In the in-box yesterday… and my terse reply.
Scott Walker says he’ll “work for you.” But not if you’re gay, a woman, an immigrant, or a member of a union. According to Robert Reich, he’s worked actively against you.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker announced his candidacy today. I view him as the most dangerous of all GOP hopefuls because he’s relatively young and charismatic, he’s David and Charles Koch’s favorite (which means unlimited funding by the nation’s most right-wing and irresponsible billionaires), and his positions on key issues are among the most extreme in the Republican field.
1. On immigration, Walker says he’s changed his mind on a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants and no longer supports the idea. He’s expressed skepticism toward legal immigration as well.
2. On gay marriage, Walker is calling for a constitutional amendment allowing states to ban it.
3. On abortion rights, Walker is pushing for a 20-week ban in Wisconsin with no exceptions for rape or incest. (In 2014 he told voters his previous legislation left “the final decision to a woman and her doctor.”
4. On “gun rights,” Walker is against any attempt to ban assault weapons or limit the ability of anyone to own a gun.
5. On labor unions, he is the GOP’s most virulent anti-labor candidate, having taken on teachers and other public employees and signing a “right-to-work” law. (He says his battles with labor leaders have prepared him to take on the Islamic State.)
6. He favors tax cuts over deficit reduction and public education. His most recent Wisconsin budget cuts taxes, requires steep cuts to education, and deepens the state deficit.
7. He has tried to weaken Wisconsin’s “open records” law by blocking press requests that have yielded some embarrassing finds in the past. (Consider how big an issue Republicans are making out of Hillary Clinton’s record on transparency.)
Yeah, figure it out.
Unmarried Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham says that if he becomes president, he will have a “rotating first lady.”
“Well, I’ve got a sister. She could play that role if necessary,” the 59-year-old South Carolinian presidential hopeful told the Daily Mail Online in an interview published Tuesday. “I’ve got a lot of friends. We’ll have a rotating first lady,” he added.
Too bad it will never happen… it would be fun to see his fantasy lady.
Rather than address the problem of immigration reform and border security, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) would rather override the Constitution and redefine citizenship.
The Civil War era’s 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to any baby born on American soil, is a proud achievement of the Party of Lincoln.
But now House Republicans are talking about abolishing birthright citizenship.
A House Judiciary subcommittee took up the question Wednesday afternoon, prompted by legislation sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and 22 other lawmakers that, after nearly 150 years, would end automatic citizenship.
The 14th Amendment, King told the panel, “did not contemplate that anyone who would sneak into the United States and have a baby would have automatic citizenship conferred on them.” Added King, “I’d suggest it’s our job here in this Congress to decide who will be citizens, not someone in a foreign country that can sneak into the United States and have a baby and then go home with the birth certificate.”
Mr. King might want to get in touch with Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and ask him for some input. The governor — who’s jonesing to run for president — was born in Baton Rouge six months after his parents arrived from India.
I actually think another bill being proposed by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) is much more appropriate:
Polis’ office issued a press release on Friday announcing the Restrain Steve King from Legislating Act, playing off King’s Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act. Polis’ fake bill would prevent King from “abusing taxpayer dollars by substituting the judgments of the nation’s duly serving judicial branch of government with his own beliefs,” according to the release.
That would get my vote.
Amusing snark can often make the point better than a serious discourse.
Guys, I wanted to let you know about a personal decision I recently made. I don’t really feel like discussing it, but I want to put my position out there. Please be respectful. This is a really long post, but please read the whole thing.
I’m taking the brakes off my car. This isn’t a rash decision, so please listen up.
A few weeks ago I saw a car accident – two people went through an intersection at the same time. Both slammed on their brakes at the same time and collided. Fortunately no one was seriously injured.
But then it occurred to me – if they had just gone through the intersection, they wouldn’t have collided. The brakes CAUSED the accident!
So, I decided to do my own research and what I found was *staggering*: Hundreds of people every year are seriously injured by unnecessary braking. One time, I was driving in the snow and I just lightly tapped my brakes and it caused my car to COMPLETELY LOSE CONTROL. My brakes could have very easily gotten me killed. Even more astoundingly is how often brake pads will warp and distort rotors, causing bumpy rides and squeaky wheels.
And you know what? I also found that decades ago brakes weren’t even used! People would control their vehicle’s speed with downshifting and engine braking. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but back when engine braking was used there were almost no automotive fatalities. There were NEVER brake caused car accidents.
It was worth a shot.
Mockery of wingnuts from the BBC.
President Obama’s only ad-lib last night.
The smile at the end says it all.
Transcript via TPM:
President Barack Obama ended his State of the Union speech with some unscripted sarcasm.
As he was wrapping up his speech, the president focused on what he called “a better politics” and a call to bipartisanship with the new Republican Congress.
“I have no more campaigns to run,” Obama said to emphasize his point.
Claps could be then heard on the Republican side of the House chamber, and Obama paused.
