Bill Fritz

Thanks to the efforts of global warming deniers, House leadership has quietly pulled a bill that would have created an honorary, unpaid position of “American Science Laureate,” saving the nation’s schoolchildren from the specter of encountering dangerous pro-science messages. Science magazine explains that the bill was expected to pass easily until Larry Hart of the American Conservative Union complained that an official Science Laureate would allow President Obama to appoint some wild-eyed freak in a lab coat

“who will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases.

The bill had been supported by a wide range of legislators, including Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the chair of the House Science Committee and a dabbler in global warming denial himself. A spokesman for bill sponsor Randy Hultgren (R-IL), expressed surprise at the bill’s demise, emphasizing that

“There would be no taxpayer money involved … this bill is simply a chance to show our children that discovery science is important and that science can be an exciting and rewarding career.”

On the other hand, aren’t there already scientists from Dow Chemical, Exxon, and the Creation Museum who can do that without needing a presidential appointment? (In something of a surprise, the term “czar” hasn’t yet been attached to the position.)

Science notes that the bill may be brought back to the House this fall, but that it will face continued opposition from the likes of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose Supreme High Idiot, Myron Ebell, said the Science Laureate position would be unworkable since “It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we’re opposed to it.”

In an unexpected boon to science, new seismic instruments at the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, were reportedly able to detect the impact of Neil DeGrasse Tyson pounding his head into his desk at the Hayden planetarium in New York City.

[Atlantic / Science]

You know that jokey little joke bit of strategery some of us around here like to throw out whenever Obamz&Co come up with any kind of offering of opinion, or God forbid actual policy, and then are arbitrarily screamed at for being commie-fascist-welfare-taxer-Muslim-brothers-from-the-hood, no matter what the opinion was? We jokesters often like to posit that in response the prez should maybe come out in support of Republican ideas, like having another war (so close) or aborting things, or cuttin’ all these rich people’s taxes more than the less than zero they kinda pay now, or maybe just go ahead and kill Obamacare his ownself? And then maybe these haters of all things Oblackma would act like they have always been for taxing billionaires to pay for our abortion wars and we could get something done as a nation already?

Oh we have made ourselves laugh. But we are now thinking that mayhaps we were really and truly on to something? Because all Michelle Obama had to do was go out and tell some kid-folks that they should drink more water, and BAM! Water is now junk science (just like global warming) and no you should not drink it especially if she says so.

The first lady promoted her new “Drink Up” campaign earlier this week at the aptly-named Watertown High School in Wisconsin, and ever since it has been drawing far more criticism than she or anyone else in the Obama Administration could have predicted. She told students, “Drink just one more glass of water a day, and you can make a real difference in your health, for your energy and the way that you feel.” She cited “scientific evidence” that says our bodies perform better when they are “hydrated” than when they are even “just a little bit dehydrated.” And perhaps most importantly, Obama said, The truth is, we all have a choice about what we drink and when we choose water, we’re choosing to be at our very best.

First, we endorse the name “Drink Up.” And secondly, as we surely did do some drinking up our ownselves in Boston this weekend, we also know that dehydration is a bitch and will make you stupid and feel like shit. So, yes kids, drink water, even though YOU HAVE A CHOICE! But with water you will feel better. NO? No.

Some conservatives have been quick to jump on Michelle Obama for her “scientific” claims, pointing to a POLITICO story that quotes experts who claim there are discernible benefits from drinking one extra glass of water a day. Rush Limbaugh called it “just more command-and-control” from the Obama White House. The Washington Times went after the “the nation’s most prominent anti-obesity crusader” for misleading the public. And the Washington Free Beacon blasted the headline, “Michelle Obama’s Drink More Water Campaign Based on Faulty Science.

Hey guys, how come no mention of all the fluoride-in-the-water = mind control? We thought you loved that one! Also, we do not believe that Politico was the first thing in the world to ever say that drinking water was a good idea? And shut up Rush Limbaugh, you picture of health and wellness, about everything always. What do you take your oxy with? Scotch? Yeah probably scotch. We also enjoy how calling Michelle Obama the “nation’s most prominent-anti-obesity crusader” (just stone cold slapping food outta everyone’s mouth and making them do squats y’all!) makes her the exact evil bitch who would try and make kids think drinking water is a good idea.

It is sort of neato to imagine the pavlovian effect of such words on the eyeballs of our reactionary brethren to all things Obamz. Especially when they get these trigger word feelings all mashed up into “the government will not mind-control us to drink water – real Americans should only drink big gulps with Sarah Palin! Unless you are poor! And on SNAP! And then the government should tell you bitches no.” Cognitive dissonance is not so hard we guess?

Or maybe if these people are willing to go as far as refusing to “stay hydrated” because Michelle Obama said it is good for you, the administration should just run with this. Let’s start encouraging people to remember to keep breathing, because breathing is good for you! Maybe some folks will try not doing that for a while and see how we like it?

[mediaite.com]

Surely you Wonketteers have heard the librul media and members of Congress crowing about the new student loan bill, which is apparently not only a great deal for students but is also significant because it demonstrates that Congress is capable of passing something on a bipartisan basis.

Everybody wins: Congress looks good! The new bill doesn’t add to the deficit! And students’ rates will fluctuate with the market so now students have EVEN MORE skin in the game! USA USA!

Here, let us take a closer look at the crappy deal that everyone is so excited about.

Under the old federal student loan program, borrowers were offered a fixed rate. Under the new rate structure, which still drew opposition from nearly one-third of Senate Democrats when it passed last week, loans to undergraduates and graduate students, along with parents in the PLUS program, would be subject to a fixed rate plus the yield on the 10-year Treasury note.

Oh, how wonderful. It is like they have given the students some nice, premium lube before making them bend over — and on a bipartisan basis!

As Sherrod Brown noted before stating his refusal to vote for the bill, why are the rates this high in the first place? Why weren’t rates frozen at, say, 3.4 percent? 

Good question, Sherrod Brown, please let us know when you get the answer. And while you’re at it, we have a few other questions than maybe you can get answered for all of us.

For example, why do rates even need to be as high as 3.4%, given that these loans can never be discharged in bankruptcy, can never be refinanced, and given that the Department of Education can garnish your Social Security checks and disability payments (and if that fails, send a SWAT team to your house. Seriously).

As these are risk-free loans to the lending institution, why not have students pay a flat servicing fee to borrow the money at whatever the federal funds rate (which is currently hovering at around zero) is?

Why indeed. We will be over here holding our breath until someone gets back to us with answers on these questions.

Rates for loans taken out after July 1 of this year would be 3.9 percent for undergraduates, 5.4 percent for graduate students and 6.4 percent for those receiving PLUS loans. The rates are fixed over the life of the loan but would change for new borrowers each year.

Why is there a 2.5 point margin for undergrads and a 4 point margin for grads — is it more expensive to loan money to grads, or do we just want to discourage people from getting an advanced degree for some reason? And why is it more expensive (6.4%) for parents to borrow the money — does it magically cost more to lend to parents?

Perhaps someone from the librul media can find out the answer to these questions when they are done licking Congress’ butthole and praising their bipartisanship.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, said that while she was “disappointed it took as long as it did for us to get to this place on student loans,” she hoped that the legislation was a harbinger.

“I hope this is setting the stage for more bipartisanship and success on other issues,” she said.

We hope so too — it’s nice when BOTH sides of Congress can get together and pat themselves on the back, isn’t it?

[NY Times]