For several days now, I?ve been in a running argument with an individual who goes by the name of ?On Lawn? over in the comments sections of the blog ran by anti-gay equality group National Organization for Marriage. In several comments here, here, and here, this person seems to imply that procreation, or at least the potential for procreation, is a requirement of marriage. I?ve tried several times to get this person to explain this concept but they keep brushing off the question calling it absurd. When I tried to point out that there is no link between marriage and procreation they came back with this.
Well, there shows the damage they want to do to the institution. If marriage can?t look equally at the interests of all involved in the practice of human mating, then you tell me what can.
Prehistoric humans didn?t marry before they mated, they just found a bush did it. When you look at the whole of human history, marriage is a relatively new creation, only being a few thousand years old. Our very existence proves that marriage is not a requirement or an essential element of the human mating process.
Many congressional Republicans as well as GOP talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Fox ?News? pundits Sean Hanity and Glenn Beck, have often made the claim that President Obama has spent more money than any President in history.
When President Clinton left office the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), had estimated a surplus in 2001 of about $800 Billion dollars. So where did it all go?
New York Times writer David Leonhardt took on this topic Tuesday and the results might actually surprise you.
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush?s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The first category ? the business cycle ? accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It?s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists? assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.
The White House Correspondents Dinner has never really gone without some sort of controversial joke being uttered to the crowd, and this weekend proved to be no different when comedian Wanda Sykes suggested that Rush Limbaugh could have been the 20th hijacker who simply missed the plan because he was high. She then followed up by saying that she hoped his kidneys would fail. While I have no love for El’-Rushbo, the Apparent King of the GOP, I think Wanda overstepped the bounds of funny by bringing up 9/11.
It also appears that the White House agrees that the joke was in poor taste. When Press Secretary
Robert Gibbs was asked what Obama thought of the joke, he replied?
I don’t know how the guests get booked…I haven’t talked specifically with him, but my guess is, Jeff, I think there are a lot of topics that are better left for serious reflection rather than comedy. I think there’s no doubt 9/11 is part of that.