Donald Trump Got The Memo

... and he's happily joining in on the McCain Lie-athon to the White House!

On Larry king, via CNN.com:

Trump: Well, I know John McCain, and John McCain's a great guy, a tremendous guy. I've known him for a long time. And I'm with him, and I'm with him based on the fact that I have great knowledge of John McCain. Also, this is not the right time for tax increases and Obama wants to increase your taxes drastically. So this is not ...

King: In all fairness, he says he doesn't.

Trump: This is not the right time.

King: Obama said 95 percent would be reduced under his plan.

Trump: Well, I'll tell you, the people that create the jobs and the people that really create a lot of things in the country, they're going to be taxed into oblivion. And I'm not even sure when you look really at his tax, I think everybody's going to be taxed a lot more. So I like the fact that taxes won't be raised under McCain.

Notice how quickly "your taxes" became Donald Trump's taxes. And while one could, I suppose, argue that he was referring to Larry King's taxes, it would have made more sense in that context to say "our taxes." No, The Donald was just taking an opportunity to spread The John's bullshit talking point.

Also, another use of the phrase "taxed into oblivion." Which is apparently how the selfish wealthy (as opposed to the wealthy who gladly pay their fair share) see being taxed into being only slightly less wealthy. If going from ultra-mega-rich to super-mega-rich is oblivion, what must those people think of earning less than $250,000 a year? These people want you to vote for their economic interests, because they're afraid of the hellish existence that earning only ten times your income would impose on them.

Highest Common Denominator

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. This is what a campaign should look like. Notice the lack of flashy graphics and dramatic music. There are no clips of celebrities, no unflattering pictures of the opponent. Just a candidate spelling out his position instead of marketing an image. There is, of course, an image being presented: that of a statesman. A statesman, of all things. In this day and age. Speaking as an adult to adults, no less. This is what we would have expected from John McCain, if John McCain were still the John McCain of 2000 election. But he sold his pride and integrity to the soulless marketers of the conservative political machine.

I'm not saying I think this will work. I'm not at all sure that it will. But if there's any hope for democracy in this country, then this is what people really want. This should resonate, even if you don't like the ideas, because it lets us respect a candidate as a statesman, not as a product to be consumed.

Semantics

Okay, this one is nuts.

Via Pharyngula, this wonderful story from the Sacramento Bee.

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.

To the state of California, however, she is either "Party A" or "Party B."

Those are the terms that have replaced "bride" and "groom" on the state's new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

"We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. "Bride" and "groom" became "Party A" and "Party B."

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

You know what? You little dipshits have fun doing your little dipshit protest over a couple of words on a piece of paper that will be tossed in a drawer somewhere and forgotten until a few years from now, when Gideon panics about forgetting the date of your anniversary and scrambles wildly to find it. You had your church wedding. That's where you can inject all the meaning you want into your marriage. A marriage license isn't about making you feel special. It's a legal document meant to afford you the status of married couple, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. The wording changes nothing, except for tweaking your confused notion of what is sacred and what is legal, and giving your privileged, pompous pseudo-Christian pride a big, raw purple nurple.

Where you cross the line from being jackasses to raging assholes, though, is when you and your little pals try to equate your invented persecution with denying other people the right you're getting to opt out of.

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," [Bird] said.

To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside.

"Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

What fucking right has been violated? What difference, other than hurting your tender little feelings, do the terms "Party A" and "Party B" make? What is this important civil liberty that will be denied to you as "Party B" that you would have enjoyed as "Bride"? You're just being brats. And as bad as a couple of twenty-something brats are, what makes your petty tantrum a hundred times worse is that you're arrogant enough to use your pretend persecution in justifying your desire to continue persecuting people who actually have had their rights denied.

Bird and Codding say they are trying to figure out what to do next. Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance. "I really don't know," she said.

