Based on the response to yesterday’s article, I want to try something different today.
“On “Bullshit” and “Pansy-Assed”” – Dan Savage (The Stranger)
Savage responds to the criticism he’s received over the comments he made regarding the Bible and its teachings in regard to human sexuality. I agree with Savage completely; taking the Bible as fact and the literal Word of God is the absolute abdication of free choice in terms of personal morality. You’re in essence saying “You know what? Answering life’s big moral questions is just too fucking hard, so I’m gonna let a two thousand year old book answer those questions for me, right up until society decides that I should believe something different.” It is impossible to acknowledge the Church’s contributions to society without also acknowledging it’s bloody history as well. However, I disagree with his apology for referring to those that walked out as pansy-assed. They are pansies. If you’re going to hate, then at least have the courtesy to sit there quietly and listen to the people you hate tell you why you’re wrong. You may still hate them afterwards; you may even hate them more, but at least you’ll have heard their point of view.
“Romney refuses to stand up to woman who says Obama should be “tried for treason”” – Alex Seitz-Wald (ThinkProgress)
Mitt Romney is a coward. I know he’s a coward, because when this happened to John McCain, who I am no great fan of (mainly for unleashing the Queen Snowbilly on the rest of us), he stood up and said that it’s bullshit, right to the woman’s face. Mitt Romney didn’t. Of course, this should come as no surprise to anyone that is even remotely familiar with Mitt Romney. Calling him two-faced is an insult to the iconic Batman villain. He’s craven and spineless, not to mention a pathological liar, and that alone should disqualify him from the Presidency. But, as Charles P. Pierce notes, it won’t. It just makes him a Republican in 2012. Of course, this may all be moot if Ron Paul pulls off his convention coup.
“Was there really a post-9/11 backlash against Muslims?” – Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic)
In this article, Conor takes on Jonathan Tobin’s claim that there is ongoing backlash against Muslims post-9/11. Tobin’s reasoning is six tons of elephant crap in a ten pound bag (yes, you read that right), and unless you are completely oblivious to the outside world there’s absolutely no way you can sit anywhere in good conscience and go “Hey, I think Muslims are getting a fair shake.” Of course, this comes from the same general vicinity as people that complain that racism isn’t a thing anymore, and that really it’s white people that are being discriminated against.
“What would happen if Obama supported gay marriage?” – Evan McMorris-Santoro (TPM)
To respond to the article’s title-question: he’d lose. Yes, 50%+ of the country supports gay marriage. The problem is that 50% lives in California, Illinois, New York, etc. where the President has double digit leads and is not being threatened even remotely by Mitt Romney. But if he comes out for gay marriage, he loses Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and quite a few other states he’s gonna need to beat Mitt Romney. That being said, I believe the President is fine with gay marriage, but recognizes the political reality that being for it is an electoral death sentence. If he doesn’t come out in favor of it during his second term (provided his Cabinet, the Vice President, and the Democratic party don’t revolt first) I would be shocked and disappointed.
“Top Dem explains plan to break GOP anti-tax absolutism” – Brian Beutler (TPM)
Here’s how you break the GOP’s anti-tax absolutism: you force Congressional Republicans to go on record voting against tremendously popular tax increases, like for oil companies, millionaires, etc., and make them explain it to their constituents. Their constituents go “Hey, wait a second, this guy’s a moron.” and vote them out, replacing them with a Democrat. So really, it’s not so much “breaking” the GOP’s anti-tax absolutism, but rather using it against them to force ideologues out of power. Also, Grover Norquist should have rotten fruit thrown at him everywhere he goes in public for coming up with this asinine idea.
“The “United” States? A House Divided” – Cliff Schecter (Al-Jazeera)
The ideas that the author kicks around in this piece have been kicking around in my own head for a while as well. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, then-State Senator Obama said “There are no Red states, there are no Blue states; there is only the United States.” As nice as that sentiment is, the truth is that growing up in California is completely different from growing up from in Alabama. The Blue states send increasing amounts of tax dollars to the Red states, who are actively trying to dismantle the very federal government that is keeping them solvent, while at the same time pushing for that same federal government to restrict the rights of those that live in Blue states. Moreover, fewer and fewer states and Congressional districts are becoming competitive due to gerrymandering by both parties. Incumbents are rarely thrown out, and only a handful of seats are ever up for grabs. As Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”; consequently, it’s only natural to wonder whether the 2004 map of Jesusland and the United States of Canada might not be so far from reality after all.
- “For the love of Dick” (Doghouse Riley)
- “Is this the most boring election ever?” (Rolling Stone)
- “Tea Party activists go all in to unseat Lugar” (TPM)
- “This 93-year old grandmother is suing Pennsylvania over Voter ID laws” (ThinkProgress)
- “Catholic League president compares pro-choice groups to Neo-Nazis” (ThinkProgress)