Sarah Palin Tells Hannity Less Money is Good For Alaska

This is the latest Sarah Palin attack (no, not the toenails) being forwarded around the internet.  She’s talking to Sean Hannity, and the awkward subject of oil prices comes up.  It’s awkward because high oil prices=good for Alaska, bad for lower 48, whereas low oil prices=bad for Alaska, good for everyone else.

Sean notes that the price is rising, but could be much higher.  Now, I guess Sarah could have said that lower oil prices are good for everybody, but I guess that would have sounded too spread-the-wealth-y?  Instead, she says this:

Hannity: …The price of oil is going up again. It’s not quite at $140 a barrel, but it’s on its way up to $70 and $80…

Palin: Yeah, well and I thank God it’s not at $140. You know people say, “Hey, Alaska! 85% of your state budget is based on the price of a barrel of oil. Aren’t you glad the price is going up?” I say, “No!” The fewer dollars that the state of Alaska government has, the fewer dollars we spend. And that’s good for our families and for the private sector.

There is a measure of redemption to be had here, though.  The blog reporting the gaffe, The Mudflats, committed a gafflet of its own.  When you write a headline, whatever you write first becomes the URL, even if you change the headline later.  The headline embedded in Mudflats’ URL?   “governor-palin-we-can-still-here-you-up-here”

Damn, nothing undermines snark like a typo.

Mystery Alex Theater 3000, Episode 1: “America’s First Muslim President?”

alex01thumbOkay Dosers, I’ve had it with this bull-pucky. No more shall I read incredibly ridonkulous articles and only bitch about them as a spectator! (Well, I’ll do that sometimes.) But when confronted with such absolute tosh as is presented to me in Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.’s editorial in the Washington Times today, entitled, “America’s First Muslim President?“, I shall no longer be objective, but systematically rip it apart, with my Forceps of Justice. Or something.

Welcome to Mystery Alex Theater 3000. Continue reading

Senate Republicans Back Gay Gunslingers

The Washington Independent reports (via HuffPo) that Senate Republicans are considering trying a new formulatioysam10n of the “Guns and Gays” portion of “God, Guns, and Gays.”  Instead of using the issues as a wedge, they’re combining them to advance a gunrights amendment in the Matthew Shepard law:

The possible plan — to add an amendment that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons from one state to another in accordance with concealed carry laws. The possible rationale — to defend gay rights.

“It makes sense for a group of people who would be protected by hate crime legislation to support something that would let them defend themselves before or after the crime,” said one Republican Senate aid familiar with the discussions. “It’s relevant, and we want to work together with gay groups to get the message out.”

There’s actually a long historical basis for this, as in the Old West, this was basically the only way to get another guy to dance.

The knee-jerk reaction to this might tend to be that this is a cynical attempt to advance gun rights on the backs of gay people.  I’m not so sure about that.  Increasingly, conservatives have shown that they are coming around on key gay issues.  Dick Cheney’s recent show of support for marriage equality is a great indication of this. Continue reading

Playboy Gets One Right: Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell is Dangerous

Ana Marie Cox (AMC) has just written her first article for Playboy, and in the process, has provided the magazine with a large measure of redemption.  The piece is compelling and timely, especially given the Supreme Court’s denial of cert to a challenge to DADT.

In the piece, Ana Marie frames the issue of the military’s “Don’t ask/Don’t tell” (DADT) policy as both a civil rights issue, and a much more immediate national security issue.  For good measure, she posits that repealing DADT is just good politics:

But one of the key components of recent Democratic victories has been candidates’ refusal to cede military issues to the traditionally hawkish GOP. Repealing DADT should be a part of reclaiming national security as a bipartisan issue. Honestly, would there be a more “efficient use of gays in the Army” than having them hunt down Islamic extremists, arguably the only group more uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality than social conservatives?

That’s probably my favorite passage in the piece, though I encourage reading the whole thing.

There are also a few points that I would add. Continue reading

Blue Dog Democrats to Lift Their Legs on Healthcare Reform

Sometimes, it’s hard to tell if the Blue Dogs are yellow, or just stupid.  The 98 pound weaklings of the Democratic Party51947543 are already signaling their willingnedd to roll over and play dead on a key aspect of healthcare reform:

These officials said drafters of the legislation will include a government-run insurance option as well as plans offered by private companies. The government option draws near-unanimous opposition from Republicans and provokes concerns among many Democrats, as well, although President Barack Obama has spoken out in favor of it.

For those of youwho don’t speak Democratese, “provokes concerns” means “causes fainting spells.”

What problem do the Republicans and their azure canine playmates have with the public option?

Equally troublesome politically is the issue of a government insurance option. Critics argue it would render private companies unable to compete, and it has emerged as a key sticking point in the Democratic search for a bipartisan plan in the Senate.

Wait, I thought a government-run plan would be a horrible disaster that would have patients lined up at clinics like Soviet bread lines, forcing them to see government-approved butchers instead of their own trusted physicians, and feature heartless bureaucrats denying lifesaving treatment.  Private insurance companies couldn’t compete with that?

Continue reading