The Gay Thing: Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Given ONE MORE DAY?

Okay, long story short, after the Supreme Court effectively legalized marriage between same-sex couples in the entire United States, there was some foot-dragging and stone-walling by several elected officials. They were scattered around the country, and most have been resolved. But there's this clerk in Kentucky--represented by muckraking Right Wing World attorneys, naturally--who is loudly and proudly defiant in the face of the ruling.

She was thought to have exhausted all potential trump cards, and should have had to start issuing licenses on Tuesday morning. She didn't. She is brazenly defying all courts including the Supremes, using extraordinarily flimsy, baseless, illogical and frankly goofy reasoning. But, since she's an elected official, she can't get fired directly. But she is in contempt of court, and also refusing to do her job, though she won't resign. She hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, but she's still stamping her feet.

Thrice-divorced, four-times-traditionally married marriage defender,
Kim Davis, in stunning blue. From source, LGBTQNation.

All of this is made somewhat hilarious by the fact that this woman, Kim Davis, has apparently been married four times and divorced three. She continues to conflate "holy matrimony" with civil marriage, confuses the county courthouse with a church, and confuses her government job with some sort of religious consecration. She's either a dim bulb, a nutbar or a disingenuous grafter hoping for a big score and some fame. But for some reason, they're giving her yet another day to come to her senses.

But here's a point to ponder, for any of you Kim Davis supporters out there:

Should a Muslim DMV worker be allowed to refuse issuing drivers licenses to women, if he says it's against his religion? How would that be any different?

[Excerpt]

Judge: Kim Davis has until end of day Wednesday to respond
 
A federal judge says a Kentucky county clerk who won’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious beliefs has until close of business Wednesday to respond to the latest motion in the case. . .

Read more at: LGBTQNation

Single Abstinance Spokeswoman Bristol Palin Pregnant. Again.

Image from source, Wonkette

The first time* Bristol Palin got preggers, it tarnished her mother's bona fides as a "traditional values" candidate, and made Bristol's mama bristle at the press, starting a political sideshow that continues to rear up its head every so often to this day. Since then, the younger Palin's hastily arranged nuptials to the first baby's father was cancelled, she's become an abstinence only spokeswoman, and has continued--along with the rest of her trashy family--to be a political Kardashian. I stopped paying attention years ago, but apparently there have been other beaus, a near-marriage (to someone who was already married, did I get that right?), and now is still married, and preggers again.

*And while I'm reporting on this tawdry tale, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that it's possible that the first time Bristol was actually pregnant, there may have been some subterfuge to pass the kid off as Sarah's. There's still an awful lot of weirdness around that particular nativity story.

[Excerpt]

 

Looks Like God Knocked Up Bristol Palin Again

 

Oh my stars, it seems America’s most virginal born-again virgin is with child. Again:

"I wanted you guys to be the first to know that I am pregnant. . ."

Read more at: Wonkette

John Stewart Blasts FOX "News" Hypocrisy on Ferguson vs. Benghazi

They'd really better get someone of the caliber of say, John Fugelsang or Hal Sparks to replace Jon Stewart. Whomever it is, it has got to be someone with teeth, willing to skewer where it is necessary. Here's an example why: holding Right Wing World accountable when they are being blatantly hypocritical.


[Excerpt]

Stewart Uses Fox's Own Clips Against It To Slam 'Benghazi Rage-gasm'

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Jon Stewart on Thursday made good use of "The Daily Show"'s famous warehouse of archived news footage to turn Fox News against itself. Stewart ran plenty of footage showing Fox hosts declaring that the Department of Justice's recent report on the shooting of Michael Brown debunked the "narrative" of protestors across the country. Some Fox hosts even demanded an apology from the media who "peddled that narrative. . ."

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Mitch McConnell: Kill ObamaCare! Keep Kentucky's Part of it! (WTF?)

Mitch McConnell is talking out his ass again, this time at his debate with Alison Lundergan Grimes. Yes, Yertle seems to think we should eliminate every "root and branch" of the Affordable Care Act, and yet leave Kentucky's Kynect (or just its web site?) intact. The problem, of course, is that Kynect is ObamaCare, it's what it was always supposed to be, one of 50 state-run exchanges. And it worked! And it's popular! So, it puts Mitch in this trick bag.

