By Bill Maher
According
to a poll done a few years ago, over 90 percent of Americans in all age
groups and income levels think genetically modified food should be
labeled. Seems like a no-lose campaign issue for either Romney or Obama.
So why aren't they talking about it?
Back in 2007, Obama said
he supported food labeling; but since he's been president he's been
silent. And so has Romney, even though there's evidence
both Romney and his wife eat mostly organic food, which suggests to me
that they have at least some concern about what they put in their
mouths. Or maybe they're just trying to counteract the daily campaign
diet of photo-op corn dogs.
Actually, I can see why Romney would
be hesitant to talk about GMOs, because in his early days as a
consultant he helped convince the company Monsanto to shift its focus
from chemical manufacturing to biotech.
Leaving aside the question of whether genetically-modified crops are good or bad (and since some studies have shown feeding it to rats gives them giant tumors, I vote for "bad"), it’s a simple issue of you have the right to know what you're eating.
Conservatives
are constantly having freakouts over the phony notion that Obamacare
gives government bureaucrats control over their bodies. But Monsanto
already has control over your body, unless you spend eight hours a day
researching every item sold at Trader Joe's. Scientists can't even do
studies on Monstanto GM seeds unless Monstanto gives them permission
first.
It reminds me of how when you buy the new Taylor Swift
album on iTunes you don't actually own the music. You only own a license
to play the music file.
Corporations are able to arbitrarily
make the rules and we just have to suck it up and accept it. That is, if
we want to eat and listen to music.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Bully Bully
By Bill Maher
New Rule: Not everyone who says something you don't want to hear or who asks you to do something you don't want to do is a bully. There were two prominent cases of so-called bullying in the news recently: the obese news lady from Wisconsin who claims she was bullied because a viewer wrote in and said, as a public figure and a role model, she had a "community responsibility" to "present and promote a healthy lifestyle," and the Iowa JV football coach who got suspended for breaking the district’s anti-bullying and corporal punishment policy because he made one of his players run laps.
Now, October was Bullying Awareness Month, which means something to me because I was bullied as a child. There was a kid who would beat me up and take my super-PAC donation money. But, at the risk of making someone feel bad, and thereby becoming a bully myself, may I suggest there's been a bit of bully inflation going on?
The Village Voice and others call Michael Bloomberg's size-restriction on sugary soft drinks "soda bullying." But Mayor Bloomberg didn't instruct cops to walk through Manhattan slapping Big Gulps out of people's hands. He simply recognized that, with one out of every three of our kids either overweight or obese, perhaps enough soda to fill a small bucket is adequate for a first helping. No one is saying you can't drink as much Mountain Dew as you can hold -- they're just saying, for ounces 17 through 32, you have to get your fat ass up out of your seat and waddle back to the concession stand.
Likewise, scoffing or rolling your eyes during a debate, as Fox News would have us believe, is not bullying. No, that's the appropriate social response to weasels telling lies. Joe Biden expressed ridicule at your candidate's shameless whoppers -- he didn't hold him down while Martha Raddatz gave him a pink belly. The ass-kicking was figurative.
Sometimes, for the common good, you have to hear something you don't want to hear or do something you don't want to do. Like paying taxes. Or getting off your ass and taking care of yourself. I'm not talking about law enforcement rolling up to where you happen to be standing and forcing you to run -- hat's only in the inner city. I'm talking about something we used to have but now seem to dismiss -- our social responsibility to one another.
New Rule: Not everyone who says something you don't want to hear or who asks you to do something you don't want to do is a bully. There were two prominent cases of so-called bullying in the news recently: the obese news lady from Wisconsin who claims she was bullied because a viewer wrote in and said, as a public figure and a role model, she had a "community responsibility" to "present and promote a healthy lifestyle," and the Iowa JV football coach who got suspended for breaking the district’s anti-bullying and corporal punishment policy because he made one of his players run laps.
Now, October was Bullying Awareness Month, which means something to me because I was bullied as a child. There was a kid who would beat me up and take my super-PAC donation money. But, at the risk of making someone feel bad, and thereby becoming a bully myself, may I suggest there's been a bit of bully inflation going on?
