It’s hard to resist good satire (and yes, Colbert is satire, Limbaugh is not). One of his funnier and more on-point segments.
Awesome–because if she responds (most likely on Facebook) she has to acknowledge to her legion of followers that she had notes on her hands during a Q&A and during the speech in which she mocked Obama for using teleprompters (note the photo to the left that shows her convention speech).
We all watch the ads during the Superbowl for a good laugh. This year had some great ads, but my hands down favorite ad was from Google. It’s not often that an ad can give you a chill, but even in a loud crowded bar this one shone through.
Apparently, this wasn’t even a new ad. Second place (and yes, almost 100% just because it’s Betty White)?
Let me know which was your favorite.
Key Q&A:
BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldnt you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.
Rep. HUNTER: No, but they arent open about it, like you just said. Its like if you want to work for NPR, you dont go to work and on the first day
say, hey, I want everybody to know that Im gay. You probably dont care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. Thats why dont ask, dont tell works.
In quite an exchange on last night’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Audrey Sarvis, of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) debated Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council. Sarvis hangs Sprigg out to dry, but at one points advocates criminalizing homosexuality in civilian life as well. Surprisingly, he does admit that people don’t choose to have “same-sex attractions.” Sprigg simply faults them for acting on the these feelings. The problem here is that Sprigg frames this as about attraction, not emotion or love. However, his admitting that this is not a choice is a quite something to me and leaves a bigger hole in the logic than he starts with. While everyone should watch the full clip below, I’ve also included a short version pulling out this highlight.
Full clip:
Defenders of Prop 8 today called their second and final “expert” witness. Here are a few key passages caught by Brian Leubitz at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker:
- “I’m simply repeating things that they say.”
- “These are not my own conclusions.”
- “I’m a transmitter here of findings of these eminent scholars.”
- “Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.”
- “Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”
- “Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”
Remarkably unconvincing argument against marriage equality.
