Little Ricky Santorum Wants You Nasty Democrats to Vote for Him

Well isn't that INTeresting?

Rick Santorum wants evil, liberal, homo-loving, dog-fornicating-with Democrats to vote for HIM today.

Abandon your welfare-queen palaces, put down the white wine, and go vote.

Hear it here.

Democrats for Santorum? You cannot make this stuff up.

Welcome Maryland to Marriage Equality

Maryland has done it, and that's pretty damn good.

Let's add Delaware and dump the NJ Gov., and we're working on a solid Northeast.

Fairly soon we're going to stop calling it "gay marriage" and just call it "marriage." As it should be.

A quick travesty of Little Ricky Santorum to amuse you on Mardi Gras.

Rick d'Arc

Washington State Legislature Passes Gay Marriage Bill

Some better news.

Gay marriage will be signed into law by the governor of the state.

The earth-shattering result? More people will get married.

Meanwhile Little Ricky is in a lather over those hateful bigoted leftists who want gay people to marry. He calls it "a religion unto itself."

The NY Times:

He went on to attack Democrats, for what he called their “intolerance” of people of faith, saying their “assault” was a “religion unto itself, like atheists in the Soviet Union.”

Of course, the Gray Lady is wrong. He was attacking the "Left" as witnessed in this Reuters video.

Great. We've got it. The Religion of the Left. That means anyone progressive finally gets religious freedom under the Bill of Rights, right?

I don't think that's what he's after, but that's what you're getting. Now I have to figure out my outfit as official High Priest. Then there's the choice of shoes, incense, symbols, music... Endless possibilities!

I'll put that order in for the stained glass window of Darwin as the captain of a pirate ship firing on Noah's ark.

Good Riddance to Bad Rubble?

The big ugly yellow building is gone at last! Thanks to E.V. Grieve for the photos from above. From the ground, it looked like the end of an error.

Alas, the Great Wall that is slated to take its place looks like something out of a horror movie.

Californians Foolishly Celebrate Victory Over Prop 8

In a haze of folly, California's anti-Prop 8 forces today swooned over a prematurely declared victory over Proposition 8. Alas, this just means the case gets bumped from the 3-judge panel of the circuit court to the entire 11-judge body. Then it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it's anyone's guess whether simple logic can prevail. It hasn't so far (see Citizen's United).

On the bright side, perhaps same-sex corporations will be allowed to marry.

Yes, yes, I know the argument here: more heaps of paper with eloquent reasoning will eventually tip the balance. Maybe, but not usually, and not so far.

Again, always happy to be surprised.

Rick Santorum: Marriage a 'Privilege' Not for Yous Gays

Little Ricky sticks his foot in his mouth yet again. Listen through for the compendium of right-wing arguments against gay marriage to date.

He carefully argues for only hetero marriage based on birthin' them babies. Never mind that lesbians do this at an alarming rate! Children born to them would not be allowed a second parent, no way, no how.

If you follow his "logic" all opposite-sex couples would have to prove fertility to get married. Vasectomies will be outlawed in his very strange kingdom.

[video: looks to be CNN with a Think Progress overlay. How do they get away with slapping their stamp on it, when it clearly says CNN?]

Washington Gay Marriage Rolls Forward

I know it's a good thing, but it looks like the adversaries are not giving up. Opponents are determined to pull ANOTHER REFERENDUM, as they have done in so many other states.

And, as before, the majority will be given the chance to vote on the rights of the minority. That always works out well, huh?

While the odds on the referendum rollback are long, the problem remains that so many other states will have to re-referendum their laws and constitutional amendments, guaranteeing a constant state of this reprehensible type of voting for 20 to 50 years to come.

Unless some bolt from the blue, a federal shade of blue, should strike, prepare for a long slog through swampy voting. That's what the opponents want, since it keeps them funded and in the limelight. No one would give them a moment of their attention otherwise.

What I also grew last year. (More thoughts of spring.)

What I grew last year. (Thinking of spring.)

NEWT ALLIES TO INTRODUCE "DEFENSE OF OPEN MARRIAGE ACT" IN CONGRESS

Unnamed Newt Gingrich's supporters in Congress have leaked that they will introduce the Defense of Open Marriage Act during the spring session.

