Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
- Far-right hearts Karzai? – Money graf: “Have we reached the point at which anyone who draws a rebuke from the Obama White House is necessarily going to get support from right-wing Republicans? It’s almost as if we’ve entered a new era of the Blame-America-First crowd, with far-right clowns like Palin and Cheney taking the lead.”
- The right’s new approach to employment discrimination – They can’t fire you for being black, but they think they can fire you for voting for a black man. Nice.
- Box Turtle Bulletin » The Quiet Death of Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” Bill? – Well, that’s good new. I’d rather it were clearly rejected for the moral outrage it is, but I’ll settle for it being seen as impolitic to pursue at this time.
- Schlafly’s Absurd SCOTUS Demand – Okay, I remember when Bush was nominating SCOTUS appointees. And, yes, the Left was mightily worried about what sort of reactionaries might be inserted into the court (especially after Alito). But — and I don’t think I’m imagining things — I have no recollection of either the same sort of insane demands from the Left that the Right has been issuing for the past few weeks (that the only acceptable nominee will be a military vet who hates abortion and admires the Constitutional conservatism of Chief Justice Taney) or the very clear threat by Democratic legislators to block any potential nominee — name unmentioned — for as long as they choose to. I wasn’t particularly thrilled by Alito or Roberts as nominees, but short of showing that they were blithering idiots (cf. Thomas) I was willing to accept that Dubya had the right to pack the court as he saw fit. That’s what being elected earns you. A pity the Right doesn’t respect the majority vote in that way …
- With Stevens Retiring, Right Readies For a Fight – The Right’s definition of “rule of law” (which all nominees to SCOTUS should adhere to) is anything that protects big business, Christianity, and white American Republicans. Anything that falls short of that is “judicial activism” and “a radical leftist agenda.”
- Palin blames ‘Gore-gate’ for ‘this snake oil science stuff.’ – This would be hysterically funny were it not that the future of our country, if not world civilization, rides on it. The level of “Purposeful Ignorance” here strikes me near-speechless.
- A veritable boatload of read items – Damn. I really wanted one of those badges.
- Document: Bush, Cheney Knew They Sent Innocent Men To Gitmo, Kept Them There For ‘Political’ Reasons – Is anyone actually surprised about this?
- Which sect, Newt? – All very well taken. The most popular reason for the Establishment Clause was not out of worry that the Jews or the Catholics (or even the Deists or Atheists) might get uppity, but to protect one Christian denomination from another. Given the oppression, imprisonment, and bloodshed inflicted between Christian denominations in 18th Century America (including, but not limited to, both Baptists and Quakers), and the history of denominational warfare in Europe, why would we want to weaken the Constitutional walls that prevent such internecine Christian conflict?
45 view(s)