The Village Voice and others call Michael Bloomberg's size-restriction on sugary soft drinks "soda bullying." But Mayor Bloomberg didn't instruct cops to walk through Manhattan slapping Big Gulps out of people's hands. He simply recognized that, with one out of every three of our kids either overweight or obese, perhaps enough soda to fill a small bucket is adequate for a first helping. No one is saying you can't drink as much Mountain Dew as you can hold -- they're just saying, for ounces 17 through 32, you have to get your fat ass up out of your seat and waddle back to the concession stand.
Likewise, scoffing or rolling your eyes during a debate, as Fox News would have us believe, is not bullying. No, that's the appropriate social response to weasels telling lies. Joe Biden expressed ridicule at your candidate's shameless whoppers -- he didn't hold him down while Martha Raddatz gave him a pink belly. The ass-kicking was figurative.
Sometimes, for the common good, you have to hear something you don't want to hear or do something you don't want to do. Like paying taxes. Or getting off your ass and taking care of yourself. I'm not talking about law enforcement rolling up to where you happen to be standing and forcing you to run -- hat's only in the inner city. I'm talking about something we used to have but now seem to dismiss -- our social responsibility to one another.
Tanks for Nothing
By Bill Maher
There are a few really key objects that explain why the 20th century worked out like it did: The cyclotron, the small pox vaccine, the invention of black people and sex in the late 50s. And the tank. I just want to say, right up front, hooray for tanks. The British invented them, the Germans perfected them, and Arabs still can't win a war with them, even against other Arabs. No matter how many they have. It’s actually weird. How hard can it be? It's like American Indians never coming up with the wheel.
And the best tank ever made is the M1 Abrams. It's got a 1500 horsepower Textron gas turbine engine and a 120 MM smoothbore cannon from the good (German) people at Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH. It weighs almost seventy tons, just like Rush Limbaugh, and can still do 45 mph on level ground, just like Paul Ryan. That said, the tank is a shitty welfare program.
In the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden said: "The military says we need a smaller, leaner Army. We need more special forces. ...We don’t need more M1 tanks. What we need is more UAVs."
And he's obviously right, except the M1 is made in Ohio -- the Valley of Elah for this entire election. And that's why Romney, Ryan and their ads, automated phone calls and surrogates are hammering away, like history's best tank is basically Terri Schiavo and Obama wants to yank its feeding tube.
"When you say…that we don't need any more Lima-built M1 tanks, what we are doing is we're projecting weakness, and when we project weakness abroad our enemies become more brazen!" -- Paul Ryan, in Ohio
"We need M1 tanks because they're part of the greatest military on the face of the earth. They will ensure that we have a military second to none so that we can keep the peace. We need M1 tanks!" -- Ohio Sen. Rob Portman
Here's the thing. The Army doesn't want any more M1s. We're getting a remodeled tank in 2017, and Obama would like to shut the M1 factory down and save $3 billion between now and then. This would cost 800 jobs.
Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter what the Army wants, Congress keeps voting to make more M1s. Last year, over Army objections, the defense appropriations bill included $255 million for 42 more M1s, basically to keep the factory open. So it's welfare, plain and simple. $255 million for 800 jobs building 42 tanks for no one.
Part of the problem is the M1 is too good. We never need to replace them. In the first Gulf War nine were damaged beyond repair. In the entire second Gulf War, we lost eighty.
Now we have 2,300 M1s deployed around the world. And three thousand (3000) more right here in California, sitting there, row-on-row, at the Sierra Army Depot.
Enough to retake Iraq 37 times.
Hey, just a day’s drive up the I-5. Who wants to go?
There are a few really key objects that explain why the 20th century worked out like it did: The cyclotron, the small pox vaccine, the invention of black people and sex in the late 50s. And the tank. I just want to say, right up front, hooray for tanks. The British invented them, the Germans perfected them, and Arabs still can't win a war with them, even against other Arabs. No matter how many they have. It’s actually weird. How hard can it be? It's like American Indians never coming up with the wheel.
And the best tank ever made is the M1 Abrams. It's got a 1500 horsepower Textron gas turbine engine and a 120 MM smoothbore cannon from the good (German) people at Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH. It weighs almost seventy tons, just like Rush Limbaugh, and can still do 45 mph on level ground, just like Paul Ryan. That said, the tank is a shitty welfare program.
In the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden said: "The military says we need a smaller, leaner Army. We need more special forces. ...We don’t need more M1 tanks. What we need is more UAVs."
And he's obviously right, except the M1 is made in Ohio -- the Valley of Elah for this entire election. And that's why Romney, Ryan and their ads, automated phone calls and surrogates are hammering away, like history's best tank is basically Terri Schiavo and Obama wants to yank its feeding tube.
