Over time though, you’ve really taken a dive. As land lines moved to cell phones and VHS gave way to DVD, you went from graceful ribbon to prosaic car magnet, banished forever to truck stops and convenience stores. Anyone care for a watered-down political (or, I dunno… apolitical) statement with their People magazine and pack of Big Red?

Once your war was won/lost you drifted from pillar to post like a forgotten child star, a statement without a cause. Desperate for attention, acceptance and love, you’d eagerly apply your toothless $2 fellatio to any cause that trawled down your alley: arthritis awareness, breast cancer, testicular cancer, hell — all-inclusive cancer awareness. You went so far as to sell out to the other side with the Support Our Troops/Bring Them Home! thing, even took up with the shadowy POW-MIA movement (and yeeesh, those are some greasy bastards).

But as the great sage Tracy Jordan said on “30 Rock” the other night, you can’t change, you’re like a chameleon: always a lizard. And what do you mean now? A morbidly obese woman in phone sales wants to share her love for the ornamental lifeform she owns. Really? Why am I forced to know this? Finally, the last drop of significance has been wrung, and there you stand stick, a lifeless husk. It’s kinda embarrassing to see, even for an old adversary. Still, it won’t keep me from chronicling your demise. Call me a terrible person, but if you look to the left of the picture above you can see a distorted reflection of a figure who’s jumped out of their car at a stoplight to take a picture with their phone.

That’s me, gloating.

The ink is barely dry on President Obama‘s 20-pen signature on health reform, and the legislation has already gone from “Red-hatched scourge” to “pretty sweet deal” in the glazed-over eyes of John and Jane Q. Public.

Dems are understandably excited about a USA Today/Gallup poll showing that 49 percent of Americans are pleased with the bill’s passage. Not as enthusiastic as they are about the upcoming “American Idol” finals, but hey, the arc of history bends slowly towards. . . something.

Interestingly, I’ve been doing some special secret ninja work on this very issue as part of my job. So I feel somewhat up to speed on what this legislation stands to accomplish and where it falls short.

What I’m about to say is my personal opinion, which probably doesn’t amount to a pile of overpriced prescription medication.

There’s some praise-worthy stuff in this bill. It sets rules for the health insurance industry, which has historically not operated in its clients’ best interest. Or for that matter, the rest of Americans who have committed the cardinal sin of having not been aborted.

Setting aside theoretical cost controls and potential deficit reduction, health care reform will provide tangible benefits to Americans. So, before we get into the main problems, lets look at the good parts.

The legislation bans insurance companies from rejecting people based on pre-existing conditions. This is huge. Here’s a scenario for you: you have a job with pretty good insurance, but your boss is a total asshole, and you’ve been looking for another gig. But you have a sneaking suspicion that there’s something up with your health. You’re afraid to go to the doctor because you might land your dream job and have to switch insurance, but the new provider could refuse you coverage due to the condition you suspect you may have. Before the pre-exclusionary ban, this was the math that working Americans had to do.

Likewise, the old system kept entrepreneurs from striking out on their own and pursuing their vision in an open marketplace. Locking up ideas is hardly an American virtue. This will hopefully no longer be the case as the new laws go into effect.

Young people will be able to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. Previously, kids were kicked off their folks’ plans at age 19 or when they finished college. In an economic downturn, this will be a major relief for new generations entering a decimated jobs market. Of course, there’s nothing saying their parents’ plans will be cheap. But it’s better than going without.

There’s a catastrophic coverage option for young people that kicks in in 2014. This is good, too, because healthy whippersnappers might only require this kind of insurance.

State-run insurance exchanges will offer “affordable” policies to individuals and small businesses who otherwise may not have had access to coverage that fit their budgets. OK, so define “affordable.” We’ll have to wait to see what that means, as the exchanges don’t start until 2014 (for the time being, there are temporary programs for qualifying individuals who have difficulty obtaining coverage). Exchanges might not be as robust as a “government option,” but they will provide a safety net to a lot more folks.

Then there’s all the stuff about closing “doughnut holes” for older people, but I prefer not to think about old folks’ holes.

Now lets look at the suck factor.

The American version of health care is deeply flawed. If you care to do the math, you’ll find that a single-payer, fully government-funded system would actually be cheaper (and about a gazillion times easier from a bureaucratic perspective). But that’s socialism, so we dare not mention it, lest the Tea Partiers call us homosexual, baby-killing N-words.

