Health Care Passes the House!

Which is a good thing, it really is. The Stupak Amendment, however, is making it difficult for me to cheer. As near as I can tell, this amendment will make it basically impossible for non-affluent women to have elective abortions. Then again, I don't know exactly what the case is now - i.e. to what extent poorer women have any access. I know there are regions of the country where there is basically no access to abortions. I find it upsetting that the Democrats chose to make this pass by selling out women. I find it upsetting that the House has voted to take away the right, not only of women to choose, but of insurance companies to provide that right. This should be about adding coverage and improving accessibility to health care, not taking it away. Maybe it will get stripped out. Here's hoping.

Convince me

I need convincing. With Deeds trailing massively in the polls and Deeds apparently coming out against the public option, I'm getting very tempted to vote for a write-in, like Brian Moran. I know this shouldn't come as a surprise - I remember being appalled at a speech Creigh gave in Charlottesville a few years ago where he talked about the need for Virginia Dems to run to the right in order to win, but I am really not sure I can bring myself to vote for a losing candidate who has run a terrible campaign and with whom I agree on next to nothing. Yeah, he's got a better transportation plan than McDonnell, but... Ugh.

UPDATE: He says he's not opposed, but he would consider taking VA out of the public option. Good grief. Who the hell is running his campaign? And what the hell is Deeds thinking? ARGH

Nobel Peace Prize!

Congratulations to President Obama on receiving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! This is a great honor, and his remarks on the occasion show that he understands that.

People keep saying that it's incredibly premature and that he hasn't accomplished anything yet and that he doesn't deserve it. While I admit to being shocked at the news when a friend texted it to me this morning, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

Obama came to the Presidency after Bush's administration had done severe damage to the reputation of our country in the world. There isn't any denying that had happened, there is only a debate as to how much people care what the rest of the world thinks of us. However, in a few short months, Obama has managed to turn much of our foreign policy around. Yes, Afghanistan is still a mess, and yes, we haven't finished pulling out of Iraq yet.

However, we have presented an entirely new face to the world in terms of diplomatic engagement. Obama has made it clear that he is willing to pursue diplomatic means to achieve international cooperation and nuclear disarmament, and he has taken many affirmative steps towards that end - not least of which is engaging Iran and getting the UN to agree to pursue worldwide nuclear disarmament. So yes, there is much work to be done, but completely turning around the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation, from hawkish to cooperative, in the first few months of his presidency - yeah, I think that's a pretty big accomplishment.

Party Wisdom

Two things regarding my current approach to party politics have been going through my mind lately. The first is whether I should continue to vote for non-progressive Democrats, particularly in federal elections. The second is a stranger thought to me - whether to encourage those Republicans who speak out against the far-right and untruthful tactics that the current Republican leadership has pursued of late.

I know that, living in Virginia especially, I am not always going to end up with Democrats that are not far too centrist for my taste running in the general elections. This has happened this year with Creigh Deeds and last year with Mark Warner. However, I have generally been of the opinion that you vote for the better of the two real candidates, or you're just throwing your vote away. The debate over health care reform has started to change the way I see this, however. After all, what is the point of voting for someone who still will not do the things you wish he or she would do? What is the point of having a majority, even a filibuster-proof one, if you still cannot get something like a public option, which has widespread public support and a majority of both Representatives and Senators willing to vote for it, passed into law?

I recognize that there are no viable third parties, and that most third-party candidates seem to be somewhat nutty, at best. However, how can I, in good conscience, vote for people who are so beholden to corporate special interests that they are unwilling to do what is clearly in the best interest of the country? The only arguments I've seen against voting for a public option are that it does not have the votes to pass or that it would drive private insurers out of business. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the second has both the difficulty of not necessarily being a bad thing and having been disputed by every reputable study that's been done. If the majorities the Democrats currently possess in Congress combined with possession of the White House aren't enough to get this done, then I think it might be time to accept that even the Democratic Party is not willing or able to accomplish progressive goals. I think it might be time to give my vote to alternative candidates, or simply not to vote at all. I'm really not sure what other solution there is. And I don't think I can vote for candidates that are more worried about the good of their political futures in the hands of special interests than they are about the good of the American people they serve.

Another major problem we've all become increasingly aware of is the scorched earth tactics to which the Republican leadership has stooped. Birtherism has reared its ugly head among many members of Congress, and we constantly hear the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin ranting about death panels and other similar nonsense. Meanwhile, the powers that be back up this nonsense rather than calling it out and trying to encourage a return to civil and honest debate - which is necessary in order for our government to perform properly.

