Roy notes that Erick Erickson proves once again that a conservative who had the first clue what he or she was talking about would be a liberal.
The sad and tragic irony is that when Senator Kennedy returns to work, he will actively work to deny you the access to treatment he himself had.
Yes, that is sad. Also tragic. And the opposite of anything remotely related to reality.
Senator Macropod thinks nothing of the effect on taxpayers his eventual lung cancer will have
The Wall Street Journal is railing against universal health insurance because it has the potential to result in arbitrary cutoffs of medical care due to cost concerns.
Again, mind you, this is supposed to be the reason we don't want a public system of health insurance.
This is the major problem with the arguments against a single-payer system: they're the exact same detriments that come with private health insurance, except that the insured have more of a say in fixing those detriments. It obviously must be stopped at all cost.
This post by Digby chronicling the psychology of the Republican faux outrage machine is a must-read, and I try not to say that lightly. It's a tactic they use routinely at this point---maybe not quite daily, but at this point, more than weekly. At any point in time, your average wingnut has to juggle a shocking number of pretend offenses, from being pretend shocked that Pelosi criticized the CIA to fake outraged that Notre Dame routinely invited a President to speak at its graduation without checking with Alan Keyes first. In fact, I'd say that on top of what Digby is saying, another function of the hissy fit is base control. By pumping conservative followers with one pretend scandal after another, and occupying all of their minimal brain space with it, you effectively prevent them from actually thinking about real issues that matter. Which is critical, because actual thought is fatal to conservatism, especially the way that it's practiced now.
Of course, the whole Digby post really got to me, because (not to pick at old scabs) I was the center of exactly such a faux outrage. The way wingnuts were carrying on when Melissa McEwan and I got jobs with the Edwards campaign, you would have thought no one had ever even thought to suggest that there's something immoral about the way the Catholic Church oppresses women and gay men, and how they are promoting the spread of AIDS, particularly in developing countries, because they're so scared that someone might prevent a pregnancy while also preventing HIV. But what I witnessed at the time was this: The whole faux scandal became a real lightening bolt for how the netroots would like to deal with this routine outrage machine the Republicans have built up. Which is that we think that you should throw them the finger and get on with your lives. And I tend to agree with the rest of the netroots on this, but sympathize with the fact that Democrats fear doing this. Digby:
In a political context this translates to a fear by liberal politicians that they will be rejected by the American people -- and a subconscious dulling of passion and inspiration in the mistaken belief that they can spare themselves further humiliation if only they control their rhetoric.
Of course, the concern in the case of the faux scandal involving myself and Melissa was that Edwards would get tagged as tolerant of Catholic bigots, which is a ridiculous suggestion, because it starts with the idea that there is such a thing as someone who is "bigoted" against Catholics like you would be against a non-mainstream group, as opposed to merely critical of church dogma. But no matter, one can see how that fear is hardly imagined, especially when Catholics are a traditional Democratic voting constituency. And of course, it's well-understood that wingnuts have nothing better to do than wail and moan, because what else are they going to do with their time? Think? Give a shit? Get a hobby? Leave the house? No, of course not. That's scary and, it's been reported, causes you testicles to fall off. So all that's left is wailing and moaning. Soon, you feel the urge just to give them a scalp so they'll shut up.
At best, though, what you buy when you hand them a scalp is that they quiet down some about the current faux outrage and just move on to the next one. But they never, ever forget, and no matter how much you offer a phony apology, they never, ever forgive. They weren't mad in the first place, so acts like apology and forgiveness are meaningless in real world terms. So the value of capitulation has never been proven to me. All you do by capitulating is encourage them to diversify their targets.