In our desperate quest to insure that powerful lobbying interests maintain a comfortable status quo, we have arrived at a typically American hybrid system that sorta-kinda improves conditions for citizens while handing more power and money to the private sector.

See, the insurance industry just got the sweetest deal ever AND the right to piss and moan about it.

To strip the pre-exclusionary clause, private insurers needed a means by which to balance risk. The only way to do that is to mandate coverage. Which is why, by 2014, pretty much all Americans will be required to carry health insurance. And guess what? The vast majority of them will be perfectly healthy! That means the insurance companies’ risk actually goes down, while their roster expands! And what do we get in return? Certainly not a guarantee that premiums won’t continue to go up. Hey, at least they won’t be able to drop us anymore for getting sick.

So congrats to the administration for accomplishing its primary domestic initiative. Truly, it’s a “big fucking deal,” as Vice President Biden so colorfully noted. And it does improve the Dems’ reelection odds.

Pay attention to these pearls of wisdom: THERE IS NO WAY THE GOP CAN REPEAL THIS LEGISLATION. Do not bother listening to the bluster from the right. It’s simply not possible, even if they won EVERY open seat from now until 2012. And don’t get me started on the state-mounted Constitutional challenges. Good luck litigating on the premise of government coercion when the mandate doesn’t kick in for four years, at which point the benefits will have become so apparent to “Real Americans” that rescinding them will be tantamount to treason. And I’d LOVE to see Republican candidates running on a platform that would bring back the pre-ex clause. Go ahead, make my day, twerps.

So yeah, it’s a victory. Of sorts. And it’s nice that a solid number of Americans can recognize the positives. Now let’s get some immigration reform and some education reform and whatever other political fights that will take us straight up ’til the next presidential election, at which point any sane human being will have fled to a reasonable country like Iraq.

You see, I was born in 1974 and came of age in the late 1980s-early-’90s, thereby witnessing the genesis and proliferation of “grunge.”

Looking back, I’m glad I didn’t live in Seattle at the time. What a nightmare that must’ve been, with A&R assholes parachuting in and shitty Midwestern bands swarming the city in some kind of flannel gold rush.

In the throes of my reminiscence, I recalled an incident in which the New York Times was fooled into believing that there was a special slang shared by grunge fans. (They did indeed speak, in between sips of latte and shots of heroin.)

The entire idea is borderline ludicrous, but it’s emblematic of the way cultural journalism has historically been performed. I’m sure some enterprising writer (or 20) asked similar questions of Southern California teens back when surf music was boss. And you can still see it practiced to some degree today: if the “kids” are into something, the assumption is that there’s got to be a uniform social linguistics to go with it. Sexting, anyone?

The Times did not get the 1990s irony memo, however, and stumbled right into a killer prank.

In November 1992, The Grey Lady was doing an article on the sudden ascendancy of grunge, from Fenders to fashion. No surprise there. The piece also included a sidebar of hip “grunge lingo” (I bet this was the editor’s idea — those lamestains fucking love sidebars). Unfortunately, the info came from a single source who made the whole thing up on the spot.

It was Wall Street Journal scribe and What’s the Matter With Kansas? author Thomas Frank (another friend of the organization) who ultimately revealed the hoax in the cultural criticism journal The Baffler. Turns out, a 25 year-old Seattle resident named Megan Jasper was simply tired of all the superficial attention her city was receiving and decided to snowball the Times writer just for fun. The paper was not amused at Frank’s outing of the hoax. Wikipedia:

The Times demanded that Frank fax over an apology for claiming it had printed false information, believing that it was Frank who was the hoaxer. Frank instead sent a letter standing by the story. “When The Newspaper of Record goes searching for the Next Big Thing and the Next Big Thing piddles on its leg,” he wrote, “we think that’s funny.” Frank considered the article to be part of an attempt by mainstream culture to co-opt the grunge scene and felt that the Times had gotten what it deserved.

Since I don’t want to leave you hanging, here’s a list of “grunge speak” terminology. Whaddya say we all pull together and get these in the contemporary lexicon once and for all? (Oddly, some of them appear to have already made it.)

