Matador 6, Bull 1; but the one is a doozy

This is renowned matador Julio Aparicio, who is in critical condition in a Madrid hospital because, well, the 'because' should be obvious.

While I hope the matador ends up being OK, I can't say I feel bad for him. These things happen when you're trying to take the life of an animal several times larger than yourself.

Palin endorses anti-government Tea Partier who took $270K in subsidies

Seattle Times

A former NFL player turned farmer, (Clint) Didier has repeatedly called the federal government "a predator." He vows to oppose the "Marxist utopia" he says Democrats want to create -- "where everyone is taken care of from womb to tomb."

But Didier himself has cashed in on one big government aid program. He has received nearly $273,000 in federal farm subsidies since 1995, according to a database of U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidies maintained by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

On her Twitter account, Sarah Palin described Didier as a "patriot running for U.S. Senate to serve his state & our country for all the right reasons!" She didn't mention his farming subsidies.

Ah, logic.

The Tea Party might want to reconsider the Rand Paul/Libertarian affiliation

With Rand Paul repeatedly making the statement that the federal government overreached with the Civil Rights Act in preventing private businesses from discriminating, the Tea Party might want to reconsider their fervent embrace of him.

On first blush, this reactionary racist stuff seems to be right in their wheelhouse. As usual, they haven't thought this through. If the federal government, as their argument goes, does not have the power to be legislating the private choices of Americans, it opens the door to a lot of things that social conservatives find abhorrent.

For example, if the government can't (in the words of the Tea Party) regulate private choices, then the Tea party must immediately drop all opposition to abortion and gay marriage, both of which are private choices.

The Tea Party has never been known for it's logical conclusions, but they cannot have it both ways. Either the federal government ought to have the power to regulate private choice, or it shouldn't.

Please be clear, I'm not saying that the federal government should regulate private choices at every level. I am saying that they ought to have the ability to regulate to stop discrimination of any minority - be it blacks at lunch counters or white grandmas in wheelchairs.

Agree or disagree, at least my conclusion is logical in it's conclusion.

Rand Paul defends the right of private businesses to discriminate

Republican Kentucky Senatorial nominee Rand Paul was on The Rachel Maddow Show last night and was asked what seemed to be an easy opening question: "Do you support the 1964 Civil Rights Act?". What followed was a near 20-minute fiasco for Dr. Paul, where he turned what should have been a simple "yes" into an exhibition in deflection.

Take the following phrases and mix-and-match them, preceed each with "What's interesting is..." (apparently his tell for when he's trapped by his own conflicting views) and you have almost the whole content of the interview:

"I deplore discrimination in any form"
"I would never belong to a club that discriminates"
"I think the parts of the Civil Rights Act that eliminated institutional discrimination were correct"
"But..."

The "but..." part was his non-answering answer to his statement that he opposes the part of the Civil Rights Act that desegregated private businesses, such as restaurants. He continually equivocated, trying to draw a line between forcing a business to cater to all customers and taking away that businesses ability to exclude people with weapons. (Huh??)

He would never directly answer and admit that he believes that private businesses should have the right to discriminate, though everytihng out of his mouth says that's what he believes. I'm not sure what's more shameful, his belief or that he won't man up and admit it.

Dr. Paul also doesn't see the disconnect between the idea that, as he says "racism is morally wrong" and his extreme limited-government approach which might acknowledge racism as wrong but would render the government powerless to do anytihng about it. In essence, 'I don't like racism but I don't think the government should do anything about it.'

Rand Paul is looking less and less like a viable candidate. If this is the type of person Kentucky (and the GOP, and the Tea Party, and Fox News) wants in the Senate, then we have to strongly reconsider the state of our nation.

I'll warn you about watching the video - it's excruciating.