But what can you do? The media happily picks up the latest faux outrage and runs with it. Maybe not every one, but the right wing noise machine's tactic is to employ an infinite number of monkeys typing out an infinite number of faux scandals until one takes off in the mainstream media. It's a perfect system for the media types, because they get an endless supply, from which they can pick and choose, and they don't actually have to do any work to find content to fill the airwaves, since the monkeys with blogs and think tanks and front organizations provide an endless stream. This means that everyone is against us, unfortunately. Or was, though now there's a few left-leaning talking heads on cable now to break up the monotony.
But what I think Democrats should seriously start doing is to take on the motto, "Never apologize, never capitulate." At least not as long as it's a faux outrage. Why? For one thing, out of basic respect for decency. Apologies are precious things that shouldn't be watered down by giving them out when you don't mean it to people who don't mean it. On top of that, every capitulation is registered as a victory for wingnuts. With this Pelosi thing, for instance, they're angling for a way to shut down discussion about torture altogether. They can't win for a number of reasons, mainly because shutting down this discussion will create a cancer in our society that may be terminal. But even when it comes to less important issues, capitulation just registers as a victory. Which insures they'll do it again. It's basic behavioral psychology---if a monkey starts slamming on a keyboard and you feed him grapes for his trouble, he'll keep doing it. With human monkeys, you just feed them phony apologies and scalps. We need to quit rewarding the behavior, at bare minimum.
Oklahoma resident Denabeth, one of the regulars at my pad, sent me this story, saying "One more step towards Oklahoma becoming an theocracy." The home to Sally Kern has a legislature and governor that approved the display of the Ten Commandments at the state Capitol. (The Oklahoman):
Had Henry vetoed House Bill 1330, it was likely the GOP-run Legislature would have overridden it, something that has occurred only once in the 61/2 years Henry has been governor. The measure easily passed both chambers: 83-2 in the House and 38-8 in the Senate.I don't think we have to ask which way Sally voted....The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma may file a lawsuit depending on how it fares with its challenge to a Ten Commandments monument in Haskell County, said Tamya Cox, the group’s legislative counsel. "We’re very disappointed the governor signed House Bill 1330,” she said. "It usurped the First Amendment. Thankfully, we have until Nov. 1 before the monument could be erected, so we are going to definitely take our time.”
...Sen. Randy Brogdon, Senate sponsor of HB 1330, said he is "tickled pink” the governor signed the measure.
"He chose to be with the people on this one,” said Brogdon, R-Owasso. "It was widely supported by people around the state. I was pleasantly surprised.”
Video is below the fold.
There were a lot of things I could have done this past weekend. Get to that pile of laundry, hit the pillow for some sorely-needed shut-eye, and, of course, spend quality time with my wife. But I hopped on a plane to meet with 23 other people at a hotel at the Dallas Fort Worth airport. Why?
The reason we gathered was to see how we could seize this special moment in history, to think outside of the box about how we can accelerate achieving full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in this nation. I had no idea who was on the list of attendees, by the way (see the list below the fold).
The result of our work is The Dallas Principles. The Preamble:
President Obama and Congress pledged to lead America in a new direction that included civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. We now sit at a great moment in our history that inspires the nation to return to its highest ideals and greatest promise. We face a historic opportunity to obtain our full civil rights; this is the moment for change. No delay. No excuses.Here in my home state of North Carolina, we enthusiastically voted for change in 2008, turning out in unprecedented numbers, flipping North Carolina to Blue in the presidential election; we also elected a woman as our governor for the first time.Nearly forty years ago, a diverse group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people stood up to injustice at the Stonewall Inn in New York City. In doing so, they submitted themselves to bodily harm and criminal prosecution. Their demand was simple -- equal protection under the law.
Still today, full civil rights has eluded the same community that rioted forty years ago. Instead, untold sums of resources have been spent to divide our nation and turn our lives into a political football.
At several junctures in American history, the stars have aligned to deliver the promise of equal protection under the law to those previously denied. At this unique time in history, our nation must once again exercise the great tradition of making its people equal.
Justice has too long been delayed. A clear path toward full civil equality for the LGBT community is overdue and must come now.