• bloated, big bag of bloatation – drunk
• bound-and-hagged – staying home on Friday or Saturday night
• cob nobbler – loser
• dish – desirable guy
• fuzz – heavy wool sweaters
• harsh realm – bummer
• kickers – heavy boots
• lamestain – uncool person
• plats – platform shoes
• rock on – a happy goodbye
• score – great
• swingin’ on the flippity-flop – hanging out
• tom-tom club – uncool outsiders
• wack slacks – old ripped jeans

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I gotta put on my wack slacks and kickers and get to swingin’ on the flippity-flop. You cob nobblers can keep your harsh realm. Rock on!

From BigFatWhale:

There were calls for President Obama to skip this affair, which is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation and has been going on since 1953. But he showed up anyway, and can you blame him? The National Prayer Breakfast brings politicians, industry magnates and mass murderers foreign strongmen together to groove on God — who’d want to miss that?

Ostensibly about recognizing faith among all denominations, the NPB is, in reality, the premiere schmoozefest for the “key men” of Biblical Capitalism.

In the eyes of the Fellowship, Jesus is a personal life coach bearing little resemblance to the Christ of the Gospel. This American-style messiah favors the powerful, not the meek. By virtue of their stature, any atrocities committed by powerful men as they prepare the world for His Kingdom (not a democratic reign, mind you) are to be overlooked.

The NPB guest list over the years is a who’s-who of state and corporate-backed despots. Historically, the US President gives a softball speech as these “capable men who fear God” make their Very Important Connections.

You know how some wingnuts say Obama is the Antichrist? I don’t subscribe to conventional Christian cosmology, but if I did, I’d have no trouble fingering Fellowship kingpin Doug Coe as the front-runner for the title.

If you want to know more, read this. I triple-dog dare you.

I’m TOTALLY going next year, even if I have to sell a kidney.

Polish that monocle, ye virtuous Captain of Industry, and step lively, for today is Ayn Rand‘s birthday!

I gotta admit, this information caught me off guard. I’d love to have had something pithy prepared, maybe another entry in our world-famous “The Contrarian vs. Objectivism” series. Alas, I fear that the Black Queen of Capitalism has me dead to rights, and I’m out of ammo.

So, I give in. The white flag is waving. Time to set my sights on noble activities like undermining the public sphere and complaining about how the “moochers” are sapping the productivity of America’s great men and women. Maybe I’ll arrange for a little “rape-fantasy roleplaying” for later — Ayn would certainly approve!

The Apple fanboys/girls and naysayers alike are in full force on the ‘nets today, arguing about the relative awesomeness/non-awesomeness of the so-called iSlate iPad, which is expected to be announced tomorrow at 1PM EST. (If you somehow missed this tongue-in-cheek piece, “iSlate of the Union,” check it out and come right back.)

I’ve previously talked about what a tablet could mean to a host of sectors, from the fledgling e-reader market to the magazine industry to the still-struggling music biz. Now, I hardly believe that a single device — no matter how sexy — can magically erase the woes of certain businesses that failed to anticipate and adapt to the future. (Cough, music.) But I do think that Apple’s tablet could go a long way towards prolonging the life of the “downloaded file, delivered via the tubes” model that has come to define both commerce and piracy in the digital age.

Since I play an expert on TV (or at least in DC), let’s keep the focus on music.

I was hoping that 2010 would be the year that saw the emergence of a sustainable, affordable, robust, cross-platform, on-demand subscription service for music. Maybe Spotify would finally arrive in the US and the major copyright holders would reevaluate their licensing approach due to massive consumer demand (insert something about pigs and flight). Hell, I don’t care which company grabs the subscription brass ring, as long as it: a) pays equitably to creators and offers them a platform for access, b) won’t break the bank, and c) has a massive catalog and works with all my devices. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for.

When Apple purchased multi-faceted digital service Lala (a company whose model also includes free single-use streaming, “cloud locker” music storage and tethered “ownership”), my first thought (and everyone else’s) was that Steve Jobs and co. planned to dive into the subscription game.

Upon further consideration, it became more apparent to me that Apple is more likely to use Lala to facilitate the back-end for a music “cloud locker” that would allow Mac-heads to access their music files wherever they are and whatever (Apple) device they were using. I mean, why would Jobs want to cannibalize the file-based digital storefront he spent all this time developing? At the end of the day, Apple still wants you to purchase (or rent) a file through iTunes, but now they’ll let you store it over here and access it over there. I’ve recently had my theory corroborated by someone who’s been in this game way longer than me, which felt good. Of course, there’s nothing saying Apple won’t get into the subscription biz — they are currently rumored to be in negotiations with TV networks about just that. Which would make perfect sense for a shiny new tablet!