"When you say…that we don't need any more Lima-built M1 tanks, what we are doing is we're projecting weakness, and when we project weakness abroad our enemies become more brazen!" -- Paul Ryan, in Ohio
"We need M1 tanks because they're part of the greatest military on the face of the earth. They will ensure that we have a military second to none so that we can keep the peace. We need M1 tanks!" -- Ohio Sen. Rob Portman
Here's the thing. The Army doesn't want any more M1s. We're getting a remodeled tank in 2017, and Obama would like to shut the M1 factory down and save $3 billion between now and then. This would cost 800 jobs.
Here's the other thing. It doesn't matter what the Army wants, Congress keeps voting to make more M1s. Last year, over Army objections, the defense appropriations bill included $255 million for 42 more M1s, basically to keep the factory open. So it's welfare, plain and simple. $255 million for 800 jobs building 42 tanks for no one.
Part of the problem is the M1 is too good. We never need to replace them. In the first Gulf War nine were damaged beyond repair. In the entire second Gulf War, we lost eighty.
Now we have 2,300 M1s deployed around the world. And three thousand (3000) more right here in California, sitting there, row-on-row, at the Sierra Army Depot.
Enough to retake Iraq 37 times.
Hey, just a day’s drive up the I-5. Who wants to go?
Treasonable People
By Bill Maher
Since President Obama took office, the banking industry has been regulated, the auto industry has been saved, the stock market has more than doubled and the unemployment rate has dropped from 10-something to 7-something, its lowest rate in over four years. Or, as Fox News is reporting it, "a dismal record of failed economic policies."
In the housing market, sales are climbing and burst-bubble home prices are beginning to inch back up. Last month, it was announced that existing home sales jumped to their highest level in over two years and residential construction is up 29% over 2011.
But all this is just numbers unless American consumers start to sense solid economic ground under their feet and get comfortable with the idea of spending again. The economy is fickle and fragile and that’s why consumer perception is so important. Which brings us to the latest news on an index called consumer sentiment: The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan survey of how consumers feel about the economy came in at a surprising 83.1, its highest in five years.
Also the independent Economic Cycle Research Institute, which measures future economic expansion, says our economy’s annualized growth rate has accelerated to its fastest pace in over a year.
America is back, baby! Well, yes, unless a full one-half of the American government makes it its mission to convince the public that America is not back and that our economy is free falling and will likely be decimated beyond repair if a certain someone is re-elected. I won't say whom, but I'll look at the guilty party and yell, "You lie" at his State of the Union address.
What you'll hear from Romney/Ryan or, for that matter, Boehner, Cantor or anyone on Fox News is, "as Scranton goes, so goes America." Which may help them politically, but it's a lie that does harm to America. When the economy's health hinges so much on consumer confidence and sentiment, doesn't it border on treason for a political party of presumably trusted leaders to claim everything is going to shit despite an ever-amassing mountain of evidence to the contrary?
Since President Obama took office, the banking industry has been regulated, the auto industry has been saved, the stock market has more than doubled and the unemployment rate has dropped from 10-something to 7-something, its lowest rate in over four years. Or, as Fox News is reporting it, "a dismal record of failed economic policies."
In the housing market, sales are climbing and burst-bubble home prices are beginning to inch back up. Last month, it was announced that existing home sales jumped to their highest level in over two years and residential construction is up 29% over 2011.
But all this is just numbers unless American consumers start to sense solid economic ground under their feet and get comfortable with the idea of spending again. The economy is fickle and fragile and that’s why consumer perception is so important. Which brings us to the latest news on an index called consumer sentiment: The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan survey of how consumers feel about the economy came in at a surprising 83.1, its highest in five years.
Also the independent Economic Cycle Research Institute, which measures future economic expansion, says our economy’s annualized growth rate has accelerated to its fastest pace in over a year.
America is back, baby! Well, yes, unless a full one-half of the American government makes it its mission to convince the public that America is not back and that our economy is free falling and will likely be decimated beyond repair if a certain someone is re-elected. I won't say whom, but I'll look at the guilty party and yell, "You lie" at his State of the Union address.