Using fear and misunderstanding to justify discrimination is no longer acceptable in this nation. Those content with the way things are will be judged harshly by history. Those who do not actively advance these ideals or offer excuses will be judged just as harshly. Those who attempt to divide our community or to delay and deny action on civil equality, waiting for the right moment to arrive, will be held accountable.
We reject the idea that honoring the founding principles of our country is controversial. We believe in the inherent human dignity of all people. No longer will we submit our children, our family, our friends and ourselves as a political tool for any Party or ideology. A new day has arrived.
Despite these landmark changes, for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender North Carolinians, our newly Blue state does not see us as equal citizens under the law. We have not passed state hate crimes legislation; we can be fired from our jobs because of our sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. My marriage to my wife Kate -- we wed in Canada in 2004, is not recognized in this state. We are strangers under the law.
Sadly, too many of my fellow residents and state elected officials do not yet believe in extending full civil rights to tax-paying LGBT North Carolinians. It doesn't look like positive change here will come at the state level any time soon, either. That's why we need to work together at the federal level to bring us closer to full equality now.
The Principles, Goals, and Call to Action are at my pad.
Senator Macropod prepares to bend Democrats to his will yet again
As so often happens, Harry Reid is my reminder:
President Barack Obama's promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison suffered a blow Tuesday when his allies in the Senate said they would refuse to finance the move until the administration delivers a satisfactory plan for what to do with the detainees there...While allies such as No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois cast the development as a delay of only a few months, other Democrats have made it plain they don't want any of Guantanamo's detainees sent to the United States to stand trial or serve prison sentences.
"We don't want them around," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
REID: Well, the decision to close Guantanamo was a right one.
I agree with President Bush. I agree with John McCain . I agree with Barack Obama . Guantanamo makes us less save [sic].
However, this is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States...
If people are -- if terrorists are released in the United States, part of what we don’t want is them be put in prisons in the United States. We don’t want them around the United States.
I'm not just casting around for excuses for the party as a whole, but Reid sounds fucking confused. If Obama doesn't have a sensible plan, whatever. The bill itself was written to not release the money until a plan was approved. Moreover, in trying to justify himself, Reid sounds like he doesn't actually know what his opinion was. It's not often you get to hear a Senator triangulate in real-time. Later, his spokesman clarified what Reid meant to mean:
"He's not going to do anything until we get a plan from the president." [Reid spokesman] Manley said. He said "the leader is leaving the door open to detainees being transferred to American prisons, should the administration put forward a plan to do so."
Damn, Reid is just a disaster. No matter what his intentions were, he's providing political cover for DINOs like Jim Webb:
We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law. These aren't people who were in the United States committing a crime in the United States. These are people who were brought to Guantanamo for international terrorism*. I do not believe they should be tried in the United States.
From the Fox News article, Webb sounds awfully familiar:
"We shouldn't be creating artificial timelines," Webb said.
Hey! He stole Republicans' catchphrase! Man, they're gonna be pissed.
I don't even know what to do with all this. At this point, we could give them 99 Senators and the sole Republican Senator could be a wallaby openly taking bribes from the tobacco industry**, and Dems would still be "sick of getting walloped by Republicans over...phony, made-up issue[s]***."
Seriously, Dems? You're supposed to be doing the walloping. It's not a made-up issue, it's a central promise made by your President. Get your shit together.
(h/t Darcy.)
--------------
* Yanno.
** I promise I thought of the analogy first, then found the picture. Well, sort of. Originally it was a wallaby smoking a corncob pipe, but damn, I'm still pretty good.