Let’s talk about another piece of music news that recently broke (no, not the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger — I’ve done that enough). Apparently, a company called MusicDNA is unleashing a new file format that is supposed to make MP3s look (and sound) like an old Victrola. (Personally, I prefer the sound of an old Victrola to overcompressed digital audio, but that’s beside the point). Anyway, this magic new file will “offer fans a new way to listen to music and could be key in the fight against piracy,” according to the not-always-prescient Guardian UK:

A fan buying a MusicDNA file of [band X, Y or Z], could watch — on their computer screen or music player — videos of recent performances, pore over artwork and sleeve notes, find out about concerts and buy a tour T-shirt, while following any blogs or tweets the musician might write.

“Out of a rusted old VW Beetle we are making a Ferrari,” said Stefan Kohlmeyer, the chief executive of Bach Technology, which has developed the file.

“We are taking an existing idea, giving the end user a lot more and making that file much more valuable — like transforming a tiny house into a huge villa.”

Easy on the hyperbole, there, dude. Anyway, this isn’t anything I haven’t been saying for three years, which basically boils down to: ADD VALUE TO YOUR PRODUCT, DUMBASSES! I mean, there’s always the expectation that content will eventually drift down to the freetard level (and blanket licensing schemes could even squeeze some dough out of them), but if you find compelling enough reasons for customers to keep going back to the source, they just might.

And, if you give them an attractive device with which to experience said content, well, now you’re getting somewhere. Which brings us back to our tech fetish du jour, the Apple tablet.

As much as I want one, I’m probably gonna have to pass for now — upgrading my music production computer takes precedent over groovy gadgets. But all the hullaboo has gotten me thinking (even more than usual) about content delivery in the digital age, and how much of it depends on the attractiveness and utility of the end device. This Apple thingamabob could, for example, wipe the Kindle off the map, herald a new renaissance for album art, kick game developers into a whole ‘nother gear, and give us yet another way to watch “30 Rock” in bed. If they throw a streaming subscription service in there, I’m sold.

Well, eventually.

I think it’s time for me to reveal some of my personal opinions about the Comcast NBC Universal merger. I pay a considerable amount attention to media policy as part of my job, but I have some difficulty being objective about Comcast — a corporation I consider abhorrent in pretty much every way. Which is why I’ve been quiet on the subject of the merger.

I was also thinking through my justifications, which is always a worthwhile exercise. It’s good to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your suppositons in order to anticipate opposing arguments. As much fun as it can be to go off half-cocked, some subjects demand a greater amount of scrutiny.

I think I’m ready now.

Keep in mind that this is my own opinion — I’m not representing any organization or interest here. I’ve also tried to limit the amount of personal outrage in my analysis. My own experiences with Comcast have been consistently atrocious, and I know I’m not alone. That said, any references to Comcast’s singular incapability to provide a service as advertised are made only to reinforce the notion that the company would perhaps be better served to focus on its core competencies (or incompetencies, as it were) before expanding into new territories.

We’re gonna get into some light marketplace/policy history here, so if you wanna tune out, I don’t blame you. Those made of sturdier stuff will find more below the fold.

Am I against this merger?

In theory. I know that it’s probably surprising that I’m not out-and-out opposed to Comcast taking a controlling share in NBC, but there are a few reasons to consider why it might not be the end of the world. Still, I’ll start with the negatives.

Ignore for a moment Comcast’s inability to provide a decent product, and forget their propensity for deceptive pricing schemes that leave customers hemorrhaging cash and spending most of their free time on the phone (or Twitter) dealing with “customer service.” The fact is, Comcast’s network will suck regardless of whether or not the merger goes down. So let’s examine what this is really all about: brand extension, vertical integration and my favorite MarketThink buzzword, “synergy.”

Here’s where I quote an article by someone smarter than myself, namely Mark Cooper, director of research at the Consumer Federation of America:

The effort to dismiss concerns about the Comcast-NBC merger ignores the large size, prominent position and powerful incentives Comcast-NBC would have to abuse its power. Comcast is the largest cable operator in the United States, larger than the next three cable operators combined. Its holdings are concentrated in the major media markets. It is also the largest broadband Internet service provider and has a dominant market share in the local markets it serves.

