LONG POST: Democrats and Republicans are both stupid and useless. Followed by an unrelated lesson in sarcasm.

I miss my old political rants, but here comes one. A word of caution to anyone who gets really sensitive about politics: I am Independent with a left lean. If you are super-conservative and hate to hear your party being insulted now that they're oh-so-unified, don't read this. If you are Democrat and worship President Obama, don't read this. I am irritated with both parties. Also, if you're so vehemently opposed to the current healthcare legislation that you're going to fly into a fury about death panels and "them damn illegals" being covered by it, then just don't even talk to me.

Now, let us commence. (Homework can wait.)

The following quote is from an article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7040999/Massachusetts-vote-Barack-Obama-admits-mistakes-after-loss.html

In his interview, the president cautioned that Democrats should not try to "jam" the legislation through in the short period before Senator-elect Brown can get to Washington.
"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on," Mr Obama said.
The White House later said Mr Obama was not advocating "narrow" reform but his remarks raised a flurry of speculation in Congress about the future shape of the bill.

Okay, so let me get this straight: We lose one seat, and all of a sudden we have to further water down a bill that is already so damn gutted to begin with that it is hardly a semblance of what was originally intended?

DEMOCRATS, YOU STILL HAVE THE MAJORITY. So you can't break the filibuster...that means you can't get anything done? You are NOT going to get bipartisan support on this, no matter what you do. Why? Because Republicans have a point to prove right now. Their hardcore conservative constituents want to see them move even further to the right, which means they are going to vote against everything you do just because you're doing it. So why don't you stop helping them weaken your legislation?

Now, I'm not exactly in favor of a total government takeover of health care. But I would definitely agree that reform is necessary. I agree that the system works best when there's no one standing between a person and his/her doctor, but here's the problem: Most of us do have someone standing between ourselves and our doctors, and that someone is called the insurance company. And the insurance company, no matter how much you've paid into them, will go to any lengths they must to avoid paying for your medical care.

Rush Limbaugh declares the foolishness of thinking you should get something you don't pay for; that what you get should correlate directly to what you can/are willing to afford, and health care runs on the same principle. But it doesn't. Health care isn't having a flat screen plasma TV in your apartment. Health care isn't owning a car vs. having a bus pass vs. sweet leased cars. Health care isn't brand name shoes vs. $10 sneakers from Wal-Mart. Health care is staying alive and having a good quality of life so that you're able to work for those other things that don't mean as much. So no, there SHOULDN'T be a correlation between whether you get paid 33 million dollars a year (as dear old Rush does), and whether you can go to the hospital for chest pains and receive quality care.

And as I've said, I don't agree with complete government control of health care. However, I don't think a public option is really that bad an idea. (As President Obama said in response to a question about how anyone could compete with a government-run system, "UPS and FedEx are both doing just fine.") The Medicare buy-in is gone, which probably could have helped increase revenue for Medicare, which is struggling. There's so much that's been pulled out of this in the pursuit of bipartisan support that I don't think it's going to do what we need it to anymore.

And Democrats are letting it happen. We don't have any more "bipartisan" support today than we did the day the bill was initially proposed. They're essentially letting the Republicans write the legislation for them. And at that rate, "health care reform" is going to be O HAI. WE DECLARE THAT ALMOST EVERYBODY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO WATER. THIS WILL PROMOTE BETTER HEALTH. KTHXBAI. *vacation* And we're not getting anywhere. Why is it when President Bush was in control and he had majorities not nearly as strong in the House and Senate--and even to an extent when Democrats got those majorities back in 2006--he was still able to pass his agenda?

In part, because Republicans are just as unproductive--in fact, probably more so. They aren't doing anything in the interest of "the people." At this point, Republicans seem to be voting unanimously against every bill President Obama pushes, just because it's President Obama pushing it, regardless of its impact on society or the economy. Why? Because every time Olympia Snowe votes for a Democratic bill, a kitten dies. Or something. I'm really not sure. But the "conservative" base is all up in arms because their Party isn't as "conservative" as jackass talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and hair-brained conspiracy theorists like Glenn Beck, so the Republican Party appears to be trying to win them over again by "standing firm against the liberal agenda." Now that they can filibuster, they're going to use that power on every bill great and small so their constituents can see how strongly they stand together and will vote for them again in 2010.

Please, explain to me how you're making a difference dear Republicans. Because, quite frankly, all you're doing is letting the country continue on the same road it's on now by preventing any legislation from passing.

In other, less angry (though just as stupid) and significantly less tl;dr news: A US company called "Sarcasm, Inc." (don't be fooled, judging by their commercial they use sarcasm they way Alanis Morisette uses irony) has invented and is now selling an emoticon/punctuation mark called the SarcMark, so that in written conversation, emails, etc., sarcasm can be clearly denoted.

One, this kind of ruins the subtle humor of sarcasm and completely defeats the point. Two, sarcasm can be clearly construed over written conversation. My friends and I do it all the time. If a moment passed that we weren't being sarcastic to one another, we'd all start to think there was something wrong. If you are being sarcastic and it's being totally misconstrued, either A), UR DOIN IT WRONG, or B), the person you're talking to is too stupid to get the joke. Either way, no SarcMark needed.

Alright, I'm being unfair. Maybe this is a good idea. I heard about this on the radio, and y'know, sometimes sarcasm can be a little too subtle and hard to catch. I should spend the $1.99 for ulimited use of it myself. If I don't, you might mistakenly believe I mean anything I've said in this paragraph, and what a travesty that would be!

Find the article here: http://www.news.com.au/technology/us-company-invents-sells-sarcasm-emoticon-sarcmark/story-e6frfro0-1225819156911

and the commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlwCCWGYOGg