this n that
More violent incitement, this time from Glenn Beck. Who is the dastardly, dangerous criminal he rails against for our safety?? Why, none other than a 78 year old professor, over an article she wrote 45 years ago! Yes, the American nation can rest easy with Glenn Beck to guard us from all danger. Spotlight From Glenn Beck Brings a CUNY Professor Threats. In response to the protests that he’s putting her in danger (she’s been getting threats and so on as a result of his spotlighting) he of course denies anything of the sort.
Nothing new to see here, move along, move along *sigh* Republican spending plan signals a new culture war. What I really want to know is what “finding Jesus” has to do with being a good congresscritter. Because, really.
This has been an issue going on for WAY too long. So Congress is finally going to take a look at it. Congress to investigate Pentagon’s decision to deny coverage for brain injured troops. Let’s just hope the soldiers aren’t told to “go find Jesus.” (Wait, they probably already were!)
And on the other end of the spectrum, we have Obama talking about “Competitiveness”. Krugman despairs and so do I. Both parties seem to have forgotten the big issue in the last election - JOBS. As in, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The mantra now seems to be something along the lines of “It’s stupid.” I swear.
A nice little article here: Redefining Marriage. I can tell you a bit about California’s situation. At least for me it wasn’t so much about putting plans on hold suddenly (I have no particular intention of getting married again, myself). It was the breathtaking, appalling moment when I realized the state was taking away a right. Not in finally granting us one we should have had all along, but doing so and then rescinding it. I don’t think there are words. (Quick recap of details here: Same-sex marriage in California.)
In the wake of the Arizona shootings, a very thoughtful article, I recommend it: Eulogy, sort of.
I am honestly puzzled by this story: How Congress helped thwart Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo. We didn’t need Wikileaks to tell us that one. Congress flatly refused to allow the prisoners to come onto “US territory”, and also scuttled other things like doing their trials under civilian judges. It was clear to me from the onset that Congress derailed the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Maybe these leaks are providing more detailed information? It is still not a surprise.
As an update to yesterday’s Trust and Consequences Wikileaks post, here’s the video of the panel I referenced: WikiLeaks: Why It Matters. Why It Doesn’t?. No transcript available that I know of, but the article I referenced yesterday contains a detailed description.
Originally published at What's that you said?. You can comment here or there.