And I think I know why:<br />
<br />
Because nothing feels better than feeling morally superior to people
in the past who are obviously wrong. In this case, racists. You get to
congratulate yourself in hindsight. Of course <em>you</em> know baseball should be integrated. <em>You’d</em> never shout mean things at Jackie Robinson in 1947.<br />
<br />
Seventy years from now, they're going to be making
self-congratulatory movies about marriage equality, so we can hiss at
the hateful idiots who were laughably wrong about that, too.<br />
<br />
I wonder how many of those 66% of Republicans went to see "42" and didn't make the connection at all.<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-6908548475507275852013-05-22T16:02:00.002-07:002013-05-22T16:02:44.681-07:00Fueling Innovation<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
We usually hear about how regulation suffocates business and for
years the Chicken Littles on the right warned against fuel-efficiency
standards, saying it would make us less competitive. But now the EPA is
implementing new rules -- 34.5 MPG by 2016 and 54.5 MPG by 2025 for all
American-made cars and light trucks -- and they're totally
uncontroversial. Environmentalists love them because they're good for
the planet, consumers love them because they save on gas, and even auto
companies will admit that they're spurring innovation.<br />
<br />
Two questions:<br />
<br />
<strong>1)</strong> Doesn't this prove that some regulations can actually be good for capitalism?<br />
<br />
<strong>2)</strong> Could the government have demanded these standards 15 or so years ago and saved the auto industry from itself?<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-61040889766645892332013-05-22T15:59:00.001-07:002013-05-22T15:59:27.368-07:00How to Become a Global Warming Denier<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
Global warming denial can be both fun and easy! While the science of
climate change is complicated (sometimes you even need a PhD in physics
or chemistry to understand it!) our quick, ten-minute seminar on how to
become a global warming denier will put you on the path to irritate your
friends, family, and co-workers in no time! You'll come off as so
willfully obstinate and impervious to evidence, they won't even be sure
they like you anymore!<br />
<br />
Yes, it's just that simple. All you need to do is master these <span style="text-decoration: underline;">three</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">simple</span> <span style="text-decoration: underline;">steps</span> and you, too, can be a global warming denier!<br />
<br />
<strong>Step 1:</strong><br />
<br />
First, state that -- hello! -- the earth's climate has always been
changing! Which is true! Also entirely irrelevant, but true! I mean,
it's not like global warming scientists are unaware of the earth's
climate history, so pointing it out won't make them go, "Oh, shit!
Really? You mean my life's work has all been for nothing? What an
asshole I am!" Yes, pointing this fact out doesn’t prove or disprove
anything. But congratulations! It works on rubes. And you've taken your
first step toward being a global warming denier!<br />
<br />
<strong>Step 2:</strong><br />
<br />
Next, state that the science on the subject is still in doubt. This
is also highly misleading, but it is true that there are still a tiny
minority of scientists who don't buy it, so just call it a wash. Who's
to say who is correct? Let's not rush to judgment, amirite?<br />
<br />
<strong>Tip:</strong> Recite the following: "I'm not the one who is being irrational, my opponent is! I'm being cautious and reasonable."<br />
<br />
<strong>Step 3:</strong><br />
<br />
Finally -- and this is very important if you want to play with the
big boys -- you master one obscure, true, but highly misleading fact
about global warming. Like, "If the earth is warming so dangerously, how
come sea ice in the Antarctic is actually increasing!" Which is true,
but consistent with global warming theory. Who cares? It sounds like
you've just won a point, so you have! What's the global warming
supporter going to do, explain how circumpolar currents work on live TV?
The segment on Hannity is almost over, and I think we know who has won!<br />
<br />
<strong>Bonus: </strong>If you really want to blow their minds, point out that, in the 70s, Newsweek ran a cover story on predictions of global <em>cooling</em>.
