What really puzzles me about the video is that marriage is supposed to be all about love. What does the Devil have to do with love? I can’t see what difference it makes what variety or category the love is in, love of any kind should be anathema to the Devil.

Dean Baker has been featured on FDL numerous times. He noticed R&R’s lack of transparency right off the bat and called them lying charlatans (Words to that effect, anyway) right off the bat. I read his assessment of them and promptly forgot about them until this whole kerfuffle started.

I said back during the time when six-year olds started showing up on the terror list that judges should have the power to order the list-keepers to take name off the list. Keep that power limited to certain levels of judges? Sure, but there MUST be a method to take obviously-wrong names off the list.

Just got a call from Republicans (I joined a group to get the right-wing view on an issue and have been getting fundraising calls ever since) and they presented themselves as the helpless victims of an aggressive, dominating Obama machine. I challenged the fellow who came on, saying “Obama was just defeated on a major piece of legislation. How can you possibly say you’re the underdogs?!?!” The guy sorta stuttered and mumbled about “We don’t win on every issue…” before I hung up.

This seems to a pretty BFD, as our Vice-President would say. A paper that supported theories of austerity turns out to be severely flawed. Gee, I wonder if anyone will reverse any austerity policies because the data that underlay the policy turns out to have been junk? Ha, ha, ha! I kid, of course.

A fellow from the Obama Administration tries to claim that they can achieve both deficit reduction AND jobs creation. Erm, sorry, but no can do. We should prioritize one OR the other. My vote, obviously, is that we go for job creation.

I think it was a year or two ago that Rove was featured on Jon Stewart disagreeing with, I think Michelle Malkin and/or Megyn Kelly and had Stewart grinning and commenting “Uh oh! It’s the class fat kid versus the pretty girls. Gee, I wonder how this fight’s gonna turn out!” Sure enough, Rove backed down shortly afterwards.

Sorry Jim, pedophiles don’t fit into the box of either homosexuals or of heterosexuals. They don’t come under the category of normal, healthy, adult sexuality at all.

My problem with Rick Perry’s argument is that if sexuality is a non-issue, then why are LGBT people banned? I mean, I understand what he’s saying. Someone once brought up SpongeBob SquarePants and whether or not he was gay. I think it was one of the writers on the show who said that SpongeBob was at a pre-sexual age, so never mind, it’s an irrelevant question.
So okay, if Scouts are also at a pre-sexual age, isn’t that an argument for just saying never mind to the whole issue? Isn’t that an argument for letting them all in, regardless of their sexuality?

Wonkette has a piece on right-wingers imploring reg’lar folks and the gays and “Think of the children!” Wonkette ends with:

If only there were some sort of science that had looked into whether or not children in gay homes were actually more likely to be bad-touched. It seems like the kind of thing that would be helpful.

She then links to Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation and the not-at-all-surprising comment that:

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority’s most vulnerable members.

Heh! I was over at my sister’s a few years ago and she offered me an opportunity to stay over for a bit and watch the Super Bowl with her and her family (She largely watches it for the commercials). I indicated I was sort of interested in doing so. My niece, then about seven I think, saw me hesitate and said “Oh, Uncle Rich, you just want to watch it for the cheerleaders!” I was like “Well, er, um, uh, yeah, actually.”

I heard Beyonce was singing there this year, so I might try to tune in when she’s on. Then again, she’ll probably only sing some quick snippets, so it’s probably not worth it to tune in.

Speaking to the question of “Are women the physical equals of men?” I think my cross-country track team in high school is a fairly representative model. We had about 20-25 people on it. It was a mixed-gender team. Generally, the males were faster, but there was one female who could keep up and who consistently finished in the top five runners. My experience during my time in the Navy (1991-2001 as a PN3) showed that women were entirely capable of doing what we men did. Of course, the Navy and the Air Force are both technical services where we don’t fight in the same way that the Army and Marines do. Still, the women could keep up.
But yeah, to answer Jonah Goldberg, I think there are fewer women per 100 people who can meet the physical requirements than the men do, but such women very clearly do exist and are entitled to the same opportunities that men get. No, progressives are not “ignoring” biology at all.
And we haven’t had real front lines in warfare since Korea (Ended in 1953, 60 years ago) and even then, there were a few instances during World War II when cooks and truck drivers had to be issued rifles so that they could go toe-to-toe with the enemy.

We had some strongly anti-abortionist letters in our local paper today. As I pointed out there, support for abortion restrictions is extremely soft. People like the idea of restrictions in the abstract, as long as it’s a philosophical issue, way above the clouds somewhere, it sounds good. As soon as pro-choicers and the accidently-honest Todd Akin and his buddies made the price of anti-abortion activism clear, support for restrictions fell off a cliff.