*** Somebody totally said that.
My favorite kind of racist is the "not-racist". The not-racist is a special and wonderful breed which insists that not only is it not racist, but all the negative and pejorative things they notice about other races comes not from any racist motivation but instead the fact that other races just keep insisting on being inferior. The not-racist also has a constant out against accusations of racism: The Friend. The Friend is a friend of the race which the not-racist is criticizing, and is always a.) successful, b.) intelligent and c.) making the exact lifestyle choices which other members of their race fail to make (and which, in turn, fully explain everything about their supposed "racial inequality"). The Friend is a better person even than the not-racist, stable and hard-working and intrepid and probably not a real person, but whatever. Perhaps most importantly, everything the Friend does is not for their own benefit or edification, oh no. Everything they do is done in order to allow the not-racist evidence that they can't possibly be racist, and to provide proof that the not-racist knows that of which they speak. The Friend is not a person; the Friend is something akin to a melanin-infused Pokemon that the not-racist can pull out in during any battle, like Pikachu if all the other Pikachus had higher incarceration and lower employment rates than all the other Pokemon.
There's a movement afoot to promote black patronization of black businesses, not much different than what any number of ethnic groups ghettoized into ethnic enclaves have done for centuries. According to not-racist Amy Alkon, this is just plain wrong. And she's got a reason why:
Oh, please. A friend of mine is a black fashion designer who started with nothing and built her business herself, selling clothes out of the back of her station wagon after she couldn't afford the living expenses in New York City and had to turn down a scholarship to F.I.T. It isn't skin color that makes the difference, it's enterpreneurial spirit and a burning desire to make it; enough so that you're not afraid to fail and pick yourself up and start again when and if you do.
I choose you, Negrochu! The most absurd conversation I've ever overheard was at a restaurant in a hotel. One person was remarking to the other that racism didn't exist any more because it was outlawed in 1964; the temptation to stab myself in the eye with the fork was only abated by the fact that she would probably take it as an indication that minorities were crazy, violent savages and I couldn't do that to the next black person she was going to undertip.
Alkon's not-racism is particularly insidious, because it assumes that every day is Conveniently Do Away With All Of History Day. The basic presumption of not-racism is that racism is clearly limited to whatever it is that's not what they're doing (i.e., it's only racism if it's lynching, it's only racism if it's explicitly stated, it's only racism if it's the third Tuesday in July and raining), and as such, the obvious explanation for racial inequality must be the moral failure of the people alleging it. Segregationists could at least admit they wanted other races treated inequally because they thought those races were inferior; not-racists look at inequality and just assume it's what other races want because those races are inferior.
There's a particular form of not-racism that occurs with the black community, as well. More accurately, there's the not-racist argument that the idea of a "black community" is illegitimate. You see, any attempt to define the black experience in America must come with the realization that the experience is fundamentally defined by external racism; it must therefore be denied at all costs. This is when there's a positive attempt to define the community; when "black people" as a whole can have anything negative assigned to them, there is a community. And that community is making a clear and undeniable statement that it's decided to fuck itself up because it's a bunch of stupid dumbheads. Unlike, you know, The Friend.
Not-racism places the black community in a lose-lose situation. They are not allowed to have a history or an identity unless they do something wrong, in which case they are intractably bound each to the other for every single misstep and bad decision made by any of them.
Black Americans seeking out black businesses, particularly in light of white flight, ghettoization and the general prevalence of racist attitudes, is on balance a good thing for all involved. However, whatever the merits or detriments of the idea, there's absolutely no point in debating them based on the definition of proper behavior as "what this one person I know did because she's black".
Oh Jesus, now he's using his perch at the NY Times to treat Dan Brown like he's a genuine threat to the One True Church Of Lady-Hating. Favorite quote:
The polls that show more Americans abandoning organized religion don’t suggest a dramatic uptick in atheism: They reveal the growth of do-it-yourself spirituality, with traditional religion’s dogmas and moral requirements shorn away. The same trend is at work within organized faiths as well, where both liberal and conservative believers often encounter a God who’s too busy validating their particular version of the American Dream to raise a peep about, say, how much money they’re making or how many times they’ve been married.