What you'll hear from Romney/Ryan or, for that matter, Boehner, Cantor or anyone on Fox News is, "as Scranton goes, so goes America." Which may help them politically, but it's a lie that does harm to America. When the economy's health hinges so much on consumer confidence and sentiment, doesn't it border on treason for a political party of presumably trusted leaders to claim everything is going to shit despite an ever-amassing mountain of evidence to the contrary?
Hell Hath No Fury…
By Bill Maher
New Rule: Stop telling kids how to live. Certainly Michelle Obama has the right to encourage them to eat healthier and to get more exercise. But what about our kids’ right to be big, fat, ignorant tubs of goo? To those who would mandate healthier school lunches or require students to participate in some sort of physical activity other than banging their teacher, I would pose this question: "Why do you hate freedom?"
There were a couple of stories in the news this month about school students and administrators pushing back against the do-gooder wellbeing police and their overzealous attempts to get kids to eat right and exercise. Sure it's a noble endeavor to promote wellness, but since when is it our public schools' job to shape our youth and prepare them for a healthy, successful life?
The first story was about high school students nationwide boycotting the new, healthier, calorie-counted school lunches implemented by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat milk are fine in theory, but kids want their pizza, their pudding and their chicken nuggets. Plus, they get all the exercise they need pumping that nacho cheese dispenser.
One senior at a Brooklyn high school said, "Now there's no taste, no flavor and it's healthy, which makes it taste even worse," which might explain why his protesting classmates have taken to dumping their "gross" fruits and vegetables on the cafeteria floor. Take that, nutrition!
The second story is about a JV football coach in Iowa who overheard one of his players bad mouthing the varsity team so, as a lesson, he had the kid run laps. You know, like coaches have done since the beginning of time. Well, the coach has been suspended for violating the district’s anti-bullying and corporal punishment policies. Mike Dick, the state's Girls High School Athletic Union executive director said, "Good common sense would indicate we're past using conditioning and running in a punitive manner," adding it's "vindictive in nature." What if the child gets winded or, worse yet, healthy?
A few phrases from my childhood come to mind. Phrases like, "If you get hungry enough, you'll eat." And "You don’t like it? Tough." And "I'll give you something to boycott about." Of course we shouldn't bully or abuse children, but since when did that translate into they should never be put out or never be uncomfortable and always get what they want?
New Rule: Stop telling kids how to live. Certainly Michelle Obama has the right to encourage them to eat healthier and to get more exercise. But what about our kids’ right to be big, fat, ignorant tubs of goo? To those who would mandate healthier school lunches or require students to participate in some sort of physical activity other than banging their teacher, I would pose this question: "Why do you hate freedom?"
There were a couple of stories in the news this month about school students and administrators pushing back against the do-gooder wellbeing police and their overzealous attempts to get kids to eat right and exercise. Sure it's a noble endeavor to promote wellness, but since when is it our public schools' job to shape our youth and prepare them for a healthy, successful life?
The first story was about high school students nationwide boycotting the new, healthier, calorie-counted school lunches implemented by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat milk are fine in theory, but kids want their pizza, their pudding and their chicken nuggets. Plus, they get all the exercise they need pumping that nacho cheese dispenser.
One senior at a Brooklyn high school said, "Now there's no taste, no flavor and it's healthy, which makes it taste even worse," which might explain why his protesting classmates have taken to dumping their "gross" fruits and vegetables on the cafeteria floor. Take that, nutrition!
The second story is about a JV football coach in Iowa who overheard one of his players bad mouthing the varsity team so, as a lesson, he had the kid run laps. You know, like coaches have done since the beginning of time. Well, the coach has been suspended for violating the district’s anti-bullying and corporal punishment policies. Mike Dick, the state's Girls High School Athletic Union executive director said, "Good common sense would indicate we're past using conditioning and running in a punitive manner," adding it's "vindictive in nature." What if the child gets winded or, worse yet, healthy?
A few phrases from my childhood come to mind. Phrases like, "If you get hungry enough, you'll eat." And "You don’t like it? Tough." And "I'll give you something to boycott about." Of course we shouldn't bully or abuse children, but since when did that translate into they should never be put out or never be uncomfortable and always get what they want?
Let Evil Be Evil
By Bill Maher
Pakistan is having a moment right now. The "I am Malala" movement has made the country stop worrying about YouTube videos and start worrying about the medieval religious lunatics they haven't yet learned to stand up to. So this is a big chance for the United States to really step up... and do absolutely nothing.