If Grimes is smart, she'll play this up big time: "Kentuckians, Mitch McConnell thinks you're stupid. He thinks you're so stupid, that you don't know that Kynect is part of the Affordable Care Act. He's hoping you're so stupid, that you'll vote for him, and let him take away your insurance."

I'm not particularly a fan of Grimes. I think she's a calculating, politics first, talking points-based candidate. I think she's hoping that Kentuckians are stupid enough to think she's anti-Obama, because they are stupid enough to vote against her for being an Obama supporter. I think there are better ways to play this, than posturing and fake-outs. But very nearly anyone would be better than Mitch McConnell. The fact that this is even close tells you that the "Kentuckians are stupid" gambit could very well work for either side.

[Excerpt]

McConnell Wants To Keep Obamacare 'Website' But Repeal Obamacare

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Monday night he wants to repeal Obamacare "root and branch" but keep the law's state-based insurance exchange in Kentucky, called Kynect. "I think it's fine to have a website. Yeah," he said during the first and only scheduled Kentucky Senate debate with Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, pressed on whether he wants to keep Kynect. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

How President Obama Should Respond to John Boehner

When I heard John Boner Boehner throwing down the gauntlet to President Obama yesterday, saying, "This is a problem of the president's own making," Boehner said. "He's been president for five and a half years. When is he going to take responsibility for something?" I shouted back at the radio, "Bitch, how long have you been in Congress?" I mean seriously, the the guy has been in leadership since 2007! What has he done? Moreover, for a man who is suing the President over executive orders, what's he asking for there? More executive action! He's a drunken tool.

Damn straight. Image found on Twitter, with no attribution.

 

What is That in the Picture with Ted Cruz?

Image from RawStory

I'd just like to point out that this man--the conservative great hope for 2016--is using a TelePrompTer. Isn't that supposed to be the height of disingenuousness, or. . .something? And might I just ask, is there a single picture of Ted Cruz where he doesn't look evil, or at the very least, creepy?

 

GOP Hypocrisy on POW Bergdahl Release

McCain and Ayotte, for it, before they
were against it. Image from source, HuffPo

It really should come as no surprise by now. Countless times, Republicans have been for something, only until President Obama does that thing. Then, magically, they're against it. In the case of the release of prisoner of war, Bowe Bergdahl, their reasons have been kind of all over the place. But Sen. John McCain, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, and countless others in the conservative media and blogosphere were adamantly for getting Bergdahl out of detention, up to and including the use of prisoner swaps. Hell, McCain himself was released in a prisoner swap!

I've gotten in arguments with conservatives regarding Obama, Eric Holder, Jay Carney, always on the same theme: they lie! Well, what is this, friends and neighbors? What do you call this, besides hypocrisy of course? Amnesia?

[Excerpt]
 
GOP Urged White House To 'Do All It Can' To Get Bowe Bergdahl

As soon as President Barack Obama told the nation Saturday evening that America's only prisoner of war in Afghanistan had been rescued, Republican lawmakers and pundits began criticizing the administration on how it handled the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Nice Work if You Can Get It: Congress Done for the Year?

Image from source, Politico

There's been lots of talk in Congress about companies cutting people's hours "because of" ObamaCare (in reality taking advantage of the situation to maximize profits, usually). But there's a group of part time workers with platinum health care for life. Congress!

But tell me something. If this Congress suddenly stopped legislating. . .how would that be any different from what they're doing?

[Excerpt]

Congress seems to be done legislating for the year

 It’s just mid-November, but it’s quickly becoming a reality: Washington could be mostly done making laws for the year. If it isn’t evident by looking at the thin congressional calendar, top sources in both chambers are downright grim that the final eight weeks in 2013 will produce any legislative breakthroughs, like a broad budget agreement or an immigration deal. . .

Read more at: Politico

Double-standard on Recall Elections?