Fuck you. I don't feel sorry for you. Do you know why? Because you are choosing to stay legally unmarried. That's a choice you don't only want to make for yourself... you want to make it for thousands of same-sex couples as well. Gay people aren't keeping you unmarried. You are. But in almost every state in this country except yours, people like you most certainly are keeping gay people from getting married. They don't enjoy the right to make the choice you are making. You want to risk your health over some ridiculous argument about semantics on a legal document? Go nuts. But don't pretend your right to choose is being infringed upon. It isn't.

Of course, maybe I'd be more willing to accept your argument if you actually represented the incredible sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.

This Should Be Popular

I think I may be the only person in the country who thinks it's really disturbing to see adults forcing kids as young as five or six to recognize moments of silence on September 11th. It's kind of becoming a weird traditional thing, and I really hope it doesn't last, because it's fucking creepy.

If you want to have a moment or two of silence every time the calendar reads 9/11, that's absolutely fine. Personally, I don't commemorate the dates of unpleasant events. Anniversaries should be a way of remembering what we want to remember, not an excuse to wallow in what we couldn't forget if we wanted to. But that's just me; if you find value in a day of mourning, by all means, have at it.

It's something else entirely, however, to force that kind of morbidity on children who weren't old enough or even alive to remember the day you're commemorating. To those kids, 9/11 is history that they don't really understand. They didn't experience the shock that the rest of us did, and they're not old enough to understand the implications. Making them observe moments of silence is like making them recognize the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Frankly, it comes across as adults looking to validate their own feelings by artificially instilling them in children.

Look, I realize that this is still a sensitive issue. I know a number of observers would argue that they aren't commemorating the date or the attacks, but honoring those who died. But after seven years, maybe it's time to have some perspective. To those who lost family members in the attacks, my heart truly does go out, but no more than it does to anyone who loses family in a tragedy. I respect the courage and determination of the rescue workers who risked, and in some cases, gave their lives to save others. But are, say, wildfire fighters in California, who risk and give the same, less worthy of my respect simply because wildfires aren't set by terrorists? Again, I don't have a problem with adults remembering things however they choose, but this shit is confusing to little kids. Why does little Tommy's uncle, who died in the World Trade Center, get a special day, but little Mikey's aunt, who died in a car accident, doesn't? Are Mikey's vague childhood memories of love for his aunt less valid than Tommy's recollections of his uncle? Why does Mikey observe silence for the day Tommy's uncle died, but the opposite isn't true? Neither Tommy nor Mikey were old enough to actually remember the events of September 11th, 2001. Their memories are their own, and we can't impose our own on them. All we can do is confuse them about death and the relative value of human life.

Represent

I understand the desire among moderate progressives to back off of the Bristol Palin story. Insomuch as I believe a pregnant teenager shouldn't be brought into the public sphere and offered up for scrutiny, I agree. But let us be clear. Her mother did that, not the press, not the Obama campaign, and not the progressive blogosphere. If there was any question in the mind of Sarah Palin that her daughter would become an issue in the campaign, then it is only evidence that her political savvy is even less sophisticated than it would appear. I have to believe she did know, and it was decided that the evangelical right, which she was brought on to court, would flock to her support while critics could be deflected with horrified shock that anyone would dare criticize a young girl as part of a presidential election.

The fact is, however, that Sarah Palin stands on a platform of family values and right-wing extremism. Part and parcel to that is the implied notion that Sarah Palin is better qualified to decide what decisions are available to you as a parent than you are. Sarah Palin believes she is qualified to be the National Parent. She should decide what books your children should not read. She should decide what your children should not be taught about procreation in school. She should decide whether or not your teenage daughter should have access to birth control and abortions. She should decide how your children should be molded into responsible, sexually healthy adults. This is at the very heart of evangelical politics, and Sarah Palin is neck deep. So it is very, very relevant that Sarah Palin's own parenting choices fall well within the scope of reasonable criticism. Because she has applied for the position of National Parent, we are entitled to see her resume, and question what appear to be gaps in her job performance to date. This is not fair to Bristol Palin. I would never argue that it is. But to simply ignore the facts of Sarah Palin's background would be a dereliction of duty, especially when those facts paint her to be unsuitable for the specific position for which she has applied.