You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2950)

PLAYS: (18586)

SNL spoofs Fox News for their coverage of the Virginia and New Jersey governors’ races and the NY-23 Congressional race. Jason Sudeikis' Glenn Beck impersonation is eerily close to the mark.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (818)

PLAYS: (1077)

From Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol is hoping that people will see the lines for H1N1 vaccines and come to the conclusion that the government can't run anything properly. As Juan Williams points out, that's what happens when you have Republicans who don't believe in government running things and don't want government to work as we saw in George's Bush's complete indifference to the plight of the victims were during Hurricane Katrina. Williams should have also pointed out to him that Republicans managed to make sure FEMA worked pretty well when it benefited them politically in Florida.

As Williams also noted, these are private companies working with the government that failed to deliver the vaccines in the time frame promised. Fox News and much of the rest of the media seem to have a problem deciding on whether to fear monger about whether vaccines are safe or not and people being forced to get them as Jon Stewart pointed out not long ago on The Daily Show and complaining about them not being delivered fast enough. Now we've got Kristol conflating receiving vaccinations to the government being capable of administering health insurance.

Wallace: Bill you’ve never liked the Democratic health care plan in its various iterations and you especially don’t like this version. In fact you say it combines the most unpopular Democratic and Republican proposals in the last generation.

Kristol: Right, it’s got the Medicare cuts that almost doomed the Gingrich revolution in 1995, the Pelosi Medicare cuts dwarf the Gingrich Medicare cuts of 1995 and it’s got tax hikes—the tax hikes which the Clintons and the Democratic Congress passed on a party line vote in 1993 that cost them the Congress in 1994. And Nancy Pelosi has pulled off a great feat; you called it a compromised vote. It’s like a compromise between awful and horrendous you know. She’s combined tax hikes and Medicare cuts in the same bill in a bill that does nothing to improve the average Americans’ health care or to improve the cost of the average Americans’ health insurance. It’s an amazing feat that she’s done and now she’s pushing this bill, this huge government take over of the health care system at the moment when we have an experiment, an ongoing experiment in government health care—the swine flu epidemic—an emergency the president called it.

If you like how the government’s run swine flu with lines and cues and promises that haven’t come through in terms of having the vaccines available—if you like the government’s swine flu program, you’ll love Pelosi-Care.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (842)

PLAYS: (1918)

Sure enough, just as Nicole wondered, Juan Williams was pretty bent out of shape over Warren Ballentine's calling him out -- using black cultural lingo -- for being such a willing supplicant to the "Limbaugh is being oppressed by mean black people" meme currently popular in right-wing circles.

So who does he bring on to buttress his claim that liberals are being bigots? Why, none other than Tammy Bruce and ... the Rev. Ken Hutcherson!

Bruce is bad enough. This is the person who called Michelle Obama "trash" and opined that "President Obama has some malevolence toward this country". She's also suggested that torture is no worse than a bad day in West Hollywood. We also remember her classy tweet on learning of Ted Kennedy's death: "[He] left a woman to drown and now he's left us to drown." In other words, hardly an ideal person to be claiming a lack of civility from the left.

But Hutcherson? That's rich.

Folks outside the Seattle area may not know a lot about Hutcherson, so
they just see him as a black conservative. Which is common enough, especially on Fox. It's more genuine than being a fake liberal like Williams, at least.

But he's also one of the most prominent anti-gay bigots in the state, and for that matter on the West Coast.

This is a man who told his flock that "God hates effeminate men".

He also headed up an initiative to legalize anti-gay discrimination in Washington state. (It went down in flames.)

Of even deeper concern is his heavy involvement in promoting a virulent and violent anti-gay organization called Watchmen on the Walls. This is a global evangelical-Christian outfit that, elsewhere in the world (particularly in Eastern Europe) is associated with violent anti-gay hate crimes.