Updated Dale Peterson commercial

Referencing this:

"I'll shoot you right in the goddamned head"

We're Better Than That, Too!!!! w/ Dale Peterson - watch more funny videos

Republicans spit in Tea Party faces by supporting the worst bank practices

Cesca

Last night, the Republicans were blocking a variety of reforms meant to curb some of the most ridiculous bank practices. Here's the rundown from Ryan Grim:

Tom Harkin was stifled in his effort Tuesday evening to bring a measure to the Senate floor that would cap ATM fees at 50 cents.

Blocked by Republicans.

...one of the most talked-about amendments, cosponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Levin-Merkley would ban commercial banks from trading for their own benefit with taxpayer-backed money.

Blocked by Republicans.

...an amendment from Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) that would rein in predatory practices of payday lenders and one from Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) that would have banned naked credit default swaps, which were at the heart of the financial crisis.

Blocked by Republicans.

Hey wingnuts and teabaggers, this is your party. Next time you go the ATM and have to pay $2.50 just to access your own money, thank your party leaders in the Senate. And when banks continue to gamble with taxpayer money and then demand bailouts when they fail, thank your party leaders in the Senate. The Republican Party is engaged in backdoor bailouts of the banks. And you want to elect more of them?

Q: What do athiests believe happens to us when we die? A: What a silly question.

Andrew Sullivan weighs in on the subject of atheism and the question of "What Have Atheists Lost?" and in particular, the question of "What do athiests believe happens to us when we die?".

The entirety of the argument can be followed in Sullivan's links, but frankly, the argument doesn't interest me. I believe what I believe and I feel no need to defend it.

However, there always seems to be the need to explain it to my friends who have faith, and those who question their faith and who love me and want to know about me. 'Why are you content with the idea that there is no God? Aren't you afraid'"

I'll examine this more as I get a chance to commit it to writing, but this reader comment to Sullivan's piece moved me to share now, because it comes as close as anything to explaining what I believe, and more importantly, how it doesn't distress me to believe it.

I have always felt that when I die, I am dead and gone, my conscious life will end, my interactions with others will end, and I will be simply GONE. I don't know what causes consciousness (call it spirit, call it soul, I don't mean to pick sides with my words), but I expect that it will end. My afterlife will be in the memories of those I knew, those who loved me, those who carry me on in their hearts. I, myself, cease to exist.

This gives me a beautiful, shockingly beautiful sense of the Now. Being in the present, the here and now, is the ultimate reward of life. I am constantly gobsmacked by the minutiae of life; I stand in awe of the things around me right fucking now. There's no reward, no judgment, no heaven, no hell. I live right fucking now.

And this, referring to Kevin Drum, author of the original piece.

"I wonder what Kevin thinks happens to him when he dies?"

I think the fact that you have to ask this question at all says a lot about how the fear of death is inextricably tied to a belief in higher powers in the minds of theists. To one such as I, who shares Kevin's views, the answer is rather obvious and intuitive. Nothing is going to happen to him when he dies, because there won't be a 'him' for anything to happen to.

As for your follow up question- "And how does he feel about that - not just emotionally but existentially?"- I can only speak for myself, but again, the fact that you feel the need to ask this question says a lot about the source of your faith. Forgive me if this sounds overly judgmental, but to me terms like "faith" and "spirituality" are just shorthand for an individual's inability to cope with the concept of oblivion. Why must one feel anything particular about it in the first place? I am. One day, I will not be. This doesn't bother me and I don't understand the need to waste the precious gift of sentience agonizing about such things.

I recognize that some people can't shrug off the idea of not existing in some form. Take my husband for instance. He has an overdeveloped fear of oblivion but can't bring himself to believe in fairy tales. He takes comfort in philosophy. In the words of (probably) Marcus Aurelius:

‘Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.’

Or, to quote Vonnegut: "So it goes".

Fear my take-no-prisoners penis gun or I'll kick yer ass, dummy

Cesca

A Republican shit-kicker named Dale Peterson is running for Alabama Agricultural Commissioner. In this hilariously and unintentionally self-satirical campaign ad, he literally brandishes his penis a firearm.

"Take no prisoners" while waving around a rifle. Not violent or incendiary. Not at all.