However, occasionally Republicans do step up and call for an end to the nonsense, like Rubio, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida, or Senator Lindsey Graham, on occasion. In cases like Rubio's, where he is the longshot against Crist for the nomination, it occurs to me to support him, even financially, because of how much better it would be for the country if the debate were between people unwilling to stoop to lies, innuendo and name-calling for political gain. Surely, though, that would be going too far?

Equality

I've been feeling especially feminist the last couple days. It started with this commentary on CNN, where the writer talks about Nancy Pelosi as though she's some sort of kindergarten teacher, instead of the Speaker of the House. Honestly, can you imagine any journalist ever writing anything about a male authority figure wanting to give someone a time-out?

Then, I saw this from HuffPo about how there are eight states and DC where insurance companies are allowed to consider being a victim of domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, and therefore refuse coverage. Wow, way to look out for those who can't help themselves. Way to make it yet harder for these victims of abuse to seek the help and treatment they need.

Finally, I saw the story about how female congresspeople are more effective than male ones. Of course, we still only make up a ridiculous minority of the Senate and the House. At least here's an argument that may help us increase that percentage.

It's not that we haven't come a long way. Of course we have. And of course I am grateful that we have - grateful for my opportunities to go to a great law school and have a great job. But we still have one hell of a long way to go.

Voting Against a Bill Without a Public Option

Right now, there are about 60 Progressive members of the House who have signed a pledge to vote against a bill without a robust public option. There is some controversy on the left as to whether this is such a good plan or not. I support these Representatives strongly, although I understand some reasons why people who do support a public option might think this is a bad idea or even silliness.

First, I think the arguments against are basically the same old idea that you should take what you can get, and maybe we just can't get a public option. People don't want health insurance/care reform to die entirely just because this one aspect of it isn't there. To an extent, I agree with this. I would rather we get some of it done than none of it.

However, I think this is a watershed moment for both the future of health care and the future of Progressive politics in America, and I think that if House Progressives roll over on this, they will be unlikely to ever get the White House or anyone else to listen in the future. Right now, it seems that the White House and the rest of the Dem leadership has been willing to roll over on basically every piece of craziness coming from the right, such as death panels and this nonsensical argument about coverage of illegal immigrants. However, everything the left wants seems to be consistently watered down or abandoned entirely. It seems to me that this is because the Dem leadership knows that the right and the right-leaning Dems will really, truly, actually vote against a bill if they don't get what they want, and the White House then has to cave because they assume that Progressives will still vote for the bill anyway. It's like a game of chicken, only so far, the Progressives have always caved. I know, because I vote for people like Senator Mark Warner because the alternative is a disaster like Gilmore. And I'm about to vote for Creigh Deeds because the alternative is Bob McDonnell (who apparently thinks I need to go find a man who can support me because women in the workplace is detrimental to families).

Not this time. Progressives need to finally stand up and say "no more." We need to prove to the rest of the political world that we are here, we're not going away, and we are powerful. Yes, I'd rather have some of it than nothing at all, but if we show we are willing to walk away from the table, then it becomes politically hard NOT to include the public option, rather than only being politically hard TO include it. Furthermore, it will guarantee the Progressives a seat at the table in the future, and probably grow the movement significantly once people see we can actually get things done. Obama supports the, 58% of Americans support the public option, and we are very close to having enough votes (yes, even in the Senate!) to get it done.

Thank you to the brave, principled Congresspeople who have taken this pledge. Please, for all our sakes, stick to it!

The Speech

Wow. I thought it was going pretty well, and that was before he started talking about Teddy. I'd have liked a bit stronger of a stand on the public option, and I especially could have done without him scolding the progressives who got him there, but all in all, I think he made our side seem both eminently reasonable and the bill to seem bipartisan. He made those who oppose the plan as a whole sound petty, childish and irrational, and invited reasonable debate and new ideas.

The last part of the speech, starting with some things about Teddy and moving into the moral and humane case for health care reform, and then into a discussion of the need for people to stop being petty and obnoxious, and stop trying to score political points at the expense of working for the good of the country - was awesome. Legendary, in my opinion. Moving, convincing, and great. If there are any people out there that can be convinced to come to the table, that was the speech to do it.