I fail to understand why it's good to believe in bullshit if someone else made it up, but bad to make some bullshit up yourself. If you're going to be full of shit, you might as well exercise your own powers of imagination while doing so.
Spoilers!
So, the trailer for "Star Trek" sucked me in. That, and relatively good ratings the critics gave it. Well, and I like "Lost", and so I figured J.J. Abrams could deliver on the promise to "reboot" the Star Trek franchise, making it interesting to people like me who aren't necessarily opposed to sci-fi, but who haven't ever really been interested in "Star Trek". "Battlestar Galactica" has, whatever you think of the ending, conclusively proven that you can take hokey source material and turn it into something imaginative and intellectually challenging. Consider that, and then consider how much more you have to work with when it comes to "Star Trek" as source material. J.J. Abrams has proven with "Lost" that he can handle the complicated, confusing plots that "Star Trek" is (I hear) famous for. And Abrams promised that the movie would be accessible to people who don't know much about "Star Trek". That's me! I've only ever seen the first two movies, and bits of the original series and none of the spin-offs, not even a minute. So I went in with high hopes.
What I do know about "Star Trek", from just absorbing it culturally, is that it's based on the premise of a utopian Earth that aligns itself politically with other planets to create a Federation that funds massive amounts of space exploration, and that a large amount of the appeal of the series goes to the fact that it advanced progressive views and values in a sci-fi environment that usually inculcates reactionaries. This strikes me as a great place to launch a clever blockbuster that packs in lots of action, but explores some interesting progressive issues without being pedantic. But apparently, the producers and writers decided that this was impossible, and decided that interesting themes are mutually exclusive from action-packed thrill rides, and chose the latter over the former. For a movie that shows the genocide of an entire race---one that's enshrined in the public consciousness like the Vulcans are, no less---I felt nothing. Which is terrible, because the movie's entire emotional impact turns on how Spock's grief over the loss of his mother and his planet, and so if you can't sell his tragedy as a tragedy, you're losing the audience. Zachary Quinto brought some gravitas to the role that mediated this problem, but it just wasn't enough.
If you knew nothing about "Star Trek" going into this movie, you would come out with very little understanding of the Federation or the people of Earth in which these characters lives' are grounded. If I hadn't read up on Wikipedia, I'd have exactly no idea that the Earth on the series is one that has gotten past most of its political problems, and that the Starfleet is about exploration more than making war. Again, I think this sort of thing can be coupled with one action piece after another, so I don't know what their excuse is.
Plus, J.J. Abram's obsession with pregnancy is beginning to get on my last nerve. There's an excuse for it on "Lost", since the island kills pregnant women, but outside of the decent character of Uhura, you'd think the main thing women can do in the "Star Trek" universe is give birth. I don't have a problem with the first scene in the movie being Kirk's birth, or the fact that the main bad guy is motivated by the death of his pregnant wife, or that you actually have Kirk taunt Spock over his mother's death by indicating you have to love your mother because she gave birth to you (not, you know, because she raised you). But taken together, it's tedious, especially since Spock's poor mother gets like two lines of dialogue before she's killed. I don't know why they bothered paying Winona Ryder to play her, and I also object to Ryder moving into the middle-aged mother role already, since she's only 6 years older than me. I'm not asking Abrams to completely remake the characters, or do something like they did on "Battlestar Galactica", and turn some male characters female, so that the stated values of the community line up to the portrayed values. You can't get away with that when it comes to "Star Trek". But while I loved the character Uhura, I just felt like the portrayal of all other female characters was rubbing your nose in how unimportant women are to this story.
My highest hope for this movie was that it would correct some of the things that drive non-Trekkies away from the franchise: the hokeyness, the pedantic plots and dialogue, and the obviously stupid fake science. But no. Apparently, the producers thought these elements were necessary to any Star Trek product. I think "red matter" should now be the phrase for any magical element in a sci-fi story that tries to pass itself off as science. Time travel, warp speed, and beaming people? Okay, all something I can buy could be possible with the right technology. But red matter was fucking stupid, especially how they used it. The hokeyness was inexcusable, as well. A few jokes, okay, but by the end of the movie, they were trying to generate interest by shoving new actors in old roles, without doing anything interesting with those roles, with Simon Pegg as Scotty being the most egregious example.
