Sorry folks, I’ve been a bit busy… Christmas came early last night.

Her name is Zuzu. She’s a Beagle/English Bulldog mix.
Sorry folks, I’ve been a bit busy… Christmas came early last night.

Her name is Zuzu. She’s a Beagle/English Bulldog mix.
I really have no idea who Kim Kardashian is or why so many find who she is and what she does even remotely important.
Nevertheless, the reaction to her 72-day marriage has proponents of gay marriage using her as an example of how heterosexual on their own “cheapen the institution” of marriage more than legal gay marriage does.
So, can someone tell me, how this doesn’t cheapen the institution:
Conan O’Brien hosted his shows under a different moon this week, one hanging in the Beacon Theater. For his weeklong filming stint in New York, O’Brien packed his shows full of surprises culminating in an on-air wedding of his costume designer Scott Cronick and his partner David Gorshein, which the late show host officiated.
As the homosexual community pretends to be the new gatekeepers of the sanctity of the institution of marriage, I want to know how having your wedding on late night television, officiated by a media personality respected the sanctity of marriage.
This is hardly the only thing that bugs me. As homosexuals claim the higher ground on respecting the institution, I must ask how planning mass gay weddings doesn’t cheapen the institution.
The issue of who/what cheapens the institution of marriage is certainly up for discussion, and I would argue that short marriages, show weddings, etc. etc, are symptoms of the actual problem, which in my opinion is a cultural thing which likely comes from Hollywood. But, that’s a bigger topic for another time.
If homosexuals want to claim they do more to respect the institution of marriage than their heterosexual counterparts, the least they could do is take the institution seriously, and not treat gay marriage like a contest they’ve won, and find all sorts of ways to flaunt it, like the only reason they are getting married is to rub it in the faces of gay marriage opponents.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…
…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
We recently upgraded our WordPress installation and since then there appears to be some issues with posting comments. We are looking into the problem, and hope to have a solution soon.
From the comments over at Just One Minute:
…I think our side ought to make a good faith effort to show we’re open to tax increases of some kind. My suggestion is that the Republicans propose an end to a tax break for fat cats that reduces federal revenue by millions of dollars a year. I am speaking of the deductibility of state income tax. I think this would be a very popular proposal, because it would show the Democrats how committed we are to bipartisanship, it would give the patriotic citizens of places like New York and California and Massachusetts the opportunity to send more money to the government without just doing so voluntarily, and it sure wouldn’t bother anybody in places like Texas or Florida.
I can’t think of any objection to this proposal. Can you? I mean, it is just perfect – as well as being a heck of a lot of fun.
Just like my proposal for a “wealth tax“, this proposal would box the Democrats in – they would either have to go along with it, and harm their own constituents, or be revealed as the utter hypocrites they are. It is a win/win for us.
HAT TIP: PJ Tatler
From The Hill:
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will demand a seat in the table for the final talks on the national debt limit, putting a strong liberal voice in the room.
Pelosi and House Democrats were left out of the negotiations between President Obama and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last year that extended nearly all of the Bush tax rates though 2012.
Pelosi didn’t participate in the final high-level talks over fiscal 2011 spending levels either…
I can’t imagine anything which would help the GOP better than to put Pelosi as the face of the Democrat party in the budget battle. Nothing like a corrupt, failed, liberal hack to set all things in focus – the GOP is for America, the Democrats are for the dying, destructive system. So, yes, by all means – give Pelosi a seat at the table. In fact, put her front and center. Make sure the cameras are always on her so that not a word of her wisdom is lost to the American people…
Venezuela News and Views retails a theory:
…Apparently the “knee” problem was a way to hide the prostate surgery which today can be dealt well enough in a couple of weeks. But if we are to believe Gustavo the post biopsy was not encouraging and they decided to do some advanced body scans which in Venezuela can only be done in a couple of private clinics. Not only Chavez entourage would not trust the discretion of private clinics but it would have been also an admission that the “socialist” care was not as performing as the “capitalist” care since the regime had not been able to match the equipment of the private sector for “el pueblo”. Thus the trip to Cuba. One caveat here: where would have Chavez got prostate surgery in full discretion? Has he set an O.R. inside Miraflores or Fuerte Tiuna?
Before, for show, Chavez stopped in Brazil and Ecuador and that must have been a mistake because he got a post op infection. And also some people found him walking strangely well for someone with an alleged serious knee injury. Arriving in Cuba he got feverish soon and they had to drain the abscess. That would have been the real “emergency” part. In a way that was a convenient excuse to justify Chavez stay while the real stuff was being done, namely the body scans.