Again and again, we forget the lesson that most evil-doers eventually wear out their welcome because they keep doing evil. Shooting a girl in head for saying that she liked school? That's pretty damn evil. Journalists are already comparing Malala to Rosa Parks, though it looks like her personal story might not have a happy ending. Parks didn't have the happiest life ever, but at least she got to take a few victory laps at the front of the bus.
But the key here is for the US to not be here. Image-wise, our military does great when there's an armed government that we can sweep in and liberate the people from, toss out some chewing gum to kids, throw around some cash, and then take a bow and leave. But let us linger and we'll start hammering you with flying robots and pissing on your corpses, and that will distract everyone's attention from the truly evil motherfuckers in their midst.
It's easy to forget what the world looked like before 9/11. Al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan, but the weak and unpopular Taliban government wasn't even in charge of the whole country. Neither was Saddam Hussein in charge of his whole country. He'd also completely given up on the idea of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and now just wanted to look strong so that Iran wouldn't drop the hammer on him. Also, there were no Taliban in Pakistan.
That's not to say we didn't need to knock out Afghanistan's government in 2001. But most of what we've done there since has only served to postpone and distract the majority of people from really focusing on how deeply they hate the kind of people who shot Malala. But when you're convinced you're being attacked from the outside, you can ignore that your house is rotting from the inside. Just ask the Republican Party.
Pakistan is having a moment right now. The "I am Malala" movement has made the country stop worrying about YouTube videos and start worrying about the medieval religious lunatics they haven't yet learned to stand up to. So this is a big chance for the United States to really step up... and do absolutely nothing.
Again and again, we forget the lesson that most evil-doers eventually wear out their welcome because they keep doing evil. Shooting a girl in head for saying that she liked school? That's pretty damn evil. Journalists are already comparing Malala to Rosa Parks, though it looks like her personal story might not have a happy ending. Parks didn't have the happiest life ever, but at least she got to take a few victory laps at the front of the bus.
But the key here is for the US to not be here. Image-wise, our military does great when there's an armed government that we can sweep in and liberate the people from, toss out some chewing gum to kids, throw around some cash, and then take a bow and leave. But let us linger and we'll start hammering you with flying robots and pissing on your corpses, and that will distract everyone's attention from the truly evil motherfuckers in their midst.
It's easy to forget what the world looked like before 9/11. Al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan, but the weak and unpopular Taliban government wasn't even in charge of the whole country. Neither was Saddam Hussein in charge of his whole country. He'd also completely given up on the idea of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and now just wanted to look strong so that Iran wouldn't drop the hammer on him. Also, there were no Taliban in Pakistan.
That's not to say we didn't need to knock out Afghanistan's government in 2001. But most of what we've done there since has only served to postpone and distract the majority of people from really focusing on how deeply they hate the kind of people who shot Malala. But when you're convinced you're being attacked from the outside, you can ignore that your house is rotting from the inside. Just ask the Republican Party.
The Gays Have Won
By Bill Maher
In 2004 and 2008, gay issues were front and center in the presidential debates: Are you for gay marriage? Are you for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Is Hillary Clinton a lesbian? You couldn't get away from gay if you tried.
Well, we've now had four debates. Or, if you're a Democrat, three and a half. And no one has mentioned gays. No one is even talking about gay issues. No one is being asked to repeat the tired line "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." And President Obama no longer would.
Something may change, but I think it's fair to say that the gay movement has already won. The issue has come and gone. The numbers are on the side of pro-gay and pro-gay marriage forces. Nothing has happened in states with gay marriage that anyone can point to and say, "See? We were right! Vermont got legal man-on-dog marriage now!"
In fact, it seems gays said, "We're here, we're queer, and most of America got used to it."
In 2004 and 2008, gay issues were front and center in the presidential debates: Are you for gay marriage? Are you for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Is Hillary Clinton a lesbian? You couldn't get away from gay if you tried.
Well, we've now had four debates. Or, if you're a Democrat, three and a half. And no one has mentioned gays. No one is even talking about gay issues. No one is being asked to repeat the tired line "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." And President Obama no longer would.
Something may change, but I think it's fair to say that the gay movement has already won. The issue has come and gone. The numbers are on the side of pro-gay and pro-gay marriage forces. Nothing has happened in states with gay marriage that anyone can point to and say, "See? We were right! Vermont got legal man-on-dog marriage now!"
In fact, it seems gays said, "We're here, we're queer, and most of America got used to it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)