Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3203 of them)

A+ trolling, someone buy this dude a beer:

Mississippi State Rep. Steve Holland has had a busy afternoon. After we reported his introduction of H.B. 150 yesterday, a bill that aims to rename the Gulf of Mexico the very pro-'Merican, Onion-worthy title "Gulf of America," the Democrat's office has been flooded with press calls to respond to, essentially, "what the hell are you doing?"

Turns out Holland has a bit of a goof streak going on. He called Gambit to tell us the bill is his tongue-in-cheek single-finger salute to mock his Republican peers obsessed with illegal immigration.

"That's exactly what it is," he says. He's throwing the bill into session with his Republican counterparts, who he says should be focused on helping "feed, clothe and educate children, take care of older adults, provide economic development and high systems in this state, and all the hell they want to talk about is running illegal immigrants out, and drug testing welfare and Medicaid recipients — all superfluous crap as far as I'm concerned. So I thought I'd just join them with a bill to chew on, saying the Gulf of America instead of the Gulf of Mexico, since everything Mexican and Hispanic is 'so bad.' Nothing but a 'spamalot' bill is all it is. Tongue-in-cheek."

Despite his ruse, he's drawn ire from Café Con Leche, a GOP group of Minnesota Latinos who demanded Holland withdraw the bill, which the group dubs anti-Mexican. Café Con Leche suggested Holland rename the Mississippi River “Lincoln River,” while he’s at it. But his home state hasn't peeped yet.

"Nobody in Mississippi has responded, but I've been responding to phone calls all over the world," Holland says. "Maybe I didn't think about it, but hell, I've been here 29 years, I got to try and have some fun as best I can with all these jerks."

Speaking of fun, you might catch Holland at Mardi Gras.

"I'm coming into New Orleans the week after next to raise hell," he says. "Just time to have my New Orleans fix. I go once a quarter. I love it."

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:09 (six years ago) Permalink

lol Mordy can't wait

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:29 (six years ago) Permalink

positively Wilsonian....

Jesus!

judge for yourself:

One of the things to which he paid particular attention at this time was the matter of the pardon of Eugene V. Debs. The day that the recommendation for pardon arrived at the White House, he looked it over and examined it carefully, and said: "I will never consent to the pardon of this man. I know that in certain quarters of the country there is a popular demand for the pardon of Debs, but it shall never be accomplished with my consent. Were I to consent to it, I should never be able to look into the faces of the mothers of this country who sent their boys to the other side. While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines, sniping, attacking, and denouncing them. Before the war he had a perfect right to exercise his freedom of speech and to express his own opinion, but once the Congress of the United States declared war, silence on his part would have been the proper course to pursue. I know there will be a great deal of denunciation of me for refusing this pardon. They will say I am cold-blooded and indifferent, but it will make no impression on me. This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration."

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:35 (six years ago) Permalink

"They will say I am cold-blooded and indifferent, but it will make no impression on me."

The crazy thing is that he probably meant this to be taken unironically.

Aimless, Friday, 10 February 2012 01:55 (six years ago) Permalink

wmc's real name is Steve Holland?

mookieproof, Friday, 10 February 2012 03:11 (six years ago) Permalink

lol

Steamtable Willie (WmC), Friday, 10 February 2012 03:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Was really hoping dude would turn out to be director "Savage" Steve Holland in a new career phase, but alas.

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 11:34 (six years ago) Permalink

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.

In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees. This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization hostile to that care in order to obtain it.

curmudgeon, Friday, 10 February 2012 14:27 (six years ago) Permalink

David Frum:

The Contraception Fight
by David Frum Feb 9, 2012 12:00 PM EST

Print
Email
Comments (27)

136081892AW002_SEBELIUS_HOL

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (R) takes questions as Director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Richard Gilfillan (L) looks on during a news conference December 19, 2011, Alex Wong / Getty Images

Glendower:

I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:

Why, so can I, or so can any man;

But will they come when you do call for them?

- Henry IV, Part 1.

As Republicans go to war over including contraception in health plans, they are repeating to themselves a reassuring mantra:

"This is not a contraception issue. This is not a social issue. This is a constitutional issue."

The idea is that they are not against contraception. They are only against requiring any employer or plan to provide contraception if that employer or plan conscientiously objects to contraception.

