Have you seen them? They are kinda repulsive and weird. And her whole “I forgot I wasn’t wearing pants” excuse falls on very, very deaf ears.

Bottom line: I admit they creep me out, but it is Meghan McCain who’s calling her out…..

The Meghan McCain who posted this picture on her twitter page in October.

The Meghan McCain who titled her upcoming book “Dirty, Sexy, Politics: A True Story“.

Good thing Meghan only said it was “possibly the most tasteless thing” she’d ever seen. Absolute statements are soooo damning.

Sorry Andy Warhol for bringing you into this–backwards. And oh yeah, sorry to Rielle’s daughter Quinn who is in for a lifetime of hurt.

Noted off screen tough guy (who’s still two full inches shorter than my ex-girlfriend… just sayin’) and frequent beneficiary of the First Amendment, not only wants you to die of rectal cancer when you’re mean to him, but now he wants critics of his buddy Hugo Chavez imprisoned if they step out of line.

Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media, who should — truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.

I think I should be allowed to punch aging, big mouthed midgets in the face when they annoy me (which is often), but I’m not so sure Sean would agree with that.

Maybe Mr. Penn should by himself a dictionary and look up just two words.

First word? Irony. He lives in a country that has a First Amendment that allows fellow diminutive “comedian” Bill Maher his own talk show (where this bout of verbal diarrhea made it’s appearance), so he can speak freely and say anything he wants without fear of being imprisoned, or shot.

And B, hypocrite.  I don’t know where I was going with this. I lost my place, and I figured I’d make people happy by throwing that word in there.

I can’t imagine what it would be like to be on set with this guy when he’s starring in a Clint Eastwood movie. It has to be awesome though. It must be like the time my grandfather was getting annoyed with the raccoons tearing up his garbage. After a few weeks the raccoon ends up in a little cage — my grandfather standing over it with a ludicrously over sized pistol in his hand, while a good looking guy with tears in his eyes tries to convince my grandfather to let him turn him loose in the woods…

What? I get hay fever.

But of course since he’s such a kind person,  and really, really cares about others, he takes it all in stride, and brushes off such comments like the adult that he is because he’s above all that.

Oh wait. No he doesn’t.

“Do I hope that those people die screaming of rectal cancer? Yeah,” he says.  “But I’m not going to spend a lot of energy on it.”

Yikes.  I’ve been known to be unkind to my fellow man once in a while, (no really!) But I wonder how Farrah Fawcett’s family reacted to that little crack. (No, that wasn’t a pun.) And would it then be hypocritical of me to wish a massive earthquake on Southern California that would destroy whatever area he lives in?

If it is, just send a tip into to Deceiver. I’ll write about it! And I’m just waiting to rip me a new one.

Equating the two is like comparing apples to oranges, dogs to cats, horses to, uh, donkeys. Wait, those two things are kind of similar. Oops!

On Fox News Sunday, Romney told host Chris Wallace that the difference between his plan and Obama’s is like:

. . . the difference between a racehorse and a donkey, if you will, so — they both have four legs, but one works pretty well and the other’s not working and would not work at all.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that this analogy is totally bass-ackwards (so to speak) — since, last time I checked, donkeys are far better suited to working than their speedy, spindly-legged cousins — the two things being compared are really not all that dissimilar. Kind of like Romneycare and Obamacare. Huh, imagine that.

But according to Romney, the two plans are really (he swears) totally different because one is a state plan, and the other is federal. As Romney explained to Wallace:

A big difference — a state plan versus a federal plan. No new taxes, unlike his plan. No cut in Medicare, unlike his plan. And no controls over insurance premiums, price controls, cost controls like his plan. So very, very different in that regard.

Let me explain a little something about our government here, Mittens. Governors work at the state level, and presidents at the federal level. So yeah, that would be one big difference between the two plans. A ridiculously obvious one, but a difference nevertheless.

Of course, Obama could just leave it up to the states to handle their own business (after all, as Romney points out in the interview, “this is a federalist nation”). And he could also make them finance their own health care reforms instead of giving them access to federal funds. But that might, you know, make it harder for governors to claim that they single-handedly “fixed” heath care without having to raise taxes or cut Medicare.

Again, from Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: The libertarian, and certainly the somewhat conservative, Cato Institute says that your plan in Massachusetts is a mirror — a mirror plan of “Obama- care.” They say it’s quite right you didn’t raise taxes, but they say, in fact, you got millions of dollars from the federal government to finance your plan.

ROMNEY: Well, what we have is a plan which is paid for half by the state and half by the federal government. The cost is about 1.5 percent of the state budget.

And the federal dollars we received were federal dollars that we were entitled to through a program called DISH, the disproportionate share program. Federal funds had been applied to Massachusetts, just like to other states, for the care of those that were uninsured.

We said, “Let’s take that money that’s been going to hospitals that are caring for the uninsured and instead help people buy their own private insurance.” No government insurance. No government option, if you will.

