mycatharsis.com

Some ignorant fool hosting the Laura Ingraham show tonight was mocking the administration for the FDA's decision to more closely regulate acetaminophen. Maybe it was Ingraham hosting, the host was stupid enough but the voice sounded different.

What's so patently offensive is her complete ignorance about the effects of acetaminophen, saying you 'might go to the emergency room' if you take too much. You might DIE if you take too much, moron. And 'too much' is a lot less than you'd think. The FDA's decision only makes sense with the proven damage it can do. And to mock that idea while being just completely wrong, and arrogant (calling our president Urkel), ugh is all I can say.

Go away. This willing embrace of ignorance has already destroyed the Republican Party. Try just a little damn research before spewing your bile, could you? From the wikipedia page on acetaminophen toxicity ...

The third phase follows at 3 to 5 days, and is marked by complications of massive hepatic necrosis leading to fulminant hepatic failure with complications of coagulation defects, hypoglycemia, kidney failure, hepatic encephalopathy, cerebral edema, sepsis, multiple organ failure, and death.[8] If the third phase is survived, the hepatic necrosis runs its course, and liver and kidney function typically return to normal in a few weeks.[13] The severity of paracetamol toxicity varies depending on the dose and whether appropriate treatment is received.

I'm really curious what the administration's rationale is, cause I sure don't agree with it on it's face. It seems the Honduran President really tried to take the first step to making himself a dictator, as Chavez tried, and failed at, a few years back. His resolution was declared unconstitutional by their Congress, Supreme Court, Attorney General, and was unpopular with the people, at least according to his Wikipedia article. Their military committed a bloodless coup, and their constitutional order of succession was apparently followed. That the two rulers most upset by his ouster are Castro and Chavez also says something, I'd think.
Whatever the reason is, I hope it's for the best for the Honduran people. My first thought about what I wish Obama would do, after very much reconsidering my views after Iraq, is that it's in our best interests to do nothing, and let the Honduran people choose their path. But I can see the logic in cautiously respecting the coup much more than I can defending a President who everyone had ruled was committing unconstitutional actions.

Listening to the Fred Thompson show via Wunderradio, an awesome iPhone app actually worth the $7, and they're not only calling Obama soft for not coming out stronger on the demonstrations, but they're actually saying he tried to prop up the current regime!

They either 1) know this isn't true and are trying to use an international crisis to score political points, or 2) don't understand that the best way to defuse the demonstrations is to make it appear that the U.S. is encouraging them and sponsoring them. If it's 1), their behavior is reprehensible in putting their own self-interests ahead of what's good for the country. If it's 2), it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in foreign policy and our relationship with Iran.

Clearly our hearts are with those seeking freedom and justice. But Obama's got exactly the right tone on this. Did conservatives not notice Khameini's speech and his attempt to claim the demonstrators were encouraged by foreign interference? That claim doesn't hold water and is easy to refute, due to Obama's CONSERVATIVE and cautious approach. I could be wrong, but I honestly think Bush (second term W, not first) would be handling this in a similar way if he were still President ...

Our President announces a new goal of consumer and financial reforms, including a new consumer financial protection agency. A great address, this is one of the big reasons I voted for him, he definitely seems like a free market guy, much moreso than Democrats of recent memory (President Clinton was another, and I think it's no coincidence he was elected President as well) but he also is clear headed enough to see things as they are, not how they theoretically should be. He sees the free market is badly broken and has been making money not by innovative products, but rather by innovating new ways to manipulate the consumer. Credit cards are the most obvious and egregious example, but it's really everywhere.

Yes, the rhetoric from some on the right towards President Obama is petty, in bad taste, with the worst possible timing, and even scary. But it's hard to forget that the left called our last president, illegitimate, unelected, not 'our' president, the world's greatest terrorist, and even a murderer! Compared in that light, are what the conservatives saying so far really to that level?