NBC is one of four major national broadcast networks, “a global brand with an iconic legacy (news, sports and Primetime,” and a particularly prominent position in national and local news. Combining the broadcast network with the cable channels, Comcast-NBC would have ownership interests in almost a dozen of the video networks that “deliver mass-market audience with 100 percent reach of U.S. TV households.” There are only a few dozen such networks.

This Ars Technica article goes even further in showcasing just how large Comcast already is. Hell, they might even own this site. That would explain the electric shocks when I type something disparaging about the company.

Keep in mind that Comcast recently won a court appeal lifting a cap that restricts the number of subscribers any one cable company can amass. So they’re probably feeling cocky.

The problem in this instance isn’t about bigness, per se, but rather how Comcast’s influence as the nation’s largest internet and cable provider might, without strong net neutrality provisions, end up reshaping the web as we know it. Here’s Cooper again:

Comcast-NBC poses a unique threat because it is a dagger aimed at the heart of the Internet, a direct competitor to cable for multichannel video distribution. Allowing the largest cable and broadband service provider to buy one of the top four video programmers would create a huge incentive to lock content behind the new pay walls cable companies want to build.

Welcome to TV Everywhere — a deceptively named joint venture between Time Warner Cable and Comcast to put TV. . . on the internet! Which you can only watch if you’re already one of their cable subscribers. Keep in mind that, if Comcast merges with NBC, there are currently no regulatory policies in place to prevent Comcast from, say, refusing to allow Verizon access to its programming for terrestrial delivery. Meaning, potentially no MSNBC on Fios.

If you really want to go down the policy rabbit hole, you can check out this post by my associate, Kamilla Kovacs.

Now, allow me to play devil’s advocate.

I truly believe that merger efficencies are a market myth, particularly when it comes to content diversity. A scan of recent history provides no evidence of a major merger having resulted in more choice in the marketplace. Most recently, the combining of XM and Sirius has made a once-exciting mode of broadcasting the subscription version of terrestrial commercial radio, complete with the shitty commercials. But I digress. Comcast may very well be interested in investing in content. Let’s take their word for it for now.

It’s been brought to my attention that Comcast has done some investing in local sports, giving area games a platform where excitement can build, blah, blah blah. Since I work in music and spend a good deal of time bashing commercial radio for their utter disregard for localism, it’s an interesting thought experiment to imagine Comcast getting behind local bands or venues and helpting to generate some good-old-fashioned buzz. One can picture that the synergies could actually pay dividends here — if you were, say, watching a concert on your “smart TV,” you could click a link to buy tickets to the band’s performance in your area or a download of their album or the licensed stream of their catalog. Then there’s the “funnel up” phenomenon, where talent could be positioned to be cross-licensed across platforms — soundtracks, ad branding, you name it. A company like Comcast has the money to throw at schemes like this, and, if handled properly, it could theoretically result in a much-needed boost to a struggling sector. There is presently a void in investment in music, and perhaps Comcast could find a creative means to fill it.

I’m not ready to bank on those outcomes, though. More likely, the company will attempt to squeeze maximum value out of their holdings while limiting the amount of investment required. I mean, just look at the way they manage their infrastructure. The broadband duopoly leaves them free to gouge consumers while offering sub-par service — their ownership of NBC could simply mean more crappy Jay Leno and reality TV programming tucked behind pay walls.

One thing’s for sure, this merger will be a test of the administration’s Department of Justice. On the trail, Obama seemed to suggest that the era of deregulatory, merger-happy free-for-alls were at an end. We’ll see how much of the rhetoric stands in practice. The other agency to keep an eye on is the FCC, who are knee-deep in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on net neutrality. Then there’s the DC Circuit Court appeal of the Commission’s order against Comcast for their throttling of BitTorrent traffic — how that case is ultimately decided could affect outcomes across the board. Lots of moving pieces, in other words.

So, am I against this merger? Essentially. But part of me also wants to see Comcast become overleveraged and fail, like Clear Channel and all the other consolidation junkies selling free market mythologies to the highest bidder. If Comcast believes they can innovate in content, well, that’s their corporate prerogative. Again, I have a hard time seeing it. To me, the merger raises serious concerns about net neutrality, particularly as network operators and content providers alike attempt to monetize online delivery of entertainment and information. You wanna merge? Fine — the regulatory agencies will scrutinize your proposal. But one of the conditions should be that Comcast agrees to accept clear, enforceable rules for net neutrality.

We shall see.

We interrupt our continued coverage of the best albums of the decade for this sensational story about mad Nazi science experiments in South America!