Meanwhile, the response was terrible. Not only was Boustany a terrible speaker, sounding totally canned, his speech made no sense next to Obama's. He repeated some things Obama just debunked or clarified, like the Medicare cuts, the budget, and the government takeover nonsense. He listed some things he says Pubs and Dems agree on (including, apparently, co-ops? I could have sworn the Pubs have said absolutely no to that). Then he claimed he was going to list some things that we disagree on, but the first thing he mentioned was medical malpractice reform, which he admitted Obama had just said we were going to do. Terrible speech. Great for us, though!

Frothing at the Mouth

All the frothing at the mouth from the Obama-haters is beginning to make me froth at the mouth, and I'm not even that happy with him at the moment. I cannot believe that Loudoun County, among apparently many others, is really not going to broadcast a President's speech to schoolkids on the importance of education. Has it really fallen this far, that it is not just a very small, minor fringe that is willing to go to this sort of extreme? This week, the same day I heard about the Florida GOP head and his accusations of Obama's intention to indoctrinate children with his "socialist ideology," there were LaRouchies outside my metro stop on the way home from work, complete with Obama-as-Hitler posters and all their other nonsense. I wanted to get into a fight with them. And at this point, I really don't see any reason for this kind of reactionary garbage except racism, and I think the witchhunt that has lost us Van Jones is probably further evidence that is at the root of things. I'm worried for this country if the Republican "leadership" won't stand up and denounce the crazies and try to tone things down.

And for those who want to claim that Dems were like this about Bush, first of all, you're flat out wrong, and second of all, think about this: at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The biggest complaints about him were about pulling out of Kyoto and taking too much vacation...

Thought for the day:

With all this crazy talk about "death panels," can we turn it to our advantage? Can we promise to drop the (already nonexistent) death panels in exchange for something?

Creigh Deeds

So it looks like McDonnell's lead just keeps growing, and according to a new poll, it looks like it's got a lot to do with a lack of interest in supporting Deeds from the Democrats.

Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...

This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.

Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.

Bar Exam = Over

Well, at least this time - here's hoping I never have to go through that again! Anyway, now I can get around to finding out about what's happened in the rest of the world the last couple of weeks - looks like we might have some sort of compromise on health care, Obama's approval ratings may or may not be plummeting and somehow McDonnell the crazy right wing extremist has taken a commanding lead over moderate-to-right wing Deeds for my fair Commonwealth's governorship. We're gonna have to get to work on these things!

Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.

The Neocons and Hating Everyone

While there are times (becoming ever more frequent as the bar exam approaches) when I, too, feel like I hate everyone, I don't think I've ever felt that quite as frequently as the neocons, and especially Charles Krauthammer appear to. He had a column in the Washington Post today complaining about Obama, as he is wont to do, because Obama is *gasp* trying to create better relations with Russia.

As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"

Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.

I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.

It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.

This is hilarious

If you need a laugh, read this.

And then there were three...

According to a post at The Mudflats, only three of the 1200 governors elected to a first term since 1900 have quit - McGreevy, Spitzer and Palin. McGreevy is the New Jersey governor who quit while coming out of the closet and admitting to an affair with the man he'd appointed his Homeland Security advisor, and of course Spitzer was having *ahem* affairs. This data makes Palin's random resignation appear all the more bizarre, but that's not what it got me thinking about.

For a century, nobody just quit as governor during his or her first term. Why is it suddenly becoming, if not commonplace, in the realm of possibility? Is it just because there's so much less privacy possible for public figures now, so everything ends up out in the open? Is it part of some greater, creeping moral turpitude that induces people not to live up to their commitments? Just seems so strange to have 3 in 5 years after having none for a century.

Senator Franken

It's official! He's in. I think he'll be a good senator - I love his attitude. He's all about working hard, which is just what we need in our Senators. I'm quite pleased. Plus, 60 votes - except that Lieberman's basically not a vote for anything, but still, theoretically.

Meanwhile, the Pubs, are, of course, doing weirdo twisting uneducated gymnastics over on the other side of the aisle: "The Democrats have total control. No checks. No balances... In 2010, you can hold them accountable." That's from a new ad. Well, first of all, I'm pretty ok with the electorate holding the Dems accountable in 2010, because I think so far we're doing a pretty good job, I just hope the economy continues to look like it's recovering and the jobs start coming back. But, second of all - no checks, no balances? Not only is it absurd to just assume that everything is going to come down to a straight party-line vote, but aren't they forgetting someone? Paging Justice Roberts... The Founding Fathers didn't put the judiciary into the Constitution for show.