I reported on a Watchmen gathering in nearby Lynnwood a couple of years ago (photos here). I also remember his sermon very clearly:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2143)

PLAYS: (3358)

I generally don't watch Fox News; it's bad for my blood pressure and health. Further, my husband got tired of me looking for something to throw at the TV. So I leave the Fox viewings to other members of the team. But I happened to be flipping channels and caught this exchange on The O'Reilly Factor and it had me reeling from the Wonderland topsy-turvy nature of it. Dave already discussed this clip a little.) In contemplating Rush Limbaugh being dropped from the group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams. Juan Williams, for whom no conservative can do wrong, predictably defends Limbaugh, saying that all of Rush's statements do not constitute racism, but comedy. Seriously.

But then it took a turn into weirdness:

The Washington Times reports on the entire back-and-forth that continues this afternoon. While discussing “Barack The Magic Negro” song that Rush Limbaugh played, Williams and Ballentine, both African American, disagreed on whether that was “racial”.

Just before the end of the segment, Ballentine said, “You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It’s ok.”

He was almost gleeful while bragging about it on Twitter: “ok howd i do u hear me tell jaun back to the porch lmao” he wrote, among several other comments. Today, he wrote, “You gotta love how now Iam the racist LMAO gotta love the washington post and the GOP.”

The Times also has a clip of his web radio show, and he wasn’t remorseful in any way:

Now if you want to take what I said about Juan Williams as racial, you go right ahead. All I said was he could go back to the porch. I didn’t call him a house negro. I said he could go back to the porch. Now if you took it as such, that means you took it as such.

I think we've gotten to a weird, non-reality-based place when two African-American men on Fox News Channel look at and/or trade racial slurs and then argue they're not racial.

But then again, weirdness and non-reality is par for course for FNC. After all, the media channel that operates as a propaganda arm for the GOP, hires Glenn Beck and keeps him on no matter how embarrassingly stupid and wrong he is and yet fires a liberal commentator for "having a reputation of defending cop-killers and racists"m, apparently for defending Van Jones. Or for example, publishing the results of the internal poll they took of an imagined mano a mano between FNC and the White House.

From the internals of the new Fox poll:

The Obama administration is criticizing FOX News Channel for its coverage of the administration. If the disagreement between the Obama administration and FOX News Channel continues, who do you think will come out on top?

Administration 39%

Fox News 43%

Breaking: Fox finds more think Fox will defeat the White House! I wonder if this will persuade the White House communications team to drop its crusade.

I don't think Fox can even convince themselves they're a credible news organization anymore.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2143)

PLAYS: (3358)

Bill O'Reilly held an extended whinefest on The O'Reilly Factor last night about how poor Rush Limbaugh was the victim of a "witch hunt" by racial political-correctness police. For a bunch of people of pooh-pooh the "victimology" of minorities, it would be hard to find a bigger bunch of crybabies than American right-wingers these days.

Indeed, that's a key part of what's going on here: In addition to Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity later that evening, O'Reilly -- with Juan Williams chiming in with his usual sycophancy, agreeing wholeheartedly that Limbaugh is being victimized by the conservative Republicans who run the NFL -- is basically claiming that blacks and liberals who are bringing up Limbaugh's long history of racially incendiary rhetoric are "waving the bloody shirt" -- "the demagogic practice of politicians referencing the blood of martyrs or heroes to inspire support or avoid criticism."

Watch how O'Reilly and Williams focus on three apparently bogus quotes attributed to Limbaugh -- while ignoring a mountain of genuine quotes that make the point irrevocable: Limbaugh does like to play the race card with divisive and false claims, and he does it with great frequency.

The one sane commentator O'Reilly brings on -- talk-show host Warren Ballentine -- manages to make this point with a handful of counter-examples, but even that is not really representative.

For every three bogus Limbaugh quotes, it's a very simple matter to provide thirty bona-fide comments that are consistent examples of real race-baiting rhetoric from Limbaugh.

