Category: Uncategorized

I think it’s ok if gays can get married, I just wish they’d call it something else.

Random NPR man on the street which Atrios refers to as “Great Moments In Random Dumbassery”.
Dumbassery it may well be, but it’s critical for progressive hopes going forward that this phenomenon is understood and planned for. To the vast, vast majority of Americans, marriage as a concept is inextricable from Lord Jesus and their church. Thus, these same people hear “gay marriage” and immediately think Big Government is going to force their church to change its liturgy to include Teh Gay or else seize assets put the whole lot of them into jail.
This is precisely why Democrats should today and forever more be talking about getting the government out of ALL marriage. Eliminate all marriage-based tax benefits and redefine survivor’s and spousal rights to extend to anyone whom you choose to confer them upon. The words “basic human rights” should always be in the sentence, and, quite frankly, such broad and fundamental reforms would be a real boon to both gay and straight couples. This, of course, is why it will never happen. Optimism!

The main criticisms of the piece have come from Republicans, and their argument (for example, David Frum’s—still doing the hard work of keeping both sides honest) is that what looks to the left like obstruction is really only the minority party reflecting the public’s reservations about Obama’s agenda, and, beyond that, fulfilling the Senate’s constitutional mandate. (Mitch McConnell offered a rebuttal in this Post article today.) I would answer that, on health care, for example, where the public was truly divided and, by some polls, increasingly skeptical, the Senate Republicans should have tried to negotiate a less sweeping bill. Instead (as Frum himself famously pointed out), they shut down negotiations altogether, leaving Olympia Snowe as the lone party holdout, and not for long. They weren’t trying to legislate better; they were trying to prevent any legislation at all. The same with the stimulus bill and financial reform.
…
And the daily toll of legislative blockage is also staggering. The filibuster has become the everyday norm in this Senate—which has nothing to do with the constitution, moderation, the saucer that cools the coffee, or anything else written and said two hundred twenty years ago.

George Packer, defending against criticisms for his article here (via jonathan-cunningham)

This is exactly right. And, not just on health insurance reform. There is no example available in which the Democratic majority pushed legislation for which the GOP presented “Our Conservative Plan” for comparison and/or consideration. At most, they’ve run out what amount to platform planks: broad, non-actionable concepts and mission statements as opposed to actual legislation for debate.
The notable exception here is Paul Ryan. I think it speaks volumes that the rest of the GOP summarily runs and hides (or blathers about not needing to “pay” for tax cuts) whenever his three trillion dollars (or more) in painful (but specific) cuts are trotted out. If we, as a country, can ever get to actually discussing issues and engaging the general public in such a “The Ryan proposal is (A): these are the cuts and changes in it, the Obama proposal (B) saves such and so programs, but cuts this and does this other thing with tax rates” debate we will have made substantial and potentially Republic-saving progress. I am not optimistic. The GOP and the media at large will continue yelling about non-issues until the whole thing collapses around us. And then blame the Democrats as the last inch of railing disappears below the surf.

All the social and national elements of the civilized world are represented in the new land, their peculiar characteristics are to be blended together by the all-assimilating power of freedom. This is the origin of the American nationality, which did not spring from one family, one tribe, one country, but incorporates the vigorous elements of all civilized nations on earth.

Carl Schurz, German immigrant and Republican leader, speaking in 1859; he became a leading backer of the 14th Amendment. (via EJ Dionne)

Just askin, but do these Republicans want to be tied to wanting to change this historic, post-Civil War amendment, which made former slaves and their children full citizens in this country? At a time of 10% unemployment and two wars, do politicians really want to debate a Constitutional Amendment from the 19th century? For the GOP, does this help them with their problem at wooing non-white votes?

NBC News “First Read”; if the MSM is noticing this trend and commenting on it, even in what (to them) is a web backwater for mouth-breathers, I can only assume it’s starting to get some real traction among serious people. This, of course, is bad for The Democrat.

… Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence v. Texas, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles through the criminal code. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to mandate its own moral code. Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest has never
been a rational basis for legislation. Tradition alone cannot support legislation.

Judge Vaughn Walker, overturning California’s Proposition 8, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (via savingpaper)

Tomorrow is Obama’s birthday, not that we’ve seen any proof of that… What? We haven’t seen any proof of that! They tell us August 4th is the birthday; we haven’t seen any proof of that! Sorry. It is what it is.

Rush Limbaugh, birther.
Until he and all the rest of these pitiable individuals admit that Obama was born in Hawaii, Hawaii is and was then a state in these United States, and that his mother was a citizen of same, they must be hounded daily, at every public appearance large or small, about these “beliefs.” And the DNC (or an affiliate thereof) should be paying for said hounding.

And these programs that you mentioned – that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward – are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that’s really what’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government.

Sharron Angle, apparently trying to one-up herself. The real secret is that those numbers on the back of your Social Security card are, in fact, what OMM 0910 will call you in the glorious socialist afterlife. So get to memorizing such that you’ll answer His call.

Kevin Drum visits the fever swamps so we don’t have to. Some of the explanations for this clearly nefarious number on the back of a (modern) Social Security card:

im researching it but from what I’ve gathered that is a bank routing number linking you as property of some royalty british bank.

My friend’s card has red numbers. Mine are of another color and I don’t know why.

That sounds like an observation that probably needs to be explained through conspiracy. Wait for it. Ahhh, here it is:

the red numbers on the back of the social security card are your EIN, employer ID number. If you’re just a regular John Doe citizen, you’re an employee of the US Corporation, and are in fact yourself a corporation. That’s why you use the number on the front, your employee ID number (SSN). Supposedly, if you have a replacement card issued to you, the number on the back will come in red ink, and you can use it to declare that you’re a soveriegn American and not a citizen OF the United States….If you use the number on the back, the “tracking number for blank cards” printed in red ink, you’re claiming ownership of the card and the chattel property it represents. You are the chattel property. If you don’t, they “own” you. You’re their chattel property, and you’re being used as collateral on the bankruptcy the US Govt. filed to the international banking houses back in the 1930’s, the time of the great depression.

So, with the red ink, I can declare myself a sovereign nation, but with the blue ink, I’m still chattel property, but I only have to obtain a card with the red ink, declare myself a sovereign nation, and then stop paying my (clearly illegal) taxes. What if I start with the red ink and the new one comes in blue?

well to answer your questions about the red numbers on the back of your cards when i was working for the government i learned that during the great depression the government started investing in the world market in our names and using our ssn #’s so that if that ever happened again they could pay out the unemployed.

Most likely carried out at the department of redundancy department; however, they were declared redundant and payed out into unemployment sometime in the 1930’s. But, fully rational though it is, don’t pause too long to think about it because we now find ourselves at the root of all far-right conspiracy theory: separating the rubes from their money.

Please beware my friends of people who want to charge you money for this information. I paid out a pretty penny so far and the information I received is conflicting. I have some friends that are working with a “Patriot” who has gladdly accepted many thousands of dollars from them as a fee to help them and so far all that has happened is they got there bank accounts closed for righting fraudelent checks. Nobody has been arrested though so that is interesting but I am following there progress closely.

Now, of course, Drum helpfully points out that one with either a blue or red number could just check this stuff out, for free, and discover that:

Sequential Control Number. On the rear of a legitimate card there is a sequential control number. The control number is a combination of alpha and numeric that bears no relation to the actual social security number on the card. However, the computer records of the Social Security Administration should show a correlation between the control number and the social security number and name on the card.

Which is just what the Bilderbergers want you to think, chattel.