Yep. The Republicans can't stop playing dress up. Between the cowboy drag and the flight suits, the GOP is nearing Village People status.

Adding.... is that the Blazing Saddles theme playing in the background?

Glenn Beck's Future of the Party: young, white dorks on parade

Glenn Beck had a studio full of young conservatives a few weeks ago, and I snapped these while the camera panned the audience.

This is what they WISHED America looked like. This is the opposite of diversity.

Dorks. It's the white people version of the famous Animal House scene where Neidermeyer drops off Flounder and and Larry in the basement with the losers: "Ken, Lonny, l'd like you to meet... Mohammet... Jugdish, Sidney and Clayton. Grab a seat and make yourselves at home. Don't be shy about helping yourselves to punch and cookies."

Alabama ad blasts candidate for learnin' an' science an' not enough a' the God-fearin'

An Alabama commercial is being run accusing Bradley Byrne of some pretty horrible stuff. How do we know it's horrible? The dubious and questioning redneck voice over let's us know, goldangit.

"[Byrne] said evolution (dubious rising voice) best explained the origin of life (questionmarkquestionmark, coupled with a knowing chuckle at this tards support of science). He even said (reverently) the Bible is only (holy shit this guy is screwed voice) partially true."

Eeeewwwww..... That's disgusting

....oh, you meant personality-wise. Oh.....

Sorry.

GOP senators in favor of allowing no-fly listers to buy guns; NRA member only believes what Fox News tells him

Two GOP senators are more concerned with gun rights than terrorism, to the point where they oppose preventing people on the government's terror-watch no-fly list from buying guns.

Huff Post

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's appeal to what he called "common sense" at a congressional hearing Wednesday morning failed to sway two Republican senators who said that giving the government the ability to block the purchase of guns by suspected terrorists would undermine the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

"Shouldn't FBI agents have the authority to block sales of guns and explosives to those on the terror watchlists -- and deemed too dangerous to fly? I actually believe that they should," Bloomberg told senators.

"This common-sense legislation is not anti-gun -- it's anti-terrorist," chimed in Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the sponsor of a bill that would close what Bloomberg has called a "terror gap."

But GOP Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina wouldn't go along.

Admitting that "at first blush" the bill "seems to be an obvious step that we should take," Collins said that many people on the FBI's watchlist don't belong there. "None of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun, but neither should we want to infringe upon a Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans," she said.

Graham described the bill as an instrument of those who would ban guns altogether. "We're talking about a constitutional right here," he said, explaining that he could not support a bill that would force "innocent Americans" to "pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back."

Graham wasn't nearly as concerned about rights when he launched into a disquisition on the treatment of American citizens accused of terrorism. "I am all into national security," he said. "I want them to stop reading these guys Miranda rights."

That's some good thinkin' there, hoss. Fortunately, as Think Progress reports, the average NRA gun owner doesn't agree.

There is however, this beauty of an interview with one NRA member which pretty much crystallizes everything:

Notably, one NRA member found news of the “terror gap” so incredulous that he did not believe the fact that potential terrorists are allowed to purchase firearms. He called news of the GAO report “false information,” and when ThinkProgress tried to show him a Washington Post article reporting it, he remained unconvinced:

NRA MEMBER: The Washington Post, I think that’s part of like the Communist News Broadcasting and everything. … The Washington Post lies on everything. … I don’t know how I can believe the Post. You need to find better facts than the Washington Post. … I wouldn’t believe a word I read in the Washington Post. It’s one of the worst papers in the whole country, from what I’ve heard.

TP: Oh, then which newspaper would you believe?

NRA MEMBER: Which newspaper? I don’t know I would stick to Fox News over everything.

BP to scientists asking to study spill: "The answer is no to that”

New York Times

BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well.

“The answer is no to that,” a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. “We’re not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It’s not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort.”

The undersea plumes may go a long way toward explaining the discrepancy between the flow estimates, suggesting that much of the oil emerging from the well could be lingering far below the sea surface.

This will come back to you BP. This will not be forgotten.