But this is an old tactic of American conservatives: Turn their own foul behavior on its head, and accuse those who would hold them accountable for it. That's what "waving the bloody shirt" has always been about, since the phrase was first coined.

Wikipedia again:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1234)

PLAYS: (1400)

I suppose Bill Kristol fancies himself the "grown up" during this argument on Fox News Sunday. While discussing whether President Obama should be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan or not, Juan Williams points out that President Obama already gave Gen. McChrystal 21,000 additional troops this year, and the result has been nothing but increased casualties. Later in the segment Kristol responds.

Wallace: I know there are political pressures but I would like to think that this President—I do think that this President is trying to make the right decision. There is no guarantee if you give McChrystal the 60,000 troops that it’s going to work…(crosstalk) …particularly given the nature of the government that is in control in Afghanistan.

Kristol: Look, what is better about giving him, “giving him”—I like that—why do we have to use that formulation?—The President is sending as many troops as he thinks he should send, as many troops as he thinks best to accomplish the mission—unless he wants to abandon the mission. But he doesn’t want to abandon the mission. What argument… what serious grown up argument is there that sending 15,000 is any better than sending 40,000 troops when the generals, Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Petraeus think 40,000 is what we need to adequately resource the counter-insurgency.

Maybe we shouldn’t send so many bullets either—we shouldn’t send too many vehicles. They’re very expensive. I mean this notion that we’re sending—that we’re going to have more casualties is ridiculous Juan. Short term of course when you engage the enemy you might have more casualties. Ask any soldier or marine over there, “Would you prefer to have 110,000 of you or 70,000 of you?”—that we are stretched too thin. If we’re going to fight, let’s fight the war.

So when are you signing up to go over there Bill? Liz? Both of you ready to suit up and go put your lives on the line over there? I think if you asked those soldiers what they'd rather be doing, most of them would rather be home. Not on their third, fourth and fifth tours of duty.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (988)

PLAYS: (1095)

Gee, who could have seen this one coming? I know, Paul Krugman.

Stimulus arithmetic (wonkish but important):

Bit by bit we’re getting information on the Obama stimulus plan, enough to start making back-of-the-envelope estimates of impact. The bottom line is this: we’re probably looking at a plan that will shave less than 2 percentage points off the average unemployment rate for the next two years, and possibly quite a lot less. This raises real concerns about whether the incoming administration is lowballing its plans in an attempt to get bipartisan consensus.

[....]

I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”

Let’s hope I’ve got this wrong.

Looks like Paul was right. It's not Mitch McConnell but Kristol and Hume are basically saying the same thing. And for the record, since Bill Kristol seems to think that it was a terrible thing for the economy for the minimum wage to be increased, I'd like to see him try to live off of it for a year.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1028)

PLAYS: (1505)

Syndicate columnist Charles Krauthammer appeared on Fox News Sunday with sharp criticism of President Barack Obama speech to the UN General Assembly. "I think he indulged himself in his speech at the General Assembly, which started out as sort of adolescent utopianism and went downhill. He started out saying things like no nation can dominate another. He said no group of nations ought to be above others," said Krauthammer.

"What do our allies think when they hear that and when they hear -- as we saw in the clip -- Obama denigrating his own country and presenting himself as the man who will redeem America from its wickedness and he said those of you who doubt that the character of America should look at what we -- meaning I -- have done in the last eight months, including joining the human rights council act at the U.N. which is a body which we should take no pride in being on. I thought it was a sorry performance. It did not advance our interest in the least," concluded Krauthammer.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1065)

PLAYS: (2013)

A glimpse of reality managed to peek out between the lines of B.S. that largely constituted Bill O'Reilly's weekly conversation with Bernard Goldberg on Tuesday.