That's right -- cooling! These same scientists who are now saying
warming used to be saying cooling! Which also is absurd on its face,
since we're talking about a Newsweek cover story and a handful of
scientists, not the overwhelming judgment of every major scientific body
on the planet and decades of peer-reviewed studies published in
scientific journals worldwide, but no one can deny that the Newsweek
cover story existed. You're practically telling the truth!<br />
<br />
Yes, it's just that simple. So call now to receive the "How To Become a Global Warming Denier!" book and DVD today!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0MhdUVE1fa-vufyvd2Y_JmdSKMZo1oykbrgUor7XdTcVA711doq70-GJha0KfCVogHYKtFzq-G2jBF4bfz85yD0Bo4c55xHAMjD1-lkCQyK4LtEdM8p9OdWpSSR86Z095Y4LMF_rAin8r/s1600/Global+Warming+Book+Cover+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0MhdUVE1fa-vufyvd2Y_JmdSKMZo1oykbrgUor7XdTcVA711doq70-GJha0KfCVogHYKtFzq-G2jBF4bfz85yD0Bo4c55xHAMjD1-lkCQyK4LtEdM8p9OdWpSSR86Z095Y4LMF_rAin8r/s320/Global+Warming+Book+Cover+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-55709657470534241892013-05-22T15:56:00.002-07:002013-05-22T15:56:37.496-07:00Assume Your Positions<div class="post_title">
</div>
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
Kermit Gosnell is a “doctor” who ran the worst abortion clinic
you’ve ever heard of. If pro-life people could design their worst
nightmare of how abortions are being provided, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/04/16/kermit-gosnell-a-conspiracy-of-silence/" target="_blank">this would be it</a>.
Because Kermit is not a doctor. He’s a con artist crossed with a
villain in a Saw movie crossed with a really unsanitary college
roommate. And he’s now on trial for basically running a baby-killing
operation masquerading as a women’s health care clinic.<br />
<br />
This case is the right’s new cause, and you’re going to hear about it. It’s going to be <em>at least </em>a
chapter in the next Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin/Glenn Beck/Mark
Levin/Dick Morris/Sean Hannity book. It also works for them politically,
because in their mind it makes Americans face up to the reality of
abortion. But even more so they’re using it to make a point about
liberal media bias, as in, <em>“How come this trial didn’t receive any national media attention?”</em><br />
<br />
And that’s the big (and tired) scandal they’re pushing. Problem is,
there weren’t too many conservative media outlets pushing it either, at
least until recently, so their case isn’t as strong as they think it is.<br />
But more importantly, this story has already gotten boring because
it’s yet another example of both sides instantly returning to their
sides, grabbing their talking points, and hammering away. If you’re on
the right, it’s “Liberal media, blah, blah.” And if you’re on the left,
it’s “This is what abortion would look like if you pro-lifers ban
abortion! So stop erecting barriers to safe and legal abortion and this
kind of thing won’t happen.”<br />
<br />
It makes you wonder why we even bother with this charade. Nobody
changes their mind on an issue because of a news event. They simply find
the reason why the news event confirms what they already think.<br />
<br />
Me? I’m kind of appalled by this, and that it could happen in this
country. Abortion doctors in Tijuana would look at this guy’s operation
and scream, “Aye dios mio!” Sometimes you don’t automatically have to
cram it back into your worldview, and try to use it to make a point.
Sometimes you just have to cram people like Kermit into a cell.<br />
<br />
Kermit Gosnell is a “doctor” who ran the worst abortion clinic you’ve
ever heard of. If pro-life people could design their worst nightmare of
how abortions are being provided, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/04/16/kermit-gosnell-a-conspiracy-of-silence/" target="_blank">this would be it</a>.
Because Kermit is not a doctor. He’s a con artist crossed with a
villain in a Saw movie crossed with a really unsanitary college
roommate. And he’s now on trial for basically running a baby-killing
operation masquerading as a women’s health care clinic.<br />
<br />
This case is the right’s new cause, and you’re going to hear about it. It’s going to be <em>at least </em>a
chapter in the next Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin/Glenn Beck/Mark
Levin/Dick Morris/Sean Hannity book. It also works for them politically,
because in their mind it makes Americans face up to the reality of
abortion. But even more so they’re using it to make a point about
liberal media bias, as in, <em>“How come this trial didn’t receive any national media attention?”</em><br />
<br />
And that’s the big (and tired) scandal they’re pushing. Problem is,
there weren’t too many conservative media outlets pushing it either, at
least until recently, so their case isn’t as strong as they think it is.<br />
But more importantly, this story has already gotten boring because
it’s yet another example of both sides instantly returning to their
sides, grabbing their talking points, and hammering away. If you’re on
the right, it’s “Liberal media, blah, blah.” And if you’re on the left,
it’s “This is what abortion would look like if you pro-lifers ban
abortion! So stop erecting barriers to safe and legal abortion and this
kind of thing won’t happen.”<br />
<br />
It makes you wonder why we even bother with this charade. Nobody
changes their mind on an issue because of a news event. They simply find
the reason why the news event confirms what they already think.<br />
Me? I’m kind of appalled by this, and that it could happen in this
country. Abortion doctors in Tijuana would look at this guy’s operation
and scream, “Aye dios mio!” Sometimes you don’t automatically have to
cram it back into your worldview, and try to use it to make a point.