So they say, so they may sincerely believe.

But politics is not only about what you say. It is also about what your intended audience will hear.

If the audience is paying attention, for example, it will notice that Republicans are not proposing to allow employers and plans to refuse to cover blood transfusions if they conscientiously object to them (although there are religious groups that do). Or vaccinations (although there are individuals who conscientiously object to those as well). Or medicines derived from animal experimentation. (Ditto.)

No, Marco Rubio's Religious Freedom Restoration bill provides for one conscientious exemption only: contraception and sterilization.

Which means it will be very hard if not impossible to persuade the target audience that this debate is not in fact about contraception. Everybody quite sure that's a wise debate to have?

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 15:18 (six years ago) Permalink

ha what the hell do republican voters care about jehovahs witnesses

diln (k3vin k.), Friday, 10 February 2012 15:30 (six years ago) Permalink

obvs they don't but it's just nice to have them publicly called on their bullshit.

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 15:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Seriously, how the fuck can all these religious organizations get so many tax exemptions and then have the chutzpah to complain about shit?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 February 2012 15:51 (six years ago) Permalink

Also, you'd think a nation of people with 2 kids a family, give or take, pretty much settles the stance on birth control. It'd be a different debate if we were all running around with dozens of kids underfoot per household, like in "Meaning of Life."

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 February 2012 15:53 (six years ago) Permalink

A line from my old standup act identified the primary birth-control method in Catholic marriages as "mutual disgust"

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 February 2012 16:07 (six years ago) Permalink

q: what do you call ppl who practice the 'mutual disgust' method of birth-control?
a: divorcees!

Mordy, Friday, 10 February 2012 16:12 (six years ago) Permalink

rmde at this nonsense

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 February 2012 17:05 (six years ago) Permalink

Shakey you said this story would blow over quickly, and maybe Obama's accommodation compromise will help that happen. Nah, the Catholic bishops and the Republicans will be ranting about Obama denying first amendment freedom of religion rights from here on, even with today's action (which has now gotten Obama some of that "reasonable adult" attention that he so loves)

curmudgeon, Friday, 10 February 2012 22:52 (six years ago) Permalink

I can't see this having legs really - it's only been in the news cycle for what, two days now? let's keep some perspective.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 February 2012 22:54 (six years ago) Permalink

Has Mitt Romney proclaimed himself the anti-contraception candidate yet?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 February 2012 22:59 (six years ago) Permalink

two days? i've been hearing about this for at least two weeks now

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:06 (six years ago) Permalink

This will disappear next week to be replaced by something equally ephemeral. No one will discuss Iran and drone rockets.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:56 (six years ago) Permalink

If you don't have CNN or FOX, this problem is meaningless.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:56 (six years ago) Permalink

problem = the miniscule percentage of Catholics ready to break from Obama over diaphragms and colored condoms.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:57 (six years ago) Permalink

Obama's introduction on friday of the accomodation himself rather than having it done via press release shows though that the White House is more worried about this than Shakey is!

There seems to high percentage of Catholic inside the Beltway media types fixated on this--Chris Matthews, EJ Dionne, hmmm is Cokie Roberts...

curmudgeon, Saturday, 11 February 2012 14:38 (six years ago) Permalink

If you don't have CNN or FOX, this problem is meaningless.

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, February 11, 2012

Unless you work at a Catholic-owned hospital, but yeah otherwise you could say this about just about any political thing we discuss here

curmudgeon, Saturday, 11 February 2012 14:39 (six years ago) Permalink

"When you wear that blue condom, I go wild!"

The Austerity of PONIES (beachville), Saturday, 11 February 2012 14:43 (six years ago) Permalink

you could say this about just about any political thing we discuss here

Except, you know, the important stuff.

Biden was among those reportedly telling O to backtrack, I-tol-ya-so ad nauseum.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 11 February 2012 15:53 (six years ago) Permalink

i don't defer to Beltway media types about substantive policy (esp since they've been laughably wrong about such things by and large), and i'm damn sure not going to defer to their take on Catholicism or Catholic voters.

by itself, this flap isn't going to swing anyone but grannies who go to novenas (who probably weren't too keen on voting for Obama anyway).