Goldberg: I think the guys at the White House, the political guys at the White House, say, 'You know, you have a couple of people here on this network who if their lips are moving, if their lips are moving, they're bashing the president.' And then the entertainment network, as Juan Williams said, the run the 'So You Think You Can Dance' instead of the president's speech to Congress. And I think these guys are saying, 'You want to play like that? You want to play like that, Fox? We can play like that too.' And, and, and --

O'Reilly: Yeah, but that's immature. It hurts them.

Goldberg: I agree. I agree. I agree.

It's nice of O'Reilly to finally acknowledge that the treatment of President Obama by his network is immature. That's probably the kindest description -- after "absurdly biased," "hateful," and "a journalistic travesty" -- one is likely to apply here, but it'll do. Fox's coverage of Obama has been worthy of a network run by eight-year-olds who like to stick out their tongues. (See the latest Time cover for more of that.)

And so perhaps for the White House to respond in kind is equally immature. But O'Reilly's glass palace isn't such a great place from which to throw these particular stones.

And the whining and kvetching. Oy! What a bunch of crybabies these people are.

O'Reilly then lists the Fox anchors who don't bash Obama with every breath (he calls it "giving Obama a fair shot"). It's a short list. Then he asks: "How many fair shots do you need?"

Which sort of begs the question, "Why not all of them?"

Really: Why should anyone have to absorb the barrage of cheap shots that's part and parcel of the Fox treatment for Democrats? Good on Obama for just saying No, at least this time around.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1152)

PLAYS: (3516)

Interviews of President Barack Obama was broadcast on five news outlets Sunday but Fox News was not included. Chris Wallace called the White House "the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with my 30 years in Washington."

The White House responded Saturday. "We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health care reform," Josh Earnest told ABC News.

Earnest indicated that Obama would probably appear on Fox News again. "Not that their whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon," said Earnest.

Chris Wallace continued to criticize the president Sunday. "Every president is thin-skinned, but I wonder whether this administration, this White House, has a particular problem with criticism," he said.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1172)

PLAYS: (4448)

Every once in a while Juan Williams almost gets one right on ClusterFox. While discussing whether the government should be cutting off funds for ACORN, Juan Williams asks Hannity why he's not concerned about the billions of dollars we've been ripped off for by private contractors and our defense department. Of course Hannity has no problem with that since they're "keeping us safe".

HANNITY: And we continue now with our "Great American Panel." Should ACORN lose all federal funds? Juan?

WILLIAMS: Well, yes, if they are guilty of this corruption, yes, they should, you can't have federal money going into a corrupt organization.

Now, I will say this, Sean. Exactly how serious do you think this is? Because the way you play it...

HANNITY: Extreme.

WILLIAMS: ... you would think that this is the basis of all corruption, going to take apart our great country. And you know what? This is miniscule. And most of what ACORN does is help poor people.

HANNITY: Getting tens of millions, getting $8 billion.

WILLIAMS: Forget that. They got about $5 million.

STEWART: The thing is, when you receive that amount of federal dollars or any amount, you should be held accountable. And the face is, whenever the layers are peeled back, the spotlight is put on them. In this case, when it comes to voter fraud, when it comes to using taxpayer money to support campaigns, which they did with the Obama campaign, they should all federal funds...

WILLIAMS: That's not proven. That's not proven.

HANNITY: Obama was a lawyer.

WILLIAMS: That's not -- that's a charge. That's not a fact.

CIANCI: Look, look, ACORN is an association that started back in 1970. It was to empower people. And I'm sure it was started for all the right reasons. Voter registration, helping people get home ownership, finding jobs, raising the minimum wage.

I'm sure the goals are noble, but, unfortunately, as a lot of organizations grow, there's a lot of bad, toxic people who get involved with it. And that's what we have here. The videos speak for themselves. No one made those videos up.

And so does it need to be investigated? Yes. And those congressmen and those senators are not going to stay close to ACORN.

HANNITY: They've gotten over $54 million now.

CIANCI: Over 10 years.