Sometimes you just have to cram people like Kermit into a cell.Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-11774627811330494502013-04-18T22:59:00.000-07:002013-04-18T22:59:35.491-07:00Who Will Save Your Seoul<div class="body">
<b>By Bill Maher</b><br />
<br />
Recently on the news, I heard a South Korean say he wasn't worried
about war with North Korea, because "We know the U.S. has our backs."<br />
<br />
At first, I swelled with national pride, and thought, "You're
welcome." But then I thought, "Wait a minute -- why can't South Korea
get its own back?"<br />
<br />
They're a rich country, with the world’s 12<sup>th</sup> largest
economy. They have one of the best education systems in the world. They
have a large active army -- 650,000 troops -- and 3.2 million reserves.
Their population is twice the size of North Korea's, and their economy
40 times as big. They have electricity. And food.<br />
<br />
So why does the United States still have 28,500 troops there -- more
than we'll probably have in Afghanistan by the end of next year?<br />
<br />
How do troops protect from nuclear weapons?</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com45tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-21544475611045901582013-04-17T15:04:00.004-07:002013-04-17T15:04:44.262-07:00Not Lovin' It<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
Earlier this month, hundreds of New York City fast food <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/04/04/176260454/nycs-fast-food-workers-strike-demand-living-wages" target="_blank">workers walked off their jobs</a> and picketed in front of restaurants, demanding a living wage. All that was left inside were the customers and the rats.<br />
<br />
It used to be that the fast food jobs were the extra jobs kids would
do to earn some money for gas and weed, so they weren't using up all of
Mom and Dad's. The rest of us worked the actual <em>jobs</em> jobs. But now the economy is such that the fast food jobs <em>are</em> the <em>jobs</em>
jobs. The median age of a fast food worker is now over 28. Moms and
dads, whose decent-paying jobs have been downsized or outsourced, are
now working the counter at McDonald's. Full time, that's just about
$16,000 a year, or just enough for you and your family to live in one of
the nicer refrigerator boxes.<br />
Last month, Senator <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html" target="_blank">Elizabeth Warren made the case</a> for a living wage at a Senate committee hearing:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up,
that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to
go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today
would be about $22 an hour. So my question is... with a minimum wage of
$7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to
the worker."</em><br />
</blockquote>
One fair way to narrow the wealth gap is to make the hugely
profitable fast food companies pay more and profit less. When we don't
force huge fast food corporations to pay a living wage, yes, their
profits go up (McDonald's profits were up 130% during the recession) and
their stockholders benefit -- but their employees need to go on public
assistance and we, the taxpayers, end up footing the bill.<br />
<br />
Why should I have to finance some rich prick's McDonald's Corporation stock staying at 99.34 instead of 97.86?<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-23752435607803497952013-04-17T14:48:00.000-07:002013-04-17T14:48:00.780-07:00A Taxing Feeling<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
A few weeks ago I mentioned on the show that, while I'm willing to
pay more in taxes, Democrats could lose me on this issue if they
continue to go to that well over and over. In other words, there's a
limit to what I think the government should be allowed to take from its
citizens, even the wealthiest ones. I wasn't suggesting that I was going
to start donning a tri-corner hat and going Galt, or even Wesley
Snipes. I was simply saying that when you combine all of the state and
federal and local taxes, especially in a high tax state like California,
it is a lot. Because -- oh, how shall I say this? -- <em>it is a lot</em>. Maybe I feel this way because it's April 15<sup>th</sup> and, like many Americans, I feel like the radius of my asshole just changed. Or maybe it's because, again, numerically, <em>it's a lot.</em><br />
<br />
Now, I'm not asking for any sympathy. I've done quite well, and I'm
willing to pay a higher rate than Joe Six-Pack. Or Mitt Romney. And I
do. What I didn't like is what the reaction to my comments says about
how Americans have come to discuss political issues: both sides have
