The CBO won't have a preliminary report on the Graham-Cassidy health care "reform" bill until early next week (and won't be able to do a proper score before September 30 at all!), but the Center for American Progress finds the Graham-Cassidy bill similar enough to the CBO-scored Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act (which the Senate couldn't pass in July) to say that Graham-Cassidy will probably deprive 32 million good Americans of health insurance by 2027 -- and maybe even more. Which you likely already knew, but it's good to have some numbers behind it.
Michael Corcoran at FAIR writes a truly breathtaking article about the "liberal" media's repeated suggestions that single-payer and the various Republican health care bills are somehow equally "extreme." I suppose it's good news that the "liberal" media is starting to call Graham-Cassidy something other than "moderate," but it's still a bit dispiriting to witness the sheer hypocrisy of even relatively reasonable punditoids -- they excoriated liberals for being too "militant" in supporting the public option (!) back in 2009 and 2010, but now put forth that very same public option as the "real" solution to our health insurance woes! Then again, even that hypocrisy is a step forward for the media -- and another lesson that our job, as citizens, is to fight for what we want, not play 13-dimensional chess.
Alex Emmons at The Intercept points out that the Senate's $80 billion boost to defense spending would have paid tuition for every student at a public college -- a proposal roundly decried as pie-in-the-sky when Sen. Sanders proposed it last year. Well, at least guns are forever, while better access to higher education has absolutely no long-term benefits for a civilized society! Seriously, this may not be the best way to make the point -- too many Americans are afraid of suggesting we should spend less on defense -- but it sure does demonstrate that the money's there if the will is there. It also illustrates that when your opponents say things like "your proposal is too idealistic," it means they can't actually win the argument on the merits.
If your right-wing uncle cites some piece of reportage from something called The Free Telegraph, feel free to remind him that The Free Telegraph is a propaganda arm of the Republican Governors Association -- "propaganda" is a word a Republican campaign consultant uses, not me! -- and didn't identify itself as such until the Associated Press questioned them about it. All of which exemplifies dishonesty, corruption, and cowardice. And some of the RGA's emailing about the site shows extravagant self-pity, too -- Republicans shouldn't whine about "decades of demonizing Republicans" when Republicans have been the dominant party in American politics for almost 40 years.
Finally, when I first read that Nazi wannabes were actually fighting amongst themselves about whether to include gay members in their club, I have to admit I found it pretty hilarious. But when I started to read about the gay men who have tried to join the Nazi wannabe movement -- like the one who's attracted to other men but says he's not gay per se, or the one who posits "white homosexual masculinity" "as the idealized opposite" of black "violence, hypersexuality and stupidity" -- I have to admit I found the whole thing even more hilarious, a stew of PC infighting undreamt of on the left. And no, it doesn't "mean something" that some Nazi wannabes have tried to find a place for gays in their club -- not every incongruity rises to the level of irony (or even interest!), and even a stopped clock is right twice a day.