He seems to have recovered well enough form his infection but apparently the scans were not good and they decided to start radiotherapy…
Before anyone breaks out the champagne to celebrate the imminent demise of a tyrant, keep two things in mind:
1. There is no real way to test this theory. Chavez keeps tight control over his own nation and Cuba is even tighter than Venezuela. Getting the truth out of either place is very difficult.
2. As the reports goes on to note, if Chavez were to die suddenly he could easily become a mythical hero of sorts, thus keeping alive his band of socialist totalitarianism. Remember, the best thing that ever happened to Stalin was that Lenin died…it allowed Stalin to use the image of Lenin to legitimize his own tyranny.
Still, the removal of a tyrant is always a good thing, over all. It is a pity, however, that Venezuela may never get a chance to overthrow this tyrant and put him on trial for his crimes.
From the Des Moines Register:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann sit atop the standings in the year’s first Des Moines Register Iowa Poll on the Republican presidential field.
Romney, the national front-runner and a familiar face in Iowa after his 2008 presidential run, attracts support from 23 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers. Bachmann, who will officially kick off her campaign in Iowa on Monday, nearly matches him, with 22 percent…
I’d have to rate Romney’s support as soft – the sort of support you get for being around and not doing anything to make yourself actually unelectable. It is the sort of support which can easily be lost when someone better comes along – and right now, it appears that Iowa Republicans are starting to think that Bachmann is better.
To be sure, poll strength is not decisive in Iowa – that is all about the ground game at Caucus time, and if Romney’s caucus effort out here in Nevada in 2008 is any indicator, he’ll have a first class campaign for Iowa (Romney’s people simply steam rollered our caucuses…there was never a chance he wouldn’t win them). It now remains to be seen whether Bachmann, or anyone else, can out hustle Romney.
John Tamny over at Zero Hedge says, “no“:
…no doubt most in the media worship President Obama, and because they do they’ll strive mightily to create the impression that all is well, or at the very least that the economic malaise isn’t Obama’s fault. They would have a point, though for reasons none could articulate…
…Basically the Bush bailouts of banks and car companies “in the name of free markets” disallowed the initial economic cleansing necessary for a massive snapback, and then once in office, Obama’s economic team poured gasoline on the fire; most notably with policies meant to mimic the Bush economic disaster in the form of nosebleed spending and an even weaker dollar. The economy is weak, its weakness by definition has Washington and the Obama administration’s fingerprints all over it, and no matter how the media spin that which isn’t working, Obama is in serious trouble…
Much as I hate to say it, the author is right that the bailouts which started late in the Bush Administration were the first shot and borrowing and spending out way out of the crisis. Of course, President Bush was acting upon expert advice…and only a very few people raised their voices in objection at the time. Most people, even is wary, were willing to try just about anything to avert complete collapse. And, of course, it did avert complete collapse…for about three or four months, by which time Obama was in office.
It was a certainty that a liberal, Democrat President working with a liberal, Democrat Congress would try a round of spending to get things moving. It is built in, as it were – they really believe that it was government spending which solved the Great Depression, and so were certain a bit of it would solve the Great Recession. We can’t blame the liberals for doing it – it is what they do, and they had just won an historic victory. But that still doesn’t mean it was good policy – in fact, when coupled with Bernanke’s massive money printing, it became economic suicide.
By now, the fat is in the fire. Liberals can comfort themselves that some polls still show more people blaming Bush for the economy…but I caution against this. Such polls may only reflect the reality that the recession did, indeed, start when Bush was President. But such a poll does not mean “I don’t blame Obama”. Now that we’re two and a half years in to Obama, it is becoming increasingly difficult (and soon will become impossible) to pin the mess on Bush…at least in such a way as it helps Obama to get re-elected. Obama and his Democrats, in spite of their stout resistance, are being forced to own the economy. And as the linked article notes elsewhere, the most positive media spin in the world simply will not make people forget lost jobs, foreclosed homes, reduced pay and higher prices. The MSM spin for Obama will be astounding – more nakedly partisan for Obama than 2008; in fact probably the most partisan MSM reporting ever seen. But it won’t work – unless the real economy gets better, no amount of spin will change minds.
This doesn’t mean Obama is a sure loser – it just means that the MSM will not be able to carry him over the finish line. The MSM can help (and they will help Obama every chance they get) but it can’t decide…the nation is already too far gone in to revolutionary sentiment to fall for MSM propaganda.
This is a “let’s go to DC and clean up the mess” statement…the statement of a man who wants to switch his arena from New Jersey to Washington…we’ll see.
You must be logged in to post a comment.