HANNITY: That's our money. On track with the stimulus to get $8.5 billion.

WILLIAMS: But it's not happening. Did you see the vote the other day? It was 80 -- OK, 80...

HANNITY: Because of these two little kids.

WILLIAMS: Eighty-three to seven. So that's Republicans and Democrats. The Census Bureau pulling out.

But I will say something to you. You're a big guy. How come you're not going after people who take billions of dollars? Why don't you go after Blackwater? Why don't you go after the defense industry that rips off our country? You know, these are people...

HANNITY: The industry that keeps us safe.

WILLIAMS: Why don't you go after Wall Street?

HANNITY: Look, how about we go after the corrupt radicals in the Obama administration?

CIANCI: ACORN -- ACORN is an organization that maybe should stay in existence, but not the way it is right now. They shouldn't get a dime.

HANNITY: We only have 30 seconds.

STEWART: They should have zero to do with the census. They should not receive any more funds and have nothing to do with the senses.

WILLIAMS: What about Bernie Madoff and the Wall Street people that do our people...?

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: How about we go after the government that bankrupted Social Security and Medicare? How about we go after the government that bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, and Obama that gave us a promise that we'd have 8 percent unemployment?

WILLIAMS: Why don't we go after George Bush, who gives us prescription drug benefits without paying for it?

HANNITY: I'm against it. I'm against it.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: All right, we've got to run. Now, thank you guys. Great panel. Good to see you all.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1019)

PLAYS: (2240)

I thought it was distasteful enough that Chris Wallace asked Juan Williams to have to explain why Ted Kennedy wasn't given the "Jesse Helms" treatment by the New York Times in their obituaries of the two men, but it also turns out that he was showing NewsBusters a little love as well. I'm glad Media Matters reads NewsBusters, so I don't have to.

Also, I'm sure I won't be the only one that thinks Chris Wallace or anyone at Fox complaining about "media coverage" is laughable on its face.

Wallace: I also want to talk about the "media" coverage of Ted Kennedy's death this week. Not only the amount of it, which was extraordinary, but also the tone of it, and I want to put up the first paragraph of The New York Times obituary on Ted Kennedy's death. This is the first paragraph this week.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a son of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew triumph and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night.

Now, here's the first paragraph of the Times' story on the passing of Jesse Helms last year.

Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday.

Bill Sammon, I'm sure some people will be offended that I'm even making the comparison between these two men, but that is a frightening difference.

Sammon: It is and there are two ways to rectify that double standard. One would have been for the New York Times to find something nice to say about Jesse Helms substantively, other than this mossy drawl. The other, if you're going to go the, and I think that's the preferable way to do it, because you want to, when someone dies, you want to find something nice to say.

The other way if they wanted to be fair would, they would have had to put something in Ted Kennedy's about Chappaquiddick, about his demagoguery Robert Bork, the, you know, lunch-counter America, the back alley abortions, all those kind of things, but they didn't, so either way you do it it's unfair, and that was a striking example.

Wallace: Juan, do you think that there's a striking difference in the way those two men were sent off?

Williams: Well, I think you should be nice to people at the time of their death in general, no matter what their sins, but in fact I think it was good journalism. I think in fact that if you look at the public impact that Jesse Helms had on the country, it was to stand in opposition to civil rights and all the gay rights and all this. If you look at the public impact of Ted Kennedy...

Wallace: But wasn't he for something?

Williams: Yeah! He was for stopping those things and that's what the lead said. I don't have any problem with that and in fact Chappaquiddick has been mentioned prominently throughout this whole period.

Sammon: Not in that lead.

Williams: Not in the lead but in the story. It's not like anybody's hiding Ted Kennedy's flaws. We know them.

Of course, par for the course, it's always alright to politicize a eulogy if you're a Republican. From our own Jon Perr-- Jesse Helms and the Partisan Eulogies of George W. Bush:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (818)

PLAYS: (1374)

Juan Williams while making some very good arguments about why we should not be torturing anyone gets punked by Chris Wallace at the commercial break and plays the "we haven't been attacked since 9-11" card. I guess those anthrax attacks don't count, huh Chris?