Image from source, Wonkette

Back when Wisconsin Governor Scott Wanker Walker faced a recall election, the prevailing wisdom was that recalls are for elected officials who have done something wrong. Not something unpopular, but committed a crime, or done something unethical. So, even though Walker was deeply unpopular, he managed to keep his seat, because Wisconsinites thought a recall wasn't the right thing to do.

Tuesday in Colorado, there was a recall election that was successful. A couple of legislators who'd been behind some modest gun control measures were recalled. They didn't commit a crime, or do anything unethical. They just went against the NRA, a lobbying group with very deep pockets and a fanatical base. Of course, recalling legislators for unpopular actions rather than crimes isn't without precedent. It was done in Iowa with state Supreme Court justices who'd decided in favor of marriage equality. In fact it was attempted in two separate elections, though it failed on its last try.

But I guess I'd like to see a little consistency in the conventional wisdom. Are recall elections for unpopular (or just unpopular with a small but vigilant group) a good thing or a bad thing?

[Excerpt]

NRA Fires Two Colorado State Senators For Doing Their Jobs And Voting On Stuff
Welcome to the USofNRA! And woe be unto you, any politician who dares to cross our not so new overlords in this quick-draw special interest group, by trying to maybe take high-capacity magazines from any maybe-crazy-maybe-not person who wants to get their warm, live fingers on a gun. Because in Colorado, where two rather awful mass-murdering shooting sprees were committed by some awfully deranged mass-murdering spree shooters in Columbine and Aurora, state Senator Angela Giron and Senate President John Morse were straight up recalled by 56% and 51% respectively of the maybe voter suppressed folks in their districts, because “Morse and Democrats passed laws that limit ammunition magazines to 15 rounds and require universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers. . .”


Read more at Wonkette

Lawrence O'Donnell Rewrites Rudy Giuliani's Take on National Security

There are certain people who should have no credible say on politics or national security. They include almost anyone from the George W. Bush administration, and Rudolph Giuliani. And yet, they keep popping up like bad pennies. Here's Rudy, lisping Sylvester the cat impersonator, traipsing through the Boston Marathon bombing area, trying to pretend like he's some kind of anti-terrorism expert. He failed. Rather spectacularly. He was lauded at the time, despite his failings. Will history correct the record? With the help of Lawrence O'Donnell, maybe we'll get it right.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Right Wing World: Obama Responsible for Everything Bad, Nothing Good

I realize that FreeRepublic.com isn't a place you go if you want internal consistency. But I have to share this quote from a FReeper named mardi59 today, during the President's speech on drones and Guantanamo Bay:

"He is trying to fight the scandals by now acting like he knows what he’s doing. He is a miserable failure. All he knows how to do is spike the football and take credit for what others have done. He’s a joke."

If you parse that, you'll see that President Obama is responsible for the State Department's decision making in Benghazi, the Justice Department's actions with the AP and the IRS's internal policymaking on the Tea Party affair. He should've been on top of all of these issues, and has instead been absent and/or bad at his job.

However, in the second part of that quote, Obama's not apparently supposed to take credit for what "others" have done that has turned out well. So, which is it? Is the President responsible for all the agencies and divisions of the government he oversees, or is he not?

Source of quote: FreeRepublic.com

 

Quote of the Day: The Rude Pundit on "Playing Politics"

This probably doesn't belong under Quote of the Day, because it wasn't today, but it's worth pointing out anyway. Have you noticed that after there is a mass shooting, if anyone dares talk about what might be done to prevent a future occurrence, they're met with, "Now is not the time! Don't play politics with gun control after this awful tragedy!" After Sandy Hook happened, and it felt like there might actually be some meaningful change, parents of slain children who were working toward that change were criticized for "playing politics" and exploiting the deaths of their own children. Wow. Harsh, right? It happens all the time, on a variety of subjects.