One wife at a time?

The act, unfortunately known as DOOMA, may just spell doom for the religious right's former stance on such matters. Supporters, however, disagree that this would change the conservative definition of family values.

 

"We want to keep marriage as God intended it to be," one Representative stated, anonymously for now. "One husband, one wife, one mistress, and maybe a few flings on the side. These are the family values that made Newt a great American, and made America great."

Asked whether this might be considered a hypocritical change of position, he responded: "What change? We've always been for hypocrisy. Besides, it's in the Bible. Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines, and heaven only knows what he did on business trips."

New CFPB Chief Out of the Gate

Finally, a recess appointment when we need one most. ABC News reports on Cordray's agenda-defining speech:

“Consumers deserve to have someone who will stand on their side, who will protect them against fraud, and who will ensure that they are treated fairly in the financial marketplace,” he said. “The new consumer bureau was created to make sure these things are achieved for all Americans.”

 Let's have some more recess appointments. I think they're spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, and I don't think all of Congress is in session when one chamber (the Senate) has adjourned and left the building.

Obama Did Not Say What I Thought He Said, or Did He?

I watched some of the very puzzling 60 Minutes interview with President Obama. I so wanted his explanations to make sense. Steve Kroft seemed to repeat the Prez's poll numbers endlessly, as if that was the only issue worth asking about. Then I thought I heard something that made my brain hurt.

I checked the transcript, and here's the part of the exchange I needed played back:

KROFT: One of the things that surprised me the most about this poll is that 42%, when asked who your policies favor the most, 42% said Wall Street. Only 35% said average Americans. My suspicion is some of that may have to do with the fact that there's not been any prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, of people on Wall Street. And that the civil charges that have been brought have often resulted in what many people think have been slap on the wrists, fines. "Cost of doing business," I think you called it in the Kansas speech. Are you disappointed by that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think you're absolutely right in your interpretation. And, you know, I can't, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That's the job of the Justice Department. And we keep those things separate, so that there's no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors. I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal.

That's exactly why we had to change the laws. And that's why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression. And that law is not yet fully implemented, but already what we're doing is we've said to banks, "You know what? You can't take wild risks with other people's money. You can't expect a taxpayer bailout. We're gonna ask you to set up a living will, so that if you are going down, we've already figured how to break it up, without harming the rest of the economy."

[...]  [emphasis mine]

Wait, if there were settlements signed, usually without admission of any wrongdoing, then only the settlements' terms clear the companies of criminality!

He's basically saying what the SEC usually says: Hey, we can't prosecute, because we don't have the time, resources, or people to do it. Therefore, company X, sign here, here, and here, and go with our blessing. All we want it a check.

This is a surprisingly tone-deaf statement, especially with the Occupy Wall Street movement proving at last that, yes, people are paying a tiny bit of attention.

Got to hand it to the companies that get charged, they simply pay the government to complete their coverups for them. Nice.

And as long as we've "changed the laws," we can now prosecute a greater volume of no one at a much faster pace! We can sell these settlements just like the Medieval church sold indulgences. No crime involved: Just sign here, here, and here.

JOBS, OUR BIGGEST EXPORT. FREE TRADE FOR ALL!

Headlining the keynote speakers at the forum was renowned economist Dr. Lawrence Summers, former director of the White House National Economic Council under Barack Obama. Summers, who served as president of Harvard University from 2001-2006, said in his speech that global sourcing is a key to economic success.
“There are those today who would resist the process of international integration; that is a prescription for a more contentious and less prosperous world,” stated Summers. “We should not oppose offshoring or outsourcing.”

Jobs, our biggest export!

OBAMA'S (AND DEMS') BAD MESSAGING. INTENTIONAL OR STUPID?

Okay, hurricane Irene and Obama's Huge Speech have now blown over. Let's examine the wreckage and damage caused by the latter.

I realized in a phone conversation that the Dems in general, and Prez O in particular, have a gigantic problem with messaging. Take this snippet from the New York Times:

Mr. Obama went before Congress in September to push for a $447 billion package of tax cuts and new government spending.

