This is a serious question I’m putting out to my readers.  Read this post from Zombie and let me know in the comments which group would you choose.  And yes, I’m making this an “either/or” proposition.  Picking the group you would be “least embarrassed” to be photographed with does not mean you have to accept either groups ideology.  So, if you had to be in either Searchlight or L.A. and attend the rally, where would you go?

Bonus question–do you believe the press covers these these two groups in an equal, “fair and balanced” way?

South Carolina is in the news! 

Now, South Carolina leads the USA in mobile homes per capita.  And that’s just fine and dandy.  But, if this story is any indication, why I gotta believe the old SC is the leader in stripper pole equipped mobile homes as well…

All kidding aside, what was she thinking?

Althouse is on a roll.

“Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

President Obama, March 19, 2010

Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”

NY Times March 29, 2010

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Nancy Pelosi, March 9, 2010

So, now that the Dems and the Press have gotten around to reading this craptastic health care legislation they’ve foisted on the people they are outraged, outraged I say, at, you guessed it, the insurance companies!

“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

Commenter Fortuneate reports walking through the crowd at a Tea Party in D.C. and feeling the angry vibe.

This week, the Party moved to Harry Reid’s hometown of Searchlight, Nevada.

CNN reports “dozens” in attendance.

These are exciting times in my homeland.  Makes me feel like writing a song…

There’s something happening here

What it is ain’t exactly clear

Real people speaking their minds

Got the libs worried about their behinds

And I think it’s time we stop the Dems

What a bunch of clowns 

Come November they’re goin’ down…

(with apologies to Stephen Stills)

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

…also known as the majority of Americans.

Read it and weep.

I don’t think that this should come as a surprise to anyone.  When corporations are faced with increased costs, they tend to raise prices or reduce expenses.  Or both.  So, I’m guessing that not only will current employees and retirees be losing prescription drug benefits, AT&T won’t be doing much new hiring in the short term either.

Is this the change we were hoping for?

AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.

The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.

AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.

AT&T rival Verizon Communications Inc. was among 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning that their costs would increase with the health care changes. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis said the company had no comment.

Also on Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said they are asking the CEOs of Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere and others to testify at an April 21 House subcommittee hearing on claims that the health care law could hurt their ability to provide health insurance to workers.

Yo, Waxman and Stupak!  Here’s a clue for ya–maybe you should have had those hearings BEFORE passing this destructive law.

Me, I don’t find the word (or the body part) dirty or otherwise offensive.

Back home in the USA the television networks have forbidden use of the word “vagina”.  This ad substituted “down there” for vagina, and was still turned down by two networks.  Give it a watch, I thought it was funny to see the Kotex folks mocking the industry advertising euphemisms for “feminine hygiene products”.

More info on the controversy here, and I loved this quote:

That provoked Amanda Hess, author of The Sexist blog, to observe: “Now, the commercial contains no direct references to female genitalia – you know, the place where the fucking tampon goes.”

Not sure if this banning is sexism or not.  I remember some of those Viagra ads which were chock full of double entendres about sustaining a woody.  But I think it’s probably more about prudish attitudes.  After all, if we start talking about vagina’s on TV,  the whole moral foundation of great nation is at risk.  Or something.

By the way, if anything, Korean ads for “sanitary products” are even more subdued.

…Arguing that a few raisins managed to make it through the Congressional intestinal tract doesn’t make us any happier about having to eat it.” 

Wish I’d said that.

It boggles the mind.  Truly.