Oddly though, the right wing is allowed to play their version of politics. If a mass shooting happens, they are instantly on the defensive, shooting down (heh) any whisper of talk about gun control. Isn't that playing politics? Anyway, that's The Rude Pundit's point, and I should just stop yammering and give it to you:

His royal rudeness, Lee Papa

". . .In the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, it was wrong, according to you, to talk about gun control. Now, in the wake of the nightmarish destruction of the Moore tornado, you tell us it's wrong to talk about climate change and it's wrong to say things that mock right-wing responses to other tragedies. We should wait, you say, wait until the bodies are recovered, the bodies are buried, the bodies are mourned. Of course, even when politicians and pundits wait, you then say that they are exploiting a tragedy for political gain. Like 9/11. Oh, wait. That was you, so it doesn't count, of course, sorry, forgot. . ." --The Rude Pundit

Scandal: Does it Matter That Bush Targeted Enemies with Gov't Agencies?

In politics, there are double-standards. For instance, if something pertaining to treatment of the president is perceived as racist, simply calling it that can be labelled "playing the race card," which is treated as an equal and opposite infraction. Similarly, if Party A is upset with something Party B has done--even though Party A has done precisely the same thing in the past that they're accusing B of--just pointing that out is seen as somehow out of bounds.

But this is my blog, and I really don't care about those dumb rules. The plain fact of the matter is, the various "scandal-ettes" as I'm calling them, the IRS/Tea Party one--the Justice Department/AP one and the Benghazi one--all have analogs to things in the Bush administration. And let's make this clear: all three of these controversies (umbrella-gate doesn't count) are merely alleged. There has been, as far as I know, no proven misbehavior by the President himself, or the executive branch on any of them.

Someone in this photo likely causes a visceral reaction in you, right?
Image from Alternet.

The same cannot be said of Bush and Co. Their politicization of every department of the government was legendary. They couldn't govern or conduct foreign policy for beans, but they played politics hardball well. Not good mind you, well. So, I think it's worth pointing out that even if each of these brouhahas, even if the go all the way to the top, has a precedent in the previous administration. And it's also worth pointing out that "impeachment was off the table." I always knew that Nancy Pelosi's diplomacy in that area was a bad idea that would never be repaid.

[Excerpt]

Bush Used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to Go After Opponents -- Where Was the Fox and GOP Outrage?

As your kindergarten teacher probably told you, two wrongs do not make a right. But the discrepancy in reactions to wrongs does, indeed, show how Washington so often serves the interests of the political right. . .

Read more at: AlterNet

Right Wing World: The Latest Faux Outrage is "Umbrella-gate"

At least with a trio of potential scandals, Right Wing World actually had something to squawk about last week. Sure, the big Benghazi memo turned out to be bogus. The IRS thing may end up causing the tea party more damage than if it were left alone. The AP thing. . .well, who knows. But a jump to a new scandal, one about a marine holding an umbrella for the President? Well, this one is just stupid, and smacks of racism.

Freeze frame from Washington Post video.

In fact, if one does a cursory Google image search, one will find several other images like this one. Images of past presidents--Republicans, notably--in nearly identical poses. Apparently, it is something of a traditional thing for the military to do for the president. The only difference I can see in this incident from those of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan is. . .well. . .the color of the guy behind the podium. I know that alleging racism has become identical to racism in Right Wing World. But that is no more true than their commentary about this phony outrage. And this is not without precedent.

One that keeps coming around like a perennial flower is an image of President Barack Obama with his feet propped up on his desk. This was also a case where a simple image search would find examples of other presidents doing the same thing. But it doesn't matter. For some reason, it spreads like wildfire on the internet every few months, usually accompanied by right-wing commentary accusing the President of being arrogant, king-like, haughty, classless, anti-American, and everything right up to the line of "uppity." This is naked racism, nothing else.

And now for a blast from the past, the feet on the desk shots. . .

Nevada Might Strike Gay Marriage Ban from Constitution. . .in 2018

I don't know who they are, but I love the picture!

The good thing about having strict rules for amendments to the Nevada State Constitution is that it's hard to do, and takes a long time. That prevents crazy, ill-considered changes from being swept in and codified on a low-turnout, off-year election. But, undoing said changes when they do get in there is just as laborious and protracted.

In 2000 and 2002, Nevada passed a ban on same-sex marriage. It had to be done twice, because that is the rule. And in the early part of this century, there was a hardcore push by arch conservatives to pass anti-gay state constitutional amendments. Gay rights groups were taken somewhat unawares, and didn't marshal the resources in time to stop it. So as unlikely as it sounds, Nevada--home of quickie divorces and quicker marriages--was on the leading edge of writing discrimination into its constitution. For a while, anti-gay groups were riding a wave of euphoria, fueled by stepping on the necks of their fellow citizens. So nice, and so very Christian. 