Williams: But let me just if I could say quickly, two quick things. One is, in a democracy you don't torture people. It's against the law. We're having this discussion here like oh well, you know if it works, it's okay. No. It's not okay. You don't torture people.

And the second thing is, did it make America safer? No, in fact it led to our reputation in the world being diminished, and people not sending forces to fight with us in Iraq and else where. That doesn't help America.

Wallace: Alright. We have to take a break here, but I just want to point out to the audience that it is purely coincidental that this country has not been attacked again since 9-11.

h/t Think Progress

John Amato:
Here we go. Cheney's new BFF, Chris Wallace does what a good doggie always does for his master. I wrote this yesterday to Cheney, but it applies to the Village apologists as well.

You see, 9/11 doesn't count. Cheney and his ilk make it sound as if America was being attacked every week after 9/11 and once he started torturing they all magically stopped. Why was the US safe from 1993-2001, without using torture or the Patriot act? And the Trade Center bombers were all caught and brought to justice, but using Cheney's method Bin Laden is still free.

Mohammed told America that any plot after 9/11 would be virtually impossible anyway without the medieval methods Cheney adapted.:

Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his "overriding priority" was to strike the United States, but that he "realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures." Most of the plots, as a result, were "opportunistic and limited," according to the summary.

Dick Cheney should never be believed, ever. That's why he goes on FOX every chance he gets.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (82)

PLAYS: (162)

Fox News pundits said President Barack Obama was arrogant and unwilling to apologize for his handling of the arrest of Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. Sunday.

"The president could have said that was a stupid thing for me to say, but he can't say that for some reason. That would be too self-deprecating and he is an arrogant man and he is entitled to pass judgment on cambridge cops," said Bill Kristol.

Brit Hume seems to think that the Gates arrest will be an issue that will concern the next president. "I fear we will have to await the arrival of the next president who can apologize for Barack Obama on this as he so repeatedly does about previous presidents," said Hume.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1061)

PLAYS: (4228)

Boy oh boy, look at all of the patented Frank Luntz-crafted GOP talking points the Fox "Power Panel" (*cough, cough*) can regurgitate to sabotage the public option: It won't work! You're stealing from Grandma and Grandpa! We're taxing HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS to pay for it! We're putting an unfair burden on small business owners! You'll have less choices! Rationed care! Congress will decide what health care services you'll get! Doctors will make less money!

Oy.

The list goes on and on, and even the weakest tea representing the left side of the aisle--Juan Williams--thinks they're bordering on ridiculous:

WILLIAMS: Boy, these are scare tactics we’re hearing this morning.

KRISTOL: But wait a minute.

WILLIAMS: “Oh, we’re going to take away the Medicare people.”

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: “Oh, we’re going to tell you you can’t have a hip replacement.” This is -- this is wild.

But one thing you hear from the White House is if you like your doctor, if you like your insurance plan, you’re going to be able to keep it.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: But then we heard the stimulus is going to work.

LIASSON: That doesn’t mean they’re going to pay for everything that...

WILLIAMS: No.

LIASSON: ... people want. That...

WILLIAMS: It doesn’t mean -- but it -- it certainly does not mean that we have to resort to these scare tactics.

INGRAHAM: Do you think, Juan...

WILLIAMS: The only reason that we hear these scare tactics this morning is because people say, “You know what...”

INGRAHAM: Juan, do you actually think...

WILLIAMS: “... stay with the status quo.” The American people aren’t buying this.

I'll clue you in, Juan. When you have NOTHING to justify your side--because we have the highest per capita spending and the worst outcomes off all Western nations--then all you have to fight what is right, moral and small d democratic is to scare the crap out of people.

Continue reading »