Nancy Pelosi:

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.

Emphasis added (by Reason magazine), and it speaks for itself.  No matter what they tell you about the bill, they’re not telling you everything.  No matter what they say it’ll cost, they won’t say all of it.  "Trust us to overhaul the health care insurance industry, with a bill made with back-room deals with unions, and bribes for votes."

Yeah, right.  It’s huge and it’s shrouded, and it’s a classic carnival huckster method.  How can people actually fall for this?

Good morning.

1. Concerning Mr Trotsky.
2. Russian/Iran relations.
3. Mr Krugman and Mr Krugman.
4. For the crowd that follows Ms Palin.
5. Armenian genocide again.
6. Unemployment.
7. Water damage and books, DIY fix.
8. Our classy administration … not.
9. Class and the ladies of the silver screen.
10. Grenada and their economic outlook.
11. Biking pic of the day, do you vote (A) or (B) or (C)?
12. Corruption of blood? Huh? You know when you start out saying ” I admit I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes …” making stuff up doesn’t help.
13. Could there possibly be collusion between big media and the administration to protect government owned industries?
14. Climate trends.
15. Loser letters.

From the New Mexico Independent. Actually, the headline reads,

Anti-gay marriage bill dies in committee

An excerpt,

An attempt to define marriage as between on [sic] man and one woman failed in the Senate Rules Committee Monday by a vote of 5-2.

It is indeed interesting to see how clarifying the definition of marriage, as being between one man and one woman, is twisted into being an anti-gay stance.

I suppose, to be fair, we should consider the proposed bill to also be anti-polygamy, since it referred to marriage between only one man and one woman. Perhaps the bill is anti-child as it excludes children from the equation. Anti-species? After all, there may be some individuals interested in marrying one of their pets. And, for all those narcissists out there, the bill is certainly anti-self since it would prohibit one from marrying themselves.