Worst was the pedantry. You'd think that since all politics were drained from the script, you'd at least be spared the pedantry. But no. We're subjected to a tedious moral about how Vulcans need to be more in touch with their emotions, which actually offended me, for two major reasons. First of all, and call me a cultural relativist all you want, but right after a genocide is not the time to start bagging on a people about how their culture's value systems are all wrong, particularly when they have a fairly admirable, education-oriented, peace-loving culture. Second of all, the offensiveness of this is driven home as Kirk taunts Spock about his dead mother in order to take command of the ship. What we learn from this is that Spock should feel bad about his desire to live by Vulcan values, at least just a little bit. Meanwhile, I'm stuck on the fact that Kirk is a mega-asshole.
It was a highly entertaining movie, so I'm not saying don't see it. But don't have any expectations for it. It's definitely one where turning your brain off makes it go down much easier.
Matt, while utterly denouncing and mocking this George Will piece about transportation, doesn't do enough justice to how truly terrible this piece celebrating pollution and the destruction of our planet one commute at a time.* Also, and I know Auguste will be pleased by this, Will includes Portland in the list of cities that every conservative should consider during the Two Minute Hate. I can't wait until Austin gets nationally noticed.
Anyway, the column is fact-free and hateful, and Will's arguments about the environment come exceedingly close to "I'm going to die before it gets really bad, so fuck you all," but on top of all that, it's an offense to language and writing as an occupation. Witness the first paragraph:
You might think the Department of Transportation would be a refuge from Washington's inundation of painfully earnest and pitilessly incessant talk about "remaking" this (health care, Detroit) and "transforming" that (the energy sector, the planet's temperature). Transportation, after all, is about concrete practicalities—planes, trains and automobiles, steel, asphalt and concrete.
Will needs to retire now, because he actually just argued that the sheer physicality and practicality of something precludes remaking and transforming it. This shows that he's lost his grip on the nature of verbs. "Remaking" and "transforming" could be abstractions, but they are metaphorical if used abstractly. They stem from imagining physical, practical remakings and transformings. For instance, this morning, I physically transformed a pile of ground up coffee beans into liquid coffee that was more suitable for drinking. And I remade that cup of coffee by pouring half and half and sweetner in it. Doesn't get more physical and practical than that.
In that same light, when people speak of remaking and transforming transit systems, they aren't talking about holding hands and projecting thoughts of non-pollution at it. It's all about physical objects, observable systems, real world experimentation, and practicalities. If anything, it's a subject that people tire of easily because it's so wonky and pragmatic, and the only reason it holds people's attention is because the vast majority of transport ourselves from one place to another every day, usually multiple times a day. Reading this first paragraph, you get the impression that Will thinks "Planes, Trains, And Automobiles" was a film about philosophers and mathematicians kicking around completely abstract ideas.
But wait! There's more!
Furthermore, the new transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, was until January a Republican congressman practicing militant middle-of-the-roadism. He knows what plays in Peoria, and not just figuratively: He is from there. Peoria is a meatloaf, macaroni-and-cheese, down-to-earth place, home of Caterpillar, the maker of earthmoving machines for building roads, runways, dams and things.
LaHood, however, has been transformed.
At this point, Will makes his assumptions sparklingly clear: Transformation itself is evil. Perhaps he saw the "Transformers" movie, and it scarred him for life against the concept. However, by even writing this column, Will subverts his own anti-change value system. After all, he is writing an op-ed, with the purpose of persuading people to see things his way. This means that he is trying to change people. And it's a radical change at that---Will wants Americans to forsake our interest not just in public health but individual health. He's not just pro-pollution, he appears to be hostile to all non-baseball-related exercise, since he singles out bicycling as a particularly stupid and odious form of transportation.