Michael Collins

I'm watching this movie again - it's been a while. I watched Braveheart last weekend for the first time ever, and Waltz with Bashir during the week. I guess part of me is thinking how terrible it is that people go around killing each other all the time, but another part of me is thinking how terrible it is that people find themselves in situations where they feel a need to do such things.

Michael Collins was essentially an early terrorist, but somehow this movie makes you root for him. And my Irish blood and the reality of the Republic of Ireland today makes me glad he more or less won, and I'll cry when he's shot again at the end. Freedom is a great thing - I just wish it didn't cost so many lives and so much suffering.

I love America

I know this is more like a sixth grade essay topic than anything else, but here goes. I love America. I am the proof that those crazy Republicans during the 2004 campaign were wrong - liberals not only can be patriots, but often are. No, I'm not proud of everything my country has ever done. We've done unspeakable things. But I am proud, nonetheless, of our country's general principles of liberty, freedom, and especially the rule of law. Certainly, we have not always lived up to our own standards, and we are far from perfect. Today there is rampant sexism and racism in this country, not to mention xenophobia and occasional disregard (possibly even by Obama himself) of the human dignity of all people, especially non-citizens.

However this country provides incredible opportunities, and through more than two centuries, we've avoided dictatorship, martial law and theocracies. People are free here to practice whatever religion they want, or to refuse to practice it. We live at a higher standard of living than any other country I know of, and yet are capable of great generosity of purse and spirit, much of the time. We don't always live up to the ideals we're taught, and generally imbibe, as young schoolkids, but I do believe that our ideals are great, and that for the most part we try to. Regardless of party, most of us just want what's best for the country, and most of us have shown ourselves willing to try to make those things happen.

I'm proud of us, and I'm thankful today that Obama's our President and that Democrats are in control of Congress. However, I'm also grateful to the Republicans, even those I disagree with strongly, for their efforts to steer America towards a bright future. Happy Birthday, America!

Sarah and Mark

Does anyone else find it odd that after the craziness with the Mark Sanford saga over the last couple of weeks, it's a different governor that's stepping down? Nutso as Palin seems to be, she still had a duty to serve out her term. Nobody was calling for her resignation, she hadn't apparently stolen (much) money from her state, etc. Meanwhile, Sanford has lost every claim to honesty he ever had, is dragging his family through the shredder, and apparently made a habit of abdicating his office for days at a time whenever he felt like it - plus, a lot of people seem to want him to resign. So, he remains in office, and Palin...?

Well, who's next to implode? Pawlenty, Romney or Barbour?

Happy Fourth of July!

Happy Birthday, America! I'm so proud and glad to be an American. Plus, I LOVE fireworks!

Sarah's Stepping Down?!?!

Ok, this has got to be the biggest surprise since, well, since McCain picked her as his VP, or maybe since the various shocks of her incompetence during the campaign. So, Sarah Palin is stepping down as governor of Alaska? Why? Why now?

My thinking is that there's GOT to be something more to this story, and I imagine, and hope, that it will come out. Perhaps that baby Andrew Sullivan kept asking about really wasn't hers? Perhaps there's something else out there we don't know anything about? Perhaps someone's blackmailing her?

Clearly, the woman has been a pretty terrible governor. All kinds of problems with abuse of power and questionable ethical decisions. The embarrassment caused by her complete idiocy displayed all over the country during the campaign with McCain. Plummeting approval ratings since people started looking at her closely after McCain's obtuse selection of her. Still, though - why not just avoid running for re-election? I can see absolutely no way in which this helps her political future. So weird!

The Bar Exam

Studying for the bar is terrible. If you're reading this and haven't already, don't go to law school.

I've been practicing Constitutional Law questions today, and some of the questions just seem completely unreasonable. Most recently, I came across one that made my blood boil because it had to do with abortion protesters, something I've been particularly uptight about since the murder of Dr. Tiller. Think I could end up failing the bar because I'm too partisan to answer the Con Law section objectively?

Welcome, Franken!

Well, in a day when Republicans irritated me to a great degree (Sanford, Palin outrunning Obama? Wtf? A rehashing of the stimulus money rejection in VA with a friend, Cheney, etc.), here is some terrific news! Welcome to the Capitol, Senator Franken! It's about time! Hooray for a 60-seat, fillibuster-proof majority! Now if we can only convince all the Democrats to do stuff, it will be a glorious time. Of course, to some extent that will be tough, but certainly easier now than it was without him. What great news.

