From the monthly archives: June 2009
Lest people start getting too many ideas about me being some kind of wild-eyed liberal, let me point out that my strong libertarian/anti-hippie streak reads stuff like this and cringes:
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom last week signed legislation that will require both city residents and businesses, including restaurants, to compost food scraps, beginning this fall.Believed to the first mandatory composting law in the nation, the legislation is part of the city’s broader plan to divert 75 percent of resources from landfills by 2010 and to achieve zero waste by 2020.
{
10 comments
}
Supreme and all-powerful douchebiscuit Norm Coleman has finally given up on his Sisyphean, RNC-financed struggle to subvert the will of the Minnesota electorate:
May Dog have mercy on the GOP lecture circuit…“I just congratulated Al Franken on his victory,” Coleman said in a press conference with reporters. “I told him it’s the best job he’ll ever have — representing Minnesota in the United States Senate. The Supreme Court has spoken, I will respect its decision, and abide by its results,” Coleman also said.
Franken said he talked to Coleman and “we agreed that it is time to bring the state together.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, said he will sign the election certificate Tuesday as directed by the court and applicable law.
Some Christianist nutjob in the Oklahoma legislature is up to her old tricks again:
Last year, Oklahoma state legislator Sally Kern (R) drew well-deserved criticism for an outlandish rant against the gay community, in which she compared homosexuality to “toe cancer” and said “it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.” “Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country.”And people still wonder why I feel so put upon as a gay man in our oh-so-modern society.Though activists responded to her comments with protests, Oklahoma conservatives rallied around her, saying that they “stand with and support Sally.” Now, Kern is back, once again sparking controversy for her attacks on the LGBT community.
Kern is now pushing a “Oklahoma Citizen’s Proclamation for Morality” that blames America’s “economic woes” on “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery”:
WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; andWHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery;
It’s not as if most people consider me to be an evil, predatory monster who is more dangerous to our country than Islam or toe cancer. It’s just some wackadoos in places like Oklahoma!
Thanks, that makes me feel much better.
I really do have to agree with Amanda Marcotte, this article by wingnut David Klinghoffer really is just about the best/worst attack on gay marriage in the history of the universe ever:
Marcotte dissects the argument behind this historical drivel thusly:Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:
“You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up… We realize you’ve only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures.”
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they’ve experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband’s dallying with other women—it’s the other men around that threaten the marital union.
Read the whole article.Okay, let’s see if you can follow this. If men are allowed to marry other men, women will lose out because because they when marry men—which at leas Klinghoffer will concede will still be legal—they will not be able to keep their marriages together because once a guy has tasted forbidden man flesh, he can’t go back to inadequate lady flesh. Men can step out with other women without threatening the main marriage, because apparently it’s just easier for men to close their eyes and imagine that the missus is the mistress long enough to complete his conjugal duties. So if gay marriage is legalized, all the men will want to fuck each other, and women will have no one decent to marry. Women can’t marry each other, of course, because a) Klinghoffer keeps forgetting about lesbians when he’s dwelling on the delicious images of an ancient Roman cornucopia of manflesh and b) just like men, women can’t lower themselves to touching women once they’ve sampled the dudely goods.
Let’s face it. No one wants vagina when penis is available, end of story. You, like Klinghoffer, know that if you ever succumb even once to the urge to reach out and touch a cock, you will forever be ruined, never able again to muster enough pleasure out of a union with a lady to get through it.
But what I find really interesting about Klinghoffer’s argument is this—he’s trying to argue against gay marriage. Like many panicked wingnuts, he seems to think that legalizing gay marriage=legalizing dudes fucking each other. What they fail to understand is that dudes can already legally fuck each other.
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: We’re in for a long, long winter of complete and utter batshit insanity from the wingnut right.
FYI: I got slammed with a bunch of work today so my posts may be a bit sporadic over the next few days. Keep checking back. I haven’t forgot about you :).
A little bit of a global perspective is always helpful in the heathcare reform debate:
“[A]ll Canadians should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay.” — Founding Principles of the Conservative Party of CanadaMethinks American Republicans would consider their Canadian counterparts to be downright socialist (or is it fascist, or Nazist? it’s so hard to keep up with the name-calling…)
h/t Yglesias
Matt Yglesias highlights some interesting numbers from a new WaPo/ABC poll:
His assessment of the larger meta-picture surrounding this is right on the money:
The ability of the GOP to avoid concern-trolling from the media has been pretty impressive. You might think, ex ante, that offering blind, root-and-branch opposition to the popular agenda of a popular president would be a path to political disaster. And, indeed, the evidence suggests that blind root-and-ranch opposition to the popular agenda of a popular president is making Republicans very unpopular. But they have, at least, succeeded in mostly getting to press to cover their obstructionism as a problem for Obama rather than for them.Someone tell me again about that allegedly evil liberal media bias?
[Please see update at bottom of the post.]
I found out that a 2003 Florida appeals court case decided that
Fox News has a First Amendment right to lie:A Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.It’s not like i disagree with the fundamental premise involved here. Fox Noise probably does have a First Amendment right to lie to its viewers. As a lawyer, it’s just interesting to imagine the oral arguments in the case. Here’s how my imagination frames it:
Judge: So, does Fox News lie in its coverage of the news?Man Droppings has some good thoughts on this:Fox News Lawyer: Well, of course, your honor, have you watched our network!? But seriously, it’s not as if there’s anything legally wrong with that!