Where to start? Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program "promoted" driving? Does he think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work?
As Matt notes, .4% already do. But what's particularly funny here is that Will actually thinks that people commute to work by car because they're "avid" drivers. Look, sitting in traffic listening to some two-bit morning DJs make pre-scripted Paris Hilton jokes while wishing (!) you could just be at work already isn't exactly hitting the open highway, wind in your hair, and rule-driven life at your back. Will's head would explode if he knew that I can name at least one person in my personal acquaintance who loves cars and driving, but commutes to work on a bicycle because sitting in traffic sucks kangaroo balls. People drive in most places because taking the bus or train takes too long, and/or they hate sitting with the hoi polloi on a bus or train. Or they live too far out to take a subway that does come by at a regular enough interval that you don't have to worry about missing it if you sleep in a little too late. If you love your car, the last thing you want to do is ruin it by putting it through a grinding daily commute.
Will thinks people drive because they're good, conservative Americans who enjoy shitting on the planet to prove they're not beholden to any train schedule. By his measure, Western Americans---with our rugged individualism---should riot against the growing use of light rail systems, or at least turn them into laughingstocks by not using them. Wrong! Even notoriously conservative parts of the country, such as Dallas and Salt Lake City have seen the light rail systems turn out to be more popular than the most optimistic projections, because it turns out that when people are sitting in traffic and they see the train zip by them, they rethink their choices pretty quickly.** I can attest that traffic in Dallas doesn't seem nearly as bad as it did before light rail.
*I know that Will doesn't "believe" in global warming, but I think even your largest asshole conservative "believes" in air pollution. You can't deny coughing, you know.
**This is why I fear Austin light rail will fail. Since they laid it on already existing track, it's not visible or especially accessible to most of the residents of the city who would benefit from it. But clearly, the issue is education not rugged individualism.
Michael Steele is set to declare today that the era of the GOP apologizing for its mistakes is over...and I suppose he'd be the person to do that, because he was the only Republican even making an attempt to apologize for anything, and most of his apologies were the same sort of apologies you get from someone who's truly sorry you're such an asshole.
Of course, the era of apology is over because it is, and not because anything's actually changed. Says Steele:
"Our comeback is well underway out in the states, I can assure you of that," he plans to say. "The folks inside the Beltway don't know it yet, but the people are beginning to rally, the comeback has begun. Those of you who live outside of Washington know what I'm talking about. Those of you who actually attend Lincoln Day dinners, county party events, and tea parties…those of you who toil in the vineyards, spending time in communities, in diners, barber shops, and coffee shops where real every day people can be found…you know it is real."
When I first read that, I thought the "vineyards" line might be about, say, Americans that work in actual vineyards or some sort of figurative reference to people who labor. Then I remembered that any time that Republicans say anything that sounds even remotely metaphorical, it's a shout-out to evangelicals. Glad to see the GOP is moving past thinly-veiled Biblical references as a substitute for actual messages towards the future to, you know...other stuff.
CNN says that Nancy Pelosi has Newt Gingrich-like approval ratings, in the sense that she has an approval rating that Newt Gingrich at one point had while he was Speaker of the House. It's a lot like saying that Obama has "Nixon-like" approval ratings because he has an approval rating that Nixon at one point had, and he spends all of his time ranting on tape about Jews.
Nearly half of all Americans — 48 percent — disapprove of how the California Democrat she is handling her job as Speaker of the House in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday, while 39 percent approve of her performance.
That rating makes her less popular than other members of her party — congressional Democrats drew a 51 percent approval rating in last month's CNN/ORC survey — and roughly in line with the congressional GOP, which drew positive ratings in April from just 39 percent of those polled.