Sanford and Soulmates

Mark Sanford had an interview that came out today in which he claimed that the woman in Argentina is his soulmate, but that he's trying to fall back in love with his wife. What a dirtbag. Whether or not that's the truth - save it for behind closed doors. There's no way it's fair to his wife to have that wandering around in the press while they're supposedly trying to patch things up. If I were her... well I'd like to think, anyway, that I'd be gone. I like that he's not trashing his mistress, but you can speak respectfully of the one woman without being so incredibly disrespectful to your wife. This kind of stuff just makes me so mad.

Public Option

So, it seems that the big divide right now in the battle over health care reform is between those who want a public option and those who do not. I think I really must be missing something. It seems to me that those who oppose a public option essentially oppose it because it would drive down costs of insurance coverage, and hopefully health care itself. So I guess my question is: unless you own an insurance company, what's so bad about that? I suppose it might lead to some job loss (that could probably be atoned for by the increase in public sector jobs and revenue), but when you balance that against the absolute necessity of doing something to combat rising costs and the ever-increasing bankruptcies due to medical emergencies, I really can't understand what motive the Republicans have to oppose this, apart from wanting campaign contributions from the insurance companies...

Yay Obama!

Okay, I know this is cheesy, but I am so happy Obama is President. It may just be those eight long years under Bush, but I'm just glad. Yeah, he doesn't do everything right, and he hasn't done everything I hope he'll do yet, but that's part of life in a democracy, really.

I've just been thinking about this all week because of his supposedly "testy" press conference earlier in the week. I loved it! My favorite part was when he responded to the question about whether pressure from the Pubs had made him "toughen" his stance on Iran (gee, people, could it be that the situation has changed? Also, could you actually compare current statements to ones made a week ago before you act like it's some huge difference?), when he said something about how McCain is passionate about foreign affairs, but only he, Obama, is President. That is right, Mr. President. It's just you, and how thankful am I for that? It is just you, not McCain, not Lindsey Graham, not Mark Sanford, and most importantly: not W. Thank you, Mr. President, and keep up the (mostly!) good work!

Executive Power

First of all, let me say that I absolutely believe that homosexual marriage should be permitted and that discrimination against homosexuals in all other ways should also be prohibited. That said...

I've seen a lot of complaints recently about Obama's lack of action thus far on Don't Ask Don't Tell, particularly in response to the Center for American Progress's recommendation that he suspend it pending a legislative solution, and in response to the Justice Department's continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act. Although I fervently hope that both of these laws go by the wayside very soon, I do not think it is a good idea, or even legal, for Obama or his Justice Department to unilaterally decide to stop enforcing the law. The executive branch cannot be allowed to simply pick and choose which laws it would like to follow or enforce - I admit that Constitutional Law is not my strong point, but I'm pretty sure that sort of goes against the idea of rule of law.

Take this as an example. Say there is a law against health care providers refusing to prescribe birth control for people solely on the basis of marital status. Now, say there's some Republican governor in office who decides he's just going to drop ongoing suits regarding this law, because he's morally opposed to non-married people having sex. We'd all agree that was wrong, right? But those people think that law is just as morally invalid as we think DOMA and DADT are. Like I said, I hope that we get rid of those laws/policies as quickly as possible - but I had enough of abuse of executive power under Bush, and I rather appreciate Obama's reluctance to go that route.

Direct Response Television Advertisements

So, I think I mostly call these infomercials, but apparently when they're shorter, they're not technically infomercials. Anyway, it seems like, lately, there are a lot more of these lately - maybe just cause I'm bored on vacation and have the TV on a lot more than I usually do. Anyone else feel like they're seeing more of them?

I dislike them because I am virtually always tempted by the product, and because they never tell you what the real cost is going to be. "$9.99 plus shipping and handling!" but if you're lucky, the shipping and handling is in the fine print, and if not, they never tell you. The other day I saw one for an exercise thing with a 30 day trial for $14.95 - and it took me looking through the website for a few minutes to find out that afterwards, it would be 4 easy payments of about a hundred bucks. Each. Also, when you do order stuff, they then ask you to order a million other things. Yes, I know from personal experience - twice :-)

Nifty little gadgets, yay! And yes, I am kind of a sucker.