[T]his cuts to the chase on the old, tired argument I get when I try to trash Faux News to true believers: ‘Oh, but all the news lies, it’s just a matter of their view.’Update: Article above edited to reflect the fact that this case was decided back in 2003. My apologies for mistakenly thinking this case came down more recently. To read more on the case, click here.Yes, it is true, in the simplest sense of true, that all news is by definition biased. There can be no truly objective news, because it is presented by humans, who have biases. However, this court ruling shows that Fox News, and Fox News alone, as far as I know, deliberately sets out to distort the truth as a matter of course.
And the fact that so many people not only buy into these lies, but actually seek out these lies because they are simple, and straightforward, and don’t challenge the consumer to think for himself–this is what spells our doom as a species. We prefer comfort, we prefer simplicity, and we shy away from challenges. We are soft, in body and in mind, and in my more pessimistic moods, I see Fox News as a stalking horse for a future in which we are ever dumber, and ever more controlled.
That may sound a bit apocalyptic, but you have to admit, we are getting dumber. And it is also demonstrable that dumb people are easier to control than smart people, those who ask questions. So does it make sense, therefore, that those who seek to control might wish to deliberately seek out ways to make and keep people dumber?
Or maybe that’s just dumb…
[Please see update at bottom of the post.]
I found out that a 2003 Florida appeals court case decided that
Fox News has a First Amendment right to lie:A Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.It’s not like i disagree with the fundamental premise involved here. Fox Noise probably does have a First Amendment right to lie to its viewers. As a lawyer, it’s just interesting to imagine the oral arguments in the case. Here’s how my imagination frames it:
Judge: So, does Fox News lie in its coverage of the news?Man Droppings has some good thoughts on this:Fox News Lawyer: Well, of course, your honor, have you watched our network!? But seriously, it’s not as if there’s anything legally wrong with that!
[T]his cuts to the chase on the old, tired argument I get when I try to trash Faux News to true believers: ‘Oh, but all the news lies, it’s just a matter of their view.’Update: Article above edited to reflect the fact that this case was decided back in 2003. My apologies for mistakenly thinking this case came down more recently. To read more on the case, click here.Yes, it is true, in the simplest sense of true, that all news is by definition biased. There can be no truly objective news, because it is presented by humans, who have biases. However, this court ruling shows that Fox News, and Fox News alone, as far as I know, deliberately sets out to distort the truth as a matter of course.
And the fact that so many people not only buy into these lies, but actually seek out these lies because they are simple, and straightforward, and don’t challenge the consumer to think for himself–this is what spells our doom as a species. We prefer comfort, we prefer simplicity, and we shy away from challenges. We are soft, in body and in mind, and in my more pessimistic moods, I see Fox News as a stalking horse for a future in which we are ever dumber, and ever more controlled.
That may sound a bit apocalyptic, but you have to admit, we are getting dumber. And it is also demonstrable that dumb people are easier to control than smart people, those who ask questions. So does it make sense, therefore, that those who seek to control might wish to deliberately seek out ways to make and keep people dumber?
Or maybe that’s just dumb…
Snack Food
Politico parodies itself (via): The Senate, once the chamber of deliberation and reason, is getting its own extreme makeover. Moderates such as Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Democrat Ben Nelson are bolting an institution that barely resembles the one they entered as idealistic deal makers. Ben Nelson? Idealistic dealmaker? These are words that should not be in the ... (1 comments)Despicable Quote of the Day - Icky Gay Sexytime Is A Threat To National Security
“Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.” Bryan Fischer, Nutbag (0 comments)Newsweek Hearts America. Seriously. They Really F*cking Mean It.
I guess a cover featuring Uncle Sam hungrily masturbating to a painting of Jesus wearing an American flag was deemed to be insufficiently patriotic.
[Embiggen]
(1 comments)Paul Ryan Suddenly Realizes That Ayn Rand Was A Rabid Atheist
Republicans Cave Again: Student Loans Edition
Mississippi: A Shining Example Of Limited Government
Ah, the land of Mississippi – that shining bastion of God-fearing, limited-government conservatism. Well, unless you want to father illegitimate babies — then the government will throw you in jail. (5 comments)Over in the UK, Labour is now up big over the ruling Tories. Part of that is almost certainly a stalled, ailing economy, but what’s sort of interesting because a big part of their drop is due to implementing a cap on charitable deductions, which is essentially what Obama wanted to do here to cut ... (0 comments)Death Penalty Loses Another One
Connecticut ends the practice. I have to say, this is one of those social movements that is regularly winning big victories, but almost nobody seems to be paying attention. Which is fine by me–under the wire is probably the best way for this thing to go for now. (0 comments)Look, Mitt, I know you want to get women back on your side, but the notion that women have lost 92.3% of jobs in the recession may be technically correct in some manipulated and spun context, but it’s not correct, and it’s not even a good bullshit statistic. You might have been able to get ... (0 comments)What Do You Want Schwarzenegger To Write About In His Memoirs?
The Santorum Has Officially Been Mopped Up In The 2012 Race
I think this gets it right. Additionally, though, while I find Rick Santorum’s beliefs to be pretty risible, and his inability to accept that his ideas had some less-than-ideal results during the ’00s is a personal failing, but at the very least he seemed to possess some sense of personal honor and integrity. Not as good as ... (0 comments)I hadn’t used Instagram because I’m not so much a pictures sort of guy, but an article in the SF Chronicle article makes an interesting point that they were a much bigger threat to Zuckerburg’s empire than the other commonly named competitors. (0 comments)Fun Friday: Robocop Is Filmed In Front Of A Live Studio Audience
(THE GRAPEVINE