their talking points and their spokespeople, and nobody gives an inch,
and then they commence talking past each other.<br />
<br />
Really. I didn't think this was a very controversial statement. But
apparently it was, because it got picked up in the conservative media,
and I heard from lots of liberals about it because it vaguely veered
from Democratic dogma on taxes, which is that not only should you always
be for raising them -- especially on the wealthy -- but you should
really, really enjoy paying them!<br />
<br />
Well, just because Republicans hate taxes and pledge to lower them at
every turn, doesn't mean that I have to love taxes and pledge to raise
them at every turn. But this is basically the arrangement we have on
every issue in this country. The Republicans take a ridiculous,
extremist view on an issue, and the left is left to defend the basic
principle on the other side, and <em>nothing interesting gets discussed by anyone</em>.<br />
<br />
Instead of discussing what the appropriate tax rate should be and who
should pay -- which, let's face it, is dull enough already -- the
discussion we have is whether taxes are bad because government is bad,
or whether taxes are good because all government programs are the cat's
meow. And then the buzzer goes off and the middle school debate team
competition is over.<br />
<br />
Well, I'm sorry, but for the most part I don't love paying taxes. I
view them as a necessary evil. I even view paying them as a form of
patriotism. But I'm also a sentient adult who understands that a lot of
that money goes to stuff I really don't like and don't think is
necessary, like our enormous and bloated defense budget. Like many
Americans, I think we often spend too much and receive too little
benefit for the money we spend, and that our budget should look vastly
different than it does, and that the tax code is completely screwed up,
so I'm not going to defend the current system as if it's perfect and
delight in paying for it simply because there's a Democrat in the White
House. I'm also not going to take the position of "All government
programs are good." Or "All poor people are noble." Or "Everything the
teachers union does should be defended." Or "The higher the tax rate on
the rich, the better."<br />
<br />
And conservatives, just because I say something like "tax rates are
getting pretty high" it doesn't mean I've suddenly seen the wisdom of
cutting them to Paul Ryan levels, or even cutting them at all, or that
now I'm on your team. I'm not. In fact, you're the real reason we're
having these shitty debates, because you've gone to such an extreme that
we're left to simply argue for the basic principle, like that taxes are
necessary, or that global warming is real.<br />
<br />
So, let's all grow up a bit. And if you want to watch a show where
your biases are relentlessly confirmed, where children argue and no one
ever concedes a point on anything, try Hannity.<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-88535822900217091682013-04-17T14:26:00.000-07:002013-04-17T14:26:08.595-07:00Impeach Scalia<div class="body">
<strong></strong>During oral arguments over same-sex marriage last month, Justice
Antonin Scalia suggested gay adoption might be harmful to children. He
said, "There's considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what
the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that
is harmful or not."<br />
<br />
This is complete bullshit.<br />
<br />
Here's what the American Sociological Association actually says, which Scalia would have known if he'd bothered to read their <a href="http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf" target="_blank">amicus curiae</a><span style="color: black;">, </span>or friend-of-the-court brief, on this exact case. Hat tip to<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/29/scalias-gay-adoption-claim-even-wronger-than-i-thought/" target="_blank"> Ezra Klein</a> for finding this:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>The claim that same-sex parents produce less positive child
outcomes than opposite-sex parents--either because such families lack
both a male and female parent or because both parents are not
the biological parents of their children--contradicts abundant social
science research. Decades of methodologically sound social science
research, especially multiple nationally representative studies and the
expert evidence introduced in the district courts below, confirm that
positive child wellbeing is the product of stability in the relationship
between the two parents, stability in the relationship between
the parents and child, and greater parental socioeconomic resources.
Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no
bearing on a child's wellbeing.</em><br />
<em> </em>
<em>The clear and consistent consensus in the social science
profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just
as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to
children raised by opposite-sex parents.</em><br />
</blockquote>
You also hear bullshit talking points, like the one Scalia cited, from fools like <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/ralph-reed-says-science-shows-biological-parents-are-the-bes" target="_blank">Ralph Reed</a>
-- but his job is to be a professional right-wing jackass. He's allowed
to make things up. Scalia is on the Supreme Court, and if this were a
one-time offense, I'd overlook it. But when you go back and listen to
every question this guy asks from the bench -- read the transcript to
the health care case, for instance -- they all basically come from
nonsense that you could read in a chain email or see on a sign at a tea
bagger rally.<br />
<br />
I say we impeach him on grounds of knuckle dragging. I know it would be unprecedented, but it would be deserved, and fun.<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-61381586749922513562013-01-31T16:27:00.002-08:002013-01-31T16:27:40.477-08:00Who Would Want This Job?<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
A couple reporters at the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a> recently
got hold of a PowerPoint presentation the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee gives to incoming members of Congress, and it's worse
than you'd think. First slide: "Michele Bachmann is even shorter and
crazier in person. Don't say we didn't warn you."<br />
<br />
Okay, even if that were true, it wouldn't be the scary part. That
comes later, when it notes that the leadership expects that freshmen
members take about five hours out of every day and devote it to
fundraising. Yes, <em>five</em>. That means you're either on the phone
with donors listening to them tell you their inane, self-serving ideas
before saying, "(Name of donor), I think what you're saying is very
important and I'm completely behind you, while not actually committing
to supporting anything you just said. More importantly, can I have some
money?" Or you're in strategy sessions to figure out other ways to get
money. Or you're doing outreach to find new people ...that you can
eventually ask for money.<br />
<br />
Former Rep. Tom Perriello even said that the 4-5 hours may even be
"low-balling the figure so as not to scare the new members too much."<br />
<br />
Jimmy Swaggart asked people for money less than this.<br />
<br />
You know when NPR does their pledge drive once a year, when they take
a few hours out of their programming to remind you that they're
member-supported public radio and if you want more stories about the
plight of soy farmers in Togo you're going to have to pony up some cash?
It's annoying, right? Okay, now picture if NPR had to do that five
hours of every day. You'd sense that something was horribly wrong with
this system. To say nothing of what it would do to the people who worked
there. Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne would drink hemlock together.<br />
<br />
Well, this is what our members of Congress spend about half of their
day doing. Why should we be surprised when it attracts people who aren't
that bright or talented, or who come off as cheap salespeople, and are
easily bought off?<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com62tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4729096187811729548.post-48501435901046165752013-01-31T16:26:00.003-08:002013-01-31T16:26:58.653-08:00Gerry-Rigged<div class="body">
<strong>By Bill Maher</strong><br />
<br />
In the last election, Democrats got a million more votes for their
House candidates than Republicans did. In a fair world, Nancy Pelosi
would be Speaker again, but Republicans still have a 33-seat majority
because of gerrymandering.<br />
<br />
Let's call gerrymandering what it really is: segregation. It carves
up district lines so "urban" voters -- aka African Americans, Asians,
and Hispanics -- are bunched up in Democratic districts, while suburban
and rural districts are carefully kept just white enough to go
Republican.<br />
<br />
Short-term, gerrymandering is the only thing that keeps the GOP in
power. Long-term, it just might kill them. They can't compete for
Hispanic votes because they don't have to. Using redistricting as a
crutch only allows them to stay in denial about demographic reality,
which is that the fastest growing groups in the country are racing to
the polls to vote for Democrats while the Republican base is racing to
the morgue. Moreover, it only encourages them to continue insulting
voters they need to take back the White House, or even hold onto
Congress over the next few cycles.<br />
<br />
You know who I think would back me up on this? George W. Bush.
Remember, he was for immigration reform, but his own party killed him
over it. If you're a Republican, isn't it a serious problem when George
W. Bush is a couple steps ahead of the rest of your party? And even
though the tide seems to have turned on immigration reform, most
Republicans are still from districts whose voters are very uncomfortable
doing the salsa.<br />
<br />
Most Republican politicians are smart enough to know they've got an
existential problem here, but their voters aren't. They see a pathway to
citizenship as "amnesty," and won't soon forgive their congressman if
he votes for it. So if you're a Republican House member, what the hell
do you do?<br />
</div>
Bill Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12575860324430795766noreply@blogger.com17