SubscribeJanuary 31st, 2012
funniest thing I’ve read in weeks
Virginia State Senator Janet Howell Attaches A Rectal Exam Amendment To Anti-Abortion Bill
She attached an amendment to that bill that would also require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.
ROTFLMAO for real
Too bad it didn’t pass.
January 24th, 2012
it’s all coming clear…
Oh good. More evidence of hypocrisy.
January 22nd, 2012
rule number 232: to be a politician you must…
exhibit these 15 thinking traits. It appears to be the single unbroken rule.
January 22nd, 2012
Ron Paul and public lands
Ron Paul Calls For Federal Public Lands To Be ‘Sold Off To Private Owners’
Imagine. He could excavate Old Faithful and put in a hot tub for his few close friends!
Gawd. For a man who seems to have at least some historical knowledge he can be such an idiot.
January 22nd, 2012
on Newt’s victory in South Carolina
There’s a delightful little article on the panic in the Republican hierarchy over Newt’s victory. The last paragraph reads:
Will Romney’s money and endorsements be able to overwhelm Gingrich’s electrifying debate performances? They weren’t in South Carolina. But Romney has an ace in the hole. The one person who has consistently derailed Newt Gingrich’s political career is Newt Gingrich.
I have to admit it might be fun to watch Obama “debate” Gingrich. I suspect it might be a bit like waiting for Godot – then having him actually arrive wearing a minstrel’s costume, carrying a banjo and sporting a spitting rose in his lapel.
January 19th, 2012
a long time coming and frankly awesome
I haven’t read the Newsweek article yet, but I will. I love the bit in there about the idealism and related defeatism of the left. Obama isn’t a magic saviour? Did we really think he was?
January 12th, 2012
American history_delightful passages
I’d never read the US Treaty with Tripoli, 1797 before today. My loss has now been rectified. Here’s my favourite passage:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This was passed through Congress in 1797 by a unanimous vote. Imagine what would happen today!
ROTFLMAO
January 11th, 2012
the genealogical gambit
Do you remember when the conservative portion of the American political mind went out to Africa and made some not-tongue-in-cheek assertions about their President’s true status as a US citizen?
Howlingly funny. A very much a tongue-in-cheek reminder of that earlier event, Rick Santorum’s Italian family has been interviewed and found to be “Communist”.
But the elder Santorum matriarch doesn’t understand why he has diverged so far from the family’s longtime political stance. “In Riva del Garda his grandfather Pietro and uncles were ‘red communists’ to the core,” writes Oggi journalist Giuseppe Fumagalli, likening the family to “Peppone” after a famous fictional Italian communist mayor who fought against an ultraconservative priest known as Don Cammillo and about which a popular television series is based. “But on the other side of the ocean, it’s like his family here doesn’t exist. Instead he draws crowds as the head of the ultraconservative faction of the Republican party, against divorce, gay marriage, abortion, and immigration.”
There is a bit of good advice from the left-wing part of his family – “…if he wants to make it, he will have to soften some of his positions. To take a stand against homosexuality or to oppose divorce is harmful. Principles count, but in politics one must have the capacity to be open-minded.”
Santorum seems to have missed that lesson at his familial knee. Still, the family seems to be largely forgiving of his crass move to the right and there may be some expectations of a Santorum presidency.
According to Oggi, the general sentiment is that the Italian Santorums will forgive their American cousin if his bid is successful. “When he wins, he will send the American presidential airplane and take all the Santorums to the White House,” Bruno Santorum told the magazine.
But after Santorum’s loss in New Hampshire and his recent slump in the polls, the question of whether he would bring his communist cousins to his ultraconservative White House may never be tested.
Howl.
January 8th, 2012
Santorum and what we know in our hearts
Boston (dot) com reported on Santorum’s “arguments” against gay marriage as a part of a recent essay covering New Hampshire political campaigning.
Santorum grew impassioned while discussing his opposition to gay marriage, saying that it was harmful to families because it could mean that children grow up without both a mother and a father.
“You’re robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to!” Santorum said after the first question. “They have a right to know and be loved by their dad and their mom. And that’s what marriage is about. It’s not about two people loving each other. There’s lots of people who love each other that we don’t give a privilege to and call it marriage.”
“Not that those relationships aren’t important — of course they’re important,” he added. “We honor them and we respect them, but we don’t give them this unique privilege.”
He also suggested that those who disagree aren’t being honest with themselves.
“You may convince yourself that it’s not — you may rationalize that that isn’t true,” he said. “But in your own life and in your own heart you know it’s true.”
There is, of course, the issue of who gets to define the reach and distribution of “privileges”, which, as far as I know, Santorum has not made clear. I suspect that such power of definition is to be led by his thinking organ – the heart.
There might be a problem with that, as any student of anthropology, psychology — any of the “ologies” really — would be able to discern.
Here’s an example with the idea that children deserve a two-parent family, and making constitutional amendments to enforce such a “heart” decision.
So, a woman (or man) dies in the war leaving behind a spouse and children. The remaining family is now a single-parent family. Under a law defining family as one with a man and a woman married, then this is no longer a family and should not receive benefits designed for families.
Outrageous, but if follows on Santorum’s “heart” knowledge.
(Note: this is why it is probably best if the head also takes a role in decision making.)
What a dweeb that man is. I know he has a couple of degrees but — what? — he slept through his critical thinking class?
December 31st, 2011
the first act under the NDAA should be…
IN his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week. (Times article Dec 12)
Agreed. But if NDAA does pass Congress and Obama doesn’t veto, then here’s one thing he could do. Have a military unit ready as he signs the Act into law. March over to Congress and detain Speaker Boehner under suspicion of supporting Osama bin Laden’s larger goals. I suspect that could be easily proven. But hey! Under NDAA Obama wouldn’t actually have to prove anything. So NDAA could be useful.
Great opinion piece by the Generals (retired).