WALLACE: Well, there’s no…

ROMNEY: Private health insurance.

WALLACE: … government option in the Obama plan anymore, either.

ROMNEY: No, that’s right. That’s right. And so what we did was entirely different than what President Obama is proposing on the bases that I’m taking you through.

So, let me get this straight. Aside from the individual and employer mandates, the subsidies for people who can’t afford to buy insurance, and the minimum standards for coverage, Romney’s plan was completely different from Obama’s because

1. it didn’t involve new taxes (thanks to millions of federal dollars), and
2. it didn’t put any limits or price controls on insurance premiums (which would explain why, according to the Wall Street Journal, average Massachusetts health care premiums are now the highest in the nation).

Yeeah. Is it just me, or would those also qualify, in retrospect, as two ways Romney’s reform failed?

While the Massachusetts plan has succeeded in insuring nearly everyone in the state, health care now costs more than it did pre-reform — in fact, the amount the state spent on health care has increased 42% since 2006. And, as I mentioned before, thanks to a lack of insurance price controls, it now costs more to be insured in Massachusetts than in any other state in the union. Are these really things to brag about?

Now, I understand why it would be a good move for Romney to distance himself from the wildly unpopular and equally flawed reform bill the Prez keeps trying to cram down Congress’s (and the American public’s) throat — especially if he’s going to make a bid for the presidency in 2012. So I get it.

But claiming that the two plans have absolutely nothing in common? Sorry, Mitt, but that horse (or was that donkey?) won’t run.

In 2006, when D.C. banned smoking in bars and restaurants, Evans lent his voice and his vote in support of the measure. “D.C. is one step closer to becoming smoke free,” he published in his weekly newsletter at the time.

Yet on St. Patrick’s Day 2010, he’s trying to give his buddies a chance to smoke cigars at two charity events near and dear to Evans’s wallet heart:

Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) has asked his council colleagues to keep tradition alive for the all-male Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick and another organization, Fight for Children, which hosts an annual smoke-filled professional boxing fundraiser.

Evans, who is a member of the Irish organization, said the measure was narrowly crafted, making an exception for only two nights a year and protecting workers by allowing venue employees to opt out of working the events.

But the rules are the rules, entirely because people like Evans voted to make them law. How do you like them apples?

H/T: Jacob Grier

I guess I can’t really blame you for signing on for the new season of Celebrity Apprentice. I mean, even corrupt and disgraced ex-governors have bills to pay.

But bringing home the bacon by booking speaking engagements on the subject of Ethics in Politics?

Even presuming that big-hair Blago is innocent of all 24 counts of corruption for which he’ll face trial this summer — a list that includes (but is not limited to) racketeering, wire fraud, extortion, and making false statements to federal agents — he’s still a far cry from George Washington.

So you have to wonder what possessed Northwestern University to invite Blagojevich to participate in a panel discussion on morals and ethics last Tuesday. Perhaps the college comedy troupe was out of town and the students just needed a good laugh?

I’d say that you also have to wonder why Blago even agreed to the gig — I mean, he has to know how ridiculous it looks — but that one’s pretty easy to figure. After all, we’re talking about the man who tried to auction off a U.S. senate seat here. Ethics and absurd irony be damned, Rod just wants to make him some money.

And exactly how much money did the Northwestern College Democrats pay Blago for his expert address?

Sadly, we may never know. But it sure would make for one hell of a good Master Card commercial:

Booking the corrupt politician poster-boy to speak at your university’s panel discussion on ethics? An undisclosed sum.

Blago’s reported opening remarks? Priceless.

Many of you must think it’s kind of ironic that I would agree and accept an opportunity to come here and talk to you about ethics in government. [Ed. Nawwww.] For all the courage and testicular virility [Ed. WTF?] you think you have, if I did the things they said I did, and I did wrong things like they want you to believe I did, I would be nowhere near this event.

Unless, of course, you can throw in a extra couple thousand…

Sources tell CBS13 a state senator from Southern California was arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning.

The California Highway Patrol pulled over Senator Roy Ashburn at 2:00 a.m. Wednesday after an officer noticed a black Chevy Tahoe swerving at 13th and L Streets.

Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties with a history of opposing gay rights. …

A male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

You know where this is going.

Sen. Ashburn has repeatedly voted against marriage or even civil-union rights for same-sex couples during his eight years in the state senate. As he responded to a 2004 Project Vote Smart survey:

j) Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions?

Sen. Ashburn: No

k) Should marriage be restricted to a union only between a man and a woman?

Sen. Ashburn: Yes

And his voting record? In the last year or so, he has voted “nay” against instituting a Harvey Milk Day (which passed), against recognizing out-of-state marriages between gay couples (which passed), and against anti-discrimination laws that govern coverage for gay people under insurance policies and government services (which passed).