But--as many thought would happen--these things started to get closer and closer as they moved through the states. The turning point may have been Proposition 8 in California which reversed already legal same-sex marriage in the state. It stirred the pro-marriage equality forces like nothing before. And over the next five years, marriage equality has gotten more and more popular across the country, and has gone from thin losses to thin wins, to outright victories.

The sanctity of marriage in Nevada.
Image from Wedding-Splendor.com

And here we are back in Nevada, a state that should have been on the vanguard. What state is more likely to draw marriage tourism? We have drive-thru wedding chapels and Elvis impersonator officiants! If not for an oddly focused arch-right movement that has since flamed out, we could have been reaping the rewards over this severe rough patch in the economy. Instead, we're now way behind the eight-ball. The soonest Nevada could reverse their ridiculous same-sex marriage ban is 2018.

I don't know if I'll even still live in the state at that point. But my most likely future state--Ohio--is even further behind. So, I think my marriage's best bet hinges upon the Supreme Court. I'm crossing my fingers for that one.

[Excerpt]

Couples take non-binding vows to support repeal of same-sex marriage ban

Three dozen couples took the plunge in the name of symbolism Thursday in a quickie wedding chapel on the Las Vegas Strip. None of the ceremonies were legally binding, but the participants insisted they weren’t pointless, either. “We see this event as part of a change in this country,” said Steven Dansky, 69, who renewed vows with his partner of 15 years, Barry Safran. . .

Read more at: Las Vegas Review-Journal

Lawrence O'Donnell Rewrites O'Reilly vs. Limbaugh

I don't usually post two clips from the same show in a row, but this one is too sweet to resist. And yes, we're still on the gay marriage subject. Don't worry, there will be other topics soon, and this one will back-burner until June. Probably. Anyway, enjoy this terrifically enjoyable dressing down of both Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Who apparently hate each other!

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Michigan Bill Would Allow Refusal of Medical Treatment for Religious Reasons

Image from source, Addicting Info

I know that atheists, agnostics and other non-religious people get a bad rap for knocking religion, and sometimes making a spectacle of themselves. This is because it is so rare that they do it. Religious people have a hard time conceiving of a life without religion. So much so, that they will insist that atheism is itself a religion, despite it's very definition meaning "without religion." Many, if not most religious people see much of life through a religious lens. They think that people can't be moral without God (or at least, their idea of God). They think that among every religion that exists or has existed, theirs is the correct one. And though they'll find other religions to be false and frankly kind of weird, they see no weirdness in their own wacky religion (and they're all wacky from outside them, sports fans).

But you know what, that's cool. As an atheist, I really don't care if you believe in talking snakes, a somehow populated Land of Nod, that all of the animals on earth arrived in pairs in the Middle East in time for the great flood, or that a virgin got pregnant by a disembodied deity. But you can't make the rules for others who don't share (or even do share) your faith. You can't write laws based on your beliefs, when those laws affect the general public. If you are a doctor or a pharmacist or other healthcare provider, you don't get to withhold treatment to people based on your faith. If you're treating a patient, it's not about you!

This should be clear, but suddenly there is a mass confusion around "religious freedom" in this country. Suddenly a pharmacy is a church? An insurance company is a church? You've got florists, bakers, photographers and inns refusing to serve gay couples, because it violates their faith. . .what? How? Do they interview all of their customers to make sure their lives match up with the business owner's beliefs? It's bonkers. I've actually seen the argument made by The National Organization for Marriage (NOM)--an arm of the Catholic Church--that same-sex marriage violates religious freedom! Whose? How? You don't get the freedom to not be offended. If your religion bans pork, you don't get to outlaw it for others. It's long past time for religious people--particularly the very loud, very bitchy version--to stop pretending that they're persecuted in this country. And to stop trying to make us live by their rules.