Link: http://newsok.com/u.s.-sen.-inhofe-calls-obama-speech-un-american/article/3375137?custom_click=lead_story_title

I really have to wonder just what the hell the right is thinking these days. Actually I guess I know exactly what they're thinking, I just can't understand the why of it. Ok, maybe I understand the why of their continual purge of 'non-believers', I guess the logic is what I don't get. They just don't seem to care about winning or gaining voters. They're not willing to moderate their political views, and seem completely unconcerned with working to gain new voters, despite their drubbing at the polls the last 3 years. Rather they seem to see those elections as some kind of fluke and are willing to wait it out for the rest of the country to 'regain its senses' and return to the GOP.

I thought the GOP might finally be getting a bit of a foothold on the common sense thing, with both Michael Steele and Jeff Sessions, as well as Mitch McConnell, simply promising a 'fair' hearing for Sonia Sotomayor and rejecting the poorly thought out and clearly politically motivated charges of racism leveled against her by unelected unaccountables like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

But the ground gained by these moderation of views seems to be lost when an elected Senator like James Inhofe questions the patriotism of our own president!

Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo was "un-American" because he referred to the war in Iraq as "a war of choice" and didn't criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.
Featured Gallery

...

"I just don't know whose side he's on,'' Inhofe said of the president.

These are the kind of statements that people who don't even agree with Obama on most things, myself included, see as just repulsive.

With Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails, and statements like Inhofes continually coming from conservative mouths, I'm doing something I never thought I'd do in my younger years, questioning the patriotism of the right and the GOP. When I started this blog I questioned the patriotism of those who wanted America to fail in Iraq, largely people on the left. Now it's the right who cares more about their own political fortune than what's best for the country, and it's really shameful to watch. I feel for people like Michael Steele who seem to realize that you can't win elections without votes, and you can't have a lot of votes without a big tent to hold them.

Link: http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservative-radio-hosts-waterboarded/

You sure don't want them to run things, but they can sure be entertaining. Conservative radio host Mancow allows himself to be waterboarded, lasts all of six seconds, and admits that yes, it's most certainly torture.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow told listeners. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"Absolutely. I mean that's drowning," he added later. "It is the feeling of drowning."

"If I knew it was gonna be this bad, I would not have done it," he said.

I think I'll have to accept this as a consolation prize as Sean Hannity looks ever more unlikely to keep his own promise to do it for charity (and the schadenfreudish delight of millions, of all political stripes).

the current unemployment rate, and the "more adverse" maximum projection for 2009 under the just released bank stress tests ...

so I was listening to Rush today, or actually a guest host in his place. The host was taking the stand you hear so often nowadays from the right, namely that the last thing the GOP should do is moderate it's stance on any issues. and specifically making the point that they should not 'get latinos to like us' by softening their stand on illegal immigration. even worse, he said the GOP should NOT be listening to the voters! apparently talking down to voters is the ticket to winning their votes?

the argument that the Republicans should 'stand on principle' implies that they should choose their principles at the cost of something else. in this case, that something else is power. it's a bit of a foot stomping tantrum on the part of a host that does not seem to have come to grips yet with this new lot in life.

by standing on principle, they doom their own principles to irrelevance. and by refusing to listen to the voters who turned against them over the last 5 years, they pretty much guarantee that they will not pull their head out of the sand.

talk show hosts don't win listeners by being wishy-washy. but politicians (ok, most of them) don't win votes or enact legislation by being pig-headed idiots who think they know it all.

Pat Buchanan makes a compelling case that it's not as cut and dry as both sides would have you believe. I still lean more towards the 'it is wrong' side, that the 'ticking time bomb' scenario is a big red herring, a hypothetical situation that never happens, and certainly hasn't yet, except on '24', of course. But Buchanan makes a hard to refute case that there are times that inflicting severe pain, and even killing, is occasionally the right thing to do. It's a very thoughtful and interesting read.

Buchanan, I believe, gets a bum rap from the left. The allegations they make against him are scandalous and seeing a sexist clown like Chris Mathews ripping on Buchanan, as he often does, for being intolerant is the height of hypocrisy in my book. Buchanan's views are certainly not progressive, and I disagree with him on a lot (immigration being one key issue) but they are almost always well thought out and well considered.