That puts her approval rating at roughly the levels Newt Gingrich had in his first year as Speaker of the House. (Back in 1995, Gingrich's approval rating was 37 percent; by 1997 — at the same point in his speakership that Pelosi is now — that had dropped to just 25 percent.)
In Newt Gingrich's first year, he rode in on what we've been told ad nauseum was one of the greatest political revolutions in world history; one would think that's a pretty good approval rating, right? Well, not only is it virtually similar to Pelosi's approval rating from a few months ago, but it's significantly better than the last Speaker's approval rating in 2005.
However, this does lead to one potential benefit - if Pelosi's being mentioned in the same breath as Gingrich, this means that within a couple of years, she should be mentioned not only as a presidential contender no matter how little she actually does to run for President, but her every utterance should make national news no matter how little power or influence she actually holds. I just say we do it now and get this little dance over with.
Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate finally got a crack at White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at Monday's daily press briefing:
Just an FYI, a few of the press releases I've received Monday from the White House, indicating they are "checking on" these burning issues...KERRY ELEVELD: The President supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act during the election. Now that same-sex couples can marry legally in five different states, what is the President doing to make sure those marriages are recognized at the federal level, and what's the timeline for something like that?
ROBERT GIBBS: I...I will have to go check on that. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
* Statement of President Barack Obama on Haitian Flag Day
* Remarks by the First Lady at the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at the Metropolitan Museum of Art American Wing
* President Obama to Deliver Commencement Address at US Naval Academy in Annapolis
As one of my contributors said, "The WH wasn't ready to answer a question on marriage equality? Their feigning of ignorance is extremely transparent as a planned act."
Seriously, does Gibbs think we believe him when he has to check on what the President's plan on DOMA is, given we've seen a string of states enact marriage equality, and even seen a U.S. Senator, Tom Harkin of Iowa, publicly change his mind to support marriage equality after having voted for the federal DOMA?
"We all grow as we get older, and we learn things and we become more sensitive to people and people's lives. And the more I've looked at that, I've grown to think differently about how people - how we should live. And I guess I'm at the point that, you know - I'm to that point of live and let live.In Maine, Governor John Baldacci, who supported civil unions, announced his change of heart and signed marriage equality into law.
"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Governor Baldacci said. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."The logical conclusion is that the President thinks the Governor and Harkin are wrong, that separate is indeed equal. And Gibbs said as much when asked about Maine."Article I in the Maine Constitution states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against.'"
"This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State," Governor Baldacci said.
President believes this is an issue that's best addressed by the states.The White House also agrees with this commenter over at Huffington Post, who wrote this in response to my post on homophobia in the black community and Obama:
The States should & can handle social issues and are doing so what's the problem! Some people can just not be happy anymore without confrontation to to sad. I do not believe in gay marriage and do not hate anyone nor do I fear anything--- I Let Go and Let God have the Judgment day not my problem or am I in control of who loves who!In response to this insanity, I reminded this misguided soul that if we left matters of civil rights to the states, Jim Crow would still be in effect, Obama's parents would not have been able to marry, and poll taxes would still exist. How soon we forget.
This is the level of ignorance and interpretation of this Administration's position that is allowed to go unchallenged by the President and through his mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs.
The 4x married, ex-con former mayor Marion "The bitch set me up" Barry also holds the President's position on the matter. Barry, in his current role as DC Councilmember was the lone vote against DC recognizing same-sex marriages outside of the District:
The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that."Candidate Obama, to Rev. Rick Warren during the Saddleback Presidential Candidate Forum:
"I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."That quote, by the way, was used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California in a robocall to highlight the President's "position" (even though belatedly candidate Obama said he opposed the measure, drawing attention to his inconsistent position).
I guess Gibbs has truly morphed into Scotty McClelland.
Related:
* The White House has nowhere to hide from MSM equality questions as Gibbs blows it at presser
* The Obama admin doesn't know how to respond to the marriage equality dominoes
Hat tip, Blender Jon.
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.