[Excerpt]

Religious Beliefs Would Kill Patients’ Rights In New Michigan Bill

In December, the Republican dominated Michigan Senate slammed through a bill that would have allowed medical professionals to deny care to patients for religious reasons. The bill wound up going nowhere in the House and died after the legislative session ended. But now, a similar bill is once again making it’s way to the Senate floor for a vote. . .

Read more at: Addicting Info

Ted Nugent Manages Not to Disrupt SOTU

Keep it classy, Ted. Image from source, BuzzFeed.

While Republicans often decry the cult of celebrity, and belittle "Hollywood liberals," they have their own stars, such as they are. It's a much smaller group, and much less. . .um. . .stellar, to say the least. Moreover, it is often difficult to discern why they're elevated to such lofty positions. Ted Nugent is only the most recent example.

Nugent is a musician whose heyday has long passed, who bills himself as an uber-patriotic activist, even though he was once a draft-dodger (with a decidedly unsavory story to go with it). But, he loves weapons, particularly guns, and he likes to shoot his mouth off. He also is very vocal in his opposition to President Obama and to Democrats in general. Because of this, he is granted wide latitude, with even his most extreme utterances not just tolerated, but applauded by the rabble and by the punditry such as Sean Hannity.

Back during the Bush administration, a country band called The Dixie Chicks made a mild disparaging comment about President Bush, and they were all but deported for it. But pseudo-celebrities like Nugent can say anything they want--no matter how vile--about President Obama or Hillary Clinton, and they barely raise an eyebrow on the right. Nugent was even investigated by the Secret Service for his perceived threatening comments. All's fair, I guess, as the right is still acting all back-slappy about The Nuge, and calling him "Uncle Ted." It should be pointed out that if any celebrity  guest of a Democrat attended the State of the Union in jeans, boots, a frumpy jacket, scraggly hair and a goofy soul patch, the likes of Sean Hannity wouldn't stop talking about it, ever.

[Excerpt]

Bored Ted Nugent Slams Obama's Gun Control Plans

Aging rocker Ted Nugent may have avoided making a spectacle during President Barack Obama's State of the Union address much to the chagrin in the scores of reporters on hand, but he had harsh words for the administration's gun control plans after the speech. . .

Read more at: BuzzFeed

Willard Has Romnesia, Republicans Do Too

I loved President Obama's new attack on Mitt Romney: Romnesia. It isn't just a cute turn of a phrase, it fits so very well. Romney has shown to have multiple positions on virtually every topic. Sometimes, he debuts a new position right in the middle of a presidential debate! It's such a sight to behold, the President himself was caught flat-footed when presented with the staggering changes of positions during the first debate.

But it isn't just Willard who is afflicted. The entire Republican/conservative/tea bagger conglomerate has a form of amnesia. Remember how after 9/11 we all pulled together? Remember that the Democrats did not attack President Bush during or even long after the terrorist attack? Remember how just saying something mildly against Bush during this time (and for years after) was "unpatriotic," and "attacking the President during a time of war?" Contrast that with how Republicans pounced after the Benghazi attack, and other attacks in the Middle East. Willard was nipping at the President's heels while the attacks were still happening. No right-wing pundit, politician, blogger or you weird Uncle Louie has been shy about blasting President Obama. All of them are seemingly Middle East experts now, and none of them feels the least bit un-patriotic for. . .attacking the president during a time of war. Amnesia. Or hypocrisy. You choose.

In Case You Missed It: Rolling Stone Exposes Mitt Romney's Bailout

Yeah, buddy, I'm not sure you should be smiling.
Image from source, Rolling Stone.

This article should probably be getting a little more attention. . .

[Excerpt]

The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney

. . .According to the candidate's mythology, Romney took leave of his duties at the private equity firm Bain Capital in 1990 and rode in on a white horse to lead a swift restructuring of Bain & Company, preventing the collapse of the consulting firm where his career began. When The Boston Globe reported on the rescue at the time of his Senate run against Ted Kennedy, campaign aides spun Romney as the wizard behind a "long-shot miracle," bragging that he had "saved bank depositors all over the country $30 million when he saved Bain & Company."
In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. . .

Read more: Rolling Stone