The centerpiece of the bill, known as the American Jobs Act, is an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes, worth $240 billion, under which the tax paid by employees would be cut in half through 2012.

Opinesters are opining away over whether these tax cuts will create any jobs at all. Consumer confidence is extremely low. So, the misnamed payroll tax cut (really a cut to contributions to Social Security) might not stimulate much.

But a point is being missed by anyone I can see: When Pres. G.W. Bush eased the heavy burden on the pitiable and downtrodden wealthy, he and his amen-chorus Repubs called it a TAX CUT. When Prez O and the Dems put forth the same plan, albeit for greedy and overprivileged working people, they happily call it SPENDING which has to be PAID FOR. That's not a subtle distinction, that's an encapsulation of the last 30 years of conservative framing of the argument! The Democrats spend. Spend, spend, spend. Even when they cut taxes, that's spending. And you wonder why it's a no-win every time. The Dems are playing uphill with this brainless messaging.

Worse, in this case, it could be intentionally put that way in order to puff up a jobs bill that really spends far less than half of its total on putting anyone to work. At the center of the bill is a vacuum that must be now filled with other CUTS. Cut, cut cut. Is this a never-ending rerun?

HIGHLINE, PART II (An Updated Review)

Part 2 of the Highline gets a rave review from the NY Review of Books.

Once again, Oudolf’s selection of botanical material is superb. This summer it featured such flowering perennials as allium, catmint, coral bells, cranebill, rosemary, salvia, and yarrow, along with trees and shrubs including chokeberry, holly, magnolia, redbud, roses, sassafras, and shadblow. His random-looking (though deliberately composed) planting beds simultaneously pay homage to the wildness of the High Line in its gone-to-seed phase and seamlessly accommodate the many functional requirements of a heavily trafficked pedestrian concourse

Take an elevating walk when you can.

Obama's Huge Jobs Speech Promises ... Jobs?

Looks like a round of election-year promises are packed into Obama's coming speech. This speech will be the Huge Jobs Speech, you might know.

He's given up most leverage I can think of with Congress, so I don't see much coming out it. Hope I'm proved wrong.

From Bloomberg:

“You say you’re the party of tax cuts?” Obama said before the annual Metro Detroit Central Labor Council rally. “Well then, prove you’ll fight just as hard for tax cuts for middle- class families as you do for oil companies and the most affluent Americans.”

[...]

“We’ve got roads and bridges across this country that need rebuilding,” Obama, 50, said. “We’ve got more than 1 million unemployed construction workers ready to get dirty right now. There is work to be done and there are workers ready to do it. Labor’s on board, business is on board. We just need Congress to get on board.”

What's coming up this week may turn out to be his best speech for 2009 or even 2010. In fact, I think I heard him speechifying the above points in those years. And then... drumroll... nothing.

This is the Obama pattern. Crisis, build-up to Huge Speech, delivery of the Huge Speech, nodding heads and cries of "We're saved!" and then ... nothing much of anything. Rinse, repeat.

I will not watch this next Huge Speech. At this point they're huge rehashes of past Huge Speeches, and are completely divorced from the Administration's policy making. Or lack thereof.

Not an Onion headline:

"REGISTERING THE POOR TO VOTE IS UN-AMERICAN"

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals.  It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

In which alleged human Mathew Vadum lashes out at the unfortunate, a favorite punching bag of the right.

The man needs to get out of his cave more.

Don't mess with the sorcerers of the East Village. You have been warned.

Obama: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Regulations

Obama overrules the EPA's clean-air regulations.

President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.

That last line is a verbatim quote of the recent Republican line. Don't believe me? Try this NY Times piece:

On Monday, Mr. Perry called on Mr. Obama to halt all regulations because, Mr. Perry said, “his E.P.A. regulations are killing jobs all across America.

Wait, before you say "pre-emptive strike," read the article. Even the more moderate Republicans quoted seem to think Perry is off his rocker on this one, although I'm not sure he is on his rocker about much of anything.

So, if the Obama Administration gives in to every extreme Republican demand, the crazies won't have a platform to run on? In what world is that even close to logical?