“I know because I won both of them,” he deadpanned. It wasn’t in his prepared remarks.
Congressional Democrats applauded their approval.
Charlie Pierce would have preferred to hear this:
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader, thank you for inviting me here tonight to discuss the state of our union. The state of our union is strong, and it’s all because of me, motherfkers, and no thanks to your sorry, wrinkled white asses. I did everything I could do to pull the economy out of the shallow grave your deregulatory frenzy and the two-term nitwit who preceded me dug for it. You stood there like squeaking eunuchs and blocked everything you could, and a narrow slice of the electorate gave you virtually unprecedented control over the entire national legislature. I don’t care. Your party has sold its soul and lost its mind. I’m not going anywhere. So I’m’a gonna do what I goddamn well please, because the state of our union is strong, motherfkers, and it’s all because of me. Nice to see you all again, though.
According to what I’ve seen, the president pretty much said that.
PS: How many ways will the GOP work their way around to calling the president “uppity” without actually saying the word? Any bets?
This is why the French had a revolution.
I live in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, but on one of the more “modest” streets—mostly doctors and lawyers and family business owners. (A few blocks away are billionaires, families with famous last names, media moguls, etc.) I have noticed that on Halloween, what seems like 75 percent of the trick-or-treaters are clearly not from this neighborhood. Kids arrive in overflowing cars from less fortunate areas. I feel this is inappropriate. Halloween isn’t a social service or a charity in which I have to buy candy for less fortunate children. Obviously this makes me feel like a terrible person, because what’s the big deal about making less fortunate kids happy on a holiday? But it just bugs me, because we already pay more than enough taxes toward actual social services. Should Halloween be a neighborhood activity, or is it legitimately a free-for-all in which people hunt down the best candy grounds for their kids?
—Halloween for the 99 Percent
Dear Halloween for the 99 percent:
“Dear Abby” had the answer to a similar situation: “You could move.” May I add, go shove a Three Musketeers where it will do the most good.
It’s time to have a national discussion about how white people respond to random violence against autumnal squash.
It’s Ferguson all over again. This time with gourds.
I take a few days off and come back to find out that the place has gone mad. First the president wears a tan suit, then it turns out Hello Kitty isn’t really a cat.
The apocalypse is upon us.
Alex Parene at Salon:
Liberal fascism is alive and well, and seemingly everywhere one looks these days. Not since the dark days of Stalin’s purges have so many so-called progressives exercised so much violent aggression against their enemies. It is indeed a dark time to be considered an enemy of the left-liberal alliance, as so many recent victims can attest.
First, a bunch of Twitter users got mad at Stephen Colbert, leading to Comedy Central agreeing to end his show — forever. Regardless of the merit of the anti-Colbert complaint, it was chilling to see free speech trampled upon as a gaggle of vaguely organized people on Twitter successfully browbeat a massive media conglomerate into sort of apologizing for a joke.
As bleak as that episode was, it was just the warmup for the unprecedented onslaught of rage unleashed against Brenden Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla, who was hounded from his job merely for donating $1,000 to a political campaign organized around stripping same-sex couples of the right to have their unions recognized by the state. The gay mafia is real, my friends, which is why Eich is now dead in an unmarked grave somewhere outside Philly. Or at least no longer the CEO of a tech company, which is basically the next-worse thing.
Sure, Eich’s resignation was his own decision, prompted in part by the resignations of some members of Mozilla’s board — in other words, it was internal strife, not external protest, that led to his decision to leave the company — but the gays and their gay-sympathizers were frightfully unfair to Eich, by expressing disapproval of his totally legitimate decision to spend money denying them various rights. The entire affair reflected a terrifying new status quo, in which tech executives don’t have the complete freedom to say whatever they like. What’s next? Will it no longer be socially acceptable for men to make unwanted sexual advances toward women?
No one should have to go through life with hurt fe-fe’s.
Marco Rubio won’t say whether or not he’s smoked pot.
The Florida Republican and potential presidential candidate dodged a direct question at an education forum Monday, saying his own drug experience is irrelevant.
In his words: “If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me. And if I tell you that I did, then kids will look up to me and say, ‘Well, I can smoke marijuana because look how he made it.”
Which do you find more ridiculous: believing there was a kid growing up in Miami in the 1980’s who didn’t smoke pot at least once, or the idea that some kid today would use Marco Rubio as a role model?
Google is taking equality to the Russians.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is just so mad at President Obama and the Democrats:
This is a very frustrated Lindsey Graham. Which is a very dangerous thing.
Well. I think the only reasonable response is from Chris in The Ritz by Terrance McNally:
Screw you, honey. Boy, if there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s a queen without a sense of humor. You can die with your secret… miserable piss-elegant fairy.
From USA Today:
Well, they’re both a pain in the ass.
HT to JM Ashby.
Nancy Pelosi wins this round:
From the Washington Post at the Senate hearings on Syria:
As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing.”
That’s incredible. John McCain has an iPhone?