Looks like the cat is out of the closet now, though.

Hat tip: PoliticalWire.com

The first contender? A Schincariol beer ad starring Paris Hilton slutting it up that has been criticized by the Brazilian government:

It’s confirmed: Paris Hilton is too hot for Brazil.

A sultry beer ad featuring the socialite has been pulled after consumer complaints and a watchdog agency’s investigation.

The television and Internet ad featured Hilton in a short black dress preening and rubbing a can of Devassa beer on herself, all to the delight of onlookers watching through her window.

Brewer Schincariol said in a statement Tuesday it will defend the commercial, but is pulling it in the meantime.

An ad watchdog group, Conar, asked last week that the ad be removed, noting that regulations don’t permit a beer commercial to treat women as overtly sensual objects. Brazil’s Secretariat for Women’s Affairs also said it had received complaints about the ad.

Color me surprised how the land that inspired the Brazilian wax is suddenly not comfortable with ads that treat women in a sexual manner. Little girls, on the other hand…

Click here to view the embedded video.

Yes, that’s a eight-year-old girl gyrating to Lady Gaga sans pants on a Brazilian television talent show. And not even a woof from the watchdogs?

I mean, at least you expect it from Paris.

Uh-huh.

According to CNN:

Rep. Charlie Rangel temporarily stepped down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, a decision forced by a growing storm of ethics controversies threatening the veteran congressman. [...]

The night before Rangel said he had no plans to step aside from his powerful post. The Ways and Means Committee is responsible for drafting the nation’s tax policies.

Rangel is being investigated for, among other things, failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic. The congressman also has admitted failing to report several hundred thousand dollars in assets on federal disclosure forms. In addition, he is under scrutiny for the purported misuse of a rent-controlled apartment for political purposes, as well as for allegedly preserving tax benefits for an oil-drilling company in exchange for donations to a project he supported at the City College of New York.

The list goes on and on.

The venerable source of all that is true (Wikipedia) has 2,400 words on Rangel’s “ethics investigations and tax controversies.” After the first 10 suspicious  incidents, maybe someone should have said, “Y’know, we should take him off the Ways and Means committee, since it sets the nation’s tax policies — and Rangel clearly has a problem paying his taxes.”

The investigation has been going on for 18 months, but Rangel didn’t just wake up today with a clean conscious and decide to step down. According to CNN:

House Republicans plan to introduce a resolution Wednesday calling on Rangel to permanently step down and again force House Democrats to go on record defending him.

If the Dems did that, they’d be on the hook in this fall. Vulnerable Democrats defending a guy who proposes tax policy but can’t seem to pay his own bills? It doesn’t fly well with the salt-of-the-earth and the good ol’ boys and… American voters.

Irony? When Rangel campaigned for office in 1970, he beat Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., who misappropriated funds from a committee he was serving on, and took trips at the taxpayer’s expense. Powell was stripped of his committee membership, and Rangel seized on all the scandals (and more) in order to win the election.

Forty years later, the man in the same seat keeps four rent-controlled apartments in New York City, kept his old vintage (unregistered) Mercedes-Benz in the Congressional parking facility for storage, doesn’t pay all his taxes, and forgets to report things ….like assets.

PS. Capitol police towed the car. [See image HERE]

In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama supported changes to the PATRIOT Act that would have put telecommunications companies in the line of fire. Mainly, he railed against the whole wiretapping thing. In a speech before the The Woodrow Wilson Center On Terrorism in August 2007, Obama said:

That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens … no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are, and it’s not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists.

Anyway, wiretapping tapped a nerve in the American people. Some loved Obama’s guts and panache. The anthrax-killer loved it too.  Remember the white-powder-will-never-mean-the-same-thing-again guy?

According to The Smoking Gun:

After the Department of Justice last month formally closed its probe of the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI released the first batch of documents detailing the years-long investigation that ended with officials concluding that Bruce Ivins, a government scientist who committed suicide in July 2008, was responsible for the mailings that killed five victims.[...]In a July 2008 e-mail, Ivins wrote that “Dick Cheney scares me. The Patriot Act is so unconstitutional it’s not even funny.” He added, “I’m voting for Obama!”

And yet Obama signed a one-year extension of the PATRIOT Act last week, leaving in key provisions he had earlier opposed. Guess which ones?If you said “wiretapping,” give yourself a big wet, sloppy kiss. So the PATRIOT Act still empowers our dear leaders to:

–Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones [and]

–Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Lone Wolves.  I guess the message is  that if you need your white powder, don’t talk about it on the phone ‘cuz you-know-who will be listening in. And the takeaway from Obama’s newfound affection for the grand art of espionage? It’s mighty convenient that the Republicans did all the heavy lifting and Dick Cheney took all that flack. All Barry had to do was “extend” it.

Image courtesy of millions of people who find those who wear the shirt irresistible. And The Mountain Corporation.