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Saturday, 11 February 2012 22:01 (six years ago) Permalink

A good pol never leaves a potential vote on the table. Even a small slice of novena-attending grannies is worth making an effort, if it looks like a net gainer.

Aimless, Saturday, 11 February 2012 22:53 (six years ago) Permalink

my mother is an 83-yo granny who hauls a rosary. I'm sure she'll vote for Obama (again) as long as my sister drives her to the poll and tells her to.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 12 February 2012 00:42 (six years ago) Permalink

you should drive her to the polls and tell her to vote for roseanne

mookieproof, Sunday, 12 February 2012 00:53 (six years ago) Permalink

roseanne-ary

brownie, Sunday, 12 February 2012 01:04 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Almost half of all Americans lived in households that received government benefits in 2010, according to the Census Bureau. The share climbed from 37.7 percent in 1998 to 44.5 percent in 2006, before the recession, to 48.5 percent in 2010.

The trend reflects the expansion of the safety net. When the earned-income credit was introduced in 1975, eligibility was limited to households making the current equivalent of up to $26,997. In 2010, it was available to families making up to $49,317. The maximum payout, meanwhile, quadrupled on an inflation-adjusted basis.

Interesting long piece. I was thinking about it as I saw on Facebook an annoying forwarded photo thing saying: "Got my tax form returned, the government did not like me listing as my dependents, 12 million illegal immigrants, x million on disability, x million on and so on." Conservatives are convinced all these folks are lucky duckies living it up on these far less than six figure amounts. But some want to work and some are Tea party types themselves in denial.

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 15:10 (six years ago) Permalink

great opening: "Back in 2006, before the Obama administration made leak prosecutions routine..."

How are future Supreme Court appointments such a re-election vote crutch for a regime that has such contempt for a free press?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/a-high-tech-war-on-leaks.html

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 February 2012 16:19 (six years ago) Permalink

The White House's fixation on prosecuting whistleblower leak cases is horrible, but again how is enabling Romney or whatever GOPer to appoint Supreme court judges going to make things better. If we had had a Dem in office instead of Bush a more moderate (or even kinda liberal) Supreme Court could act as a screen to prevent such constitution damaging actions.

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:26 (six years ago) Permalink

could have

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:26 (six years ago) Permalink

acted

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:26 (six years ago) Permalink

You're presuming that justices vote the way their presidents want them to. Besides, a liberal judge is apt to rein in King Obama.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:27 (six years ago) Permalink

Morbz wants things to get WORSE curmodgeon, not better

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:28 (six years ago) Permalink

The revolution will then happen and the Mets will win the World Series again and Morbz will be on top of the world

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Also: no president interested in legacies and such would return the extra-constitutional powers bequeathed to him. Any GOP or Dem successor to Obama would at best continue but probably worsen this state of affairs.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:31 (six years ago) Permalink

yep, these powers will not be limited/rescinded without a massive fight, would be a huge showdown between the judiciary and executive

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:32 (six years ago) Permalink

Obama has made things worse in the prosecuting of whistleblowers and in many civil liberty areas, yes. Re the unintend consequences of appointing judges, other than HW Bush's appoinment of Souter, which appointees in the last 30 years have done other than what was expected?

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:34 (six years ago) Permalink

as Bob Dole would say, stop lying about my record.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:35 (six years ago) Permalink

Re the unintend consequences of appointing judges, other than HW Bush's appoinment of Souter, which appointees in the last 30 years have done other than what was expected?

Kennedy, although expectations were low (third pick after Bork and Douglas Ginsberg).

Too soon to judge Sotomayor and Kagan.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:38 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't even make sense to compare them because judges today are picked *specifically with the goal of not having unexpected consequences*

iatee, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:39 (six years ago) Permalink

Kennedy still largely agrees with the other conservatives

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:40 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't even make sense to compare them because judges today are picked *specifically with the goal of not having unexpected consequences*

... when was this not a goal

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:41 (six years ago) Permalink

it wasn't as explicitly a goal recently

iatee, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:42 (six years ago) Permalink

There are various books claiming that the Republican presidential appointment of Earl Warren, who became a liberal favorite, was not thought out the way most of the current appointments have been done.

Some liberal and left wing groups worry that Sotomayor and Kagan will be less than liberal despite all the analysis of their history.

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:45 (six years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.