In a tale better suited for the National Enquirer, the world-hopping sleuths at National Geographic Explorer are reporting that the reason there are so many freaking twins in the small Brazilian town of Candido Godol is due to the twisted scientific experiments of one Josef Mengele! Here’s the overwrought copy, straight from the NGE site:

Joseph Mengele (sp!!!!!!!), the escaped Nazi war criminal and SS physician, known as the Angel of Death, spent years doing bizarre medical experiments on twins at Auschwitz working to determine if twins held the key to building a blond-haired, blue-eyed master race for Adolf Hitler. Now a historian says he has evidence that Mengele’s attempts may not have ended at Auschwitz, and that his obsession to engineer an Aryan master race continued, and that succeeded while he was on the run in South America. Deep in the Brazilian outback in a tiny town among the 80 households in a one-square-mile area are reportedly some 38 pairs of twins. Blond, blue-eyed twins. Bizarre and inexplicable, could they be the product of Mengele’s machinations? Now, with exclusive access, EXPLORER goes inside the investigation; From the secret agents who trailed him, to the scientists now uncovering the facts behind the fantastical phenomenon, no stone is left unturned.

And the video!

And the Slayer song about Mengele!

And the movie that all this nonsense reminds me of, The Boys From Brazil, starring Gregory Peck!

And the book it was based on, by Ira Levin, author of Rosemary’s Baby!

As you were.

How heinous is Rep. Michelle Bachmann? Let us count the ways.

For one, the most noxious member of the House of Representatives has organized what she’s calling “High Noon for Health Care,” which aims to assemble a large group of “Real Americans” on my city to try to prevent expanding health care options for. . . “Real Americans.” These folks are so classy as to hold up giant signs comparing health care reform to Dachau concentration camp. And this disgusting propaganda isn’t homemade — it’s being distributed by Bachmann’s astroturf backers, Americans for Prosperity.

On a conference call this Tuesday, Bachman told Americans to swarm Congress, locate their elected officials and “look at the whites of their eyes and tell them, ‘don’t you dare take away my health care.’” Only in Bachmann’s twisted mind can efforts to bring affordable care to more Americans be turned into its diametric opposite. Hey Michelle, what would Jesus do? In her view, he’d probably privatize air.

Is any of this bullshit having an impact? Apparently, not so much. Mother Jones:

A quick survey of some of the 13 targeted senators’ offices suggests that the “attack” has barely registered on the Hill. Kimberly Hunter, a spokeswoman for Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) says that at a little after 3:30 on Tuesday, her office hadn’t seen any uptick in calls or visits. If the tea partiers do call, she adds, “We’re happy to listen to their opinions.” Likewise, a spokesman for Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), another target on the patriots’ list, says the office has fielded a few calls from people saying they are coming to Thursday’s press conference—but overall the volume has been “nothing unusual.”

As of Tuesday afternoon, the official tea party website indicated that only 25 patriots were on hand for “Operation House Call.” That’s a pretty paltry showing for an organization that claims to represent millions of disaffected Americans.

Hey, at least astroturfers FreedomWorks have a website, dontkillgrandma.com, where teabaggers can spew their senseless vitriol back at a front organization that’s provided them with so many cheerful talking points.

Surely, there were a lot of folks who wanted to attend today’s rally but were unable to because they’ve voted against their economic self-interest so many times that they couldn’t afford to make the trip. Help is on the way! Americans for Prosperity has kindly bussed folks from New Jersey, North Carolina and other hotbeds of patriotism. But who is AFP, exactly? Why, they’re an unbiased extension of Koch Industries — one of the planet’s largest privately-held oil and gas conglomerates. And guess what? They also hold interests in pharma!

But back to Bachman. As indicated by the the title of this post, the lunatic representative is calling today’s rally “the Super Bowl of Freedom.” According to Bachmann, “nothing is more influential than an eyeball-to-eyeball meeting between a freedom-loving constituent and a member of Congress. Nothing scares a member of Congress more than freedom-loving Americans.” Does this woman understand that she’s IN Congress?

“I think that will absolutely scare these members of Congress so much that Pelosi will not get the votes and it will kill the bill,” Bachman said. “I think it could be dead for 10 years. Why won’t we? Why won’t we go for broke?”

Hey lady, Americans are already “broke.” In fact, 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs.

Now do the right thing and call your Congressperson and tell them that you WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS HORSESHIT ANY LONGER.