Michelle Obama's "China Red" Gown

Sooooooo...

Now the right wing pundits are attacking our First Lady for wearing a red gown to a state dinner.

Matt Drudge, Doug Powers, Jim Hoft... One by one, they're lining up to criticize her gown.

As though her wearing a red gown proves that her husband is a communist.

Funny - I seem to remember another First Lady who was partial to red...

The Battle Hymn of Sarah Palin

For several days now, my friends on Facebook have been posting, and re-posting, the YouTube video of this lovely couple singing the praises of Sarah Palin.


It's been very entertaining, as we've talked about Gary Mcvay's vocal stylings and the moves of his adorable back-up singer. We've all enjoyed a good giggle at the lyrics: 


She's a cold blast from Alaska ingrained with common sense. 
She's not a Harvard lawyer, but she knew what the founders meant.
A cold blast from the north that freezes Congress in their tracks,
With God and the Tea Party, she's gonna take it back.


Sarah Palin! She won't listen to their bunk.
Sarah Palin's comin' south to hunt some skunk.
Sarah Pailn! She'll throw 'em all in jail,
and when she gets to Washington it'll be cold as Hell!


Sarah has the wisdom to walk through an open door.
She is stomping out the wretches where the evil minds is stored.  (?)
She will scrub the floors and sweep the riff-raff into cracks.
With God and the Tea Party, she's gonna take it back.

Sarah Palin! She won't listen to their bunk.

Sarah Palin's comin' south to hunt some skunk.

Sarah Pailn! She'll throw 'em all in jail,

and when she gets to Washington it'll be cold as Hell!

(spoken)

Congress pats themselves on the back from some new bill they just passed. I watch as my freedoms run slowly through an hour glass. They think they spend out money better than we do. But they can talk until they're blue and old. 'Cause if they ever gave us anything, they always wanted something in return. Sarah knows!

Sarah's marchin' on!

(spoken)

I'd like to dedicate this to the Tea Party and all the preachers.

But amid all of the humor, I'm looking at the "set" and wondering: The open book (Bible?) on the table in front of Gary. The table itself, with the words carved on it - I don't know what the specific name for it is, but isn't that the kind of table you'll find in front of the alter in churches all across America? And there, on the wall behind Gary, could that be the base of a cross?

Looks to me as though this video was shot in a church, and churches, we know, are allowed to advocate for political causes. But when they endorse a specific candidate, don't they put their tax-exempt status in jeopardy? Does anyone out there know where this video was shot?

Just sayin...

For those of you who haven't seen the video yet:

 

Marriage Equality Stands in DC

This morning, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from opponents of marriage equality who want to overturn the District of Columbia's same-sex marriage law. Their decision allows the prior ruling from the DC Court of Appeals to stand. 


On July 15, 2010, in a 5-4 verdict, the appeals court had ruled against Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.'s lawsuit which would have required a citywide referendum, giving DC's citizens the opportunity to vote on whether or not same-sex couples would be allowed to marry in our nation's capital. The defendants in the case, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, had decided that to put gay marriage on the ballot would be to potentially authorize discrimination that was in violation of the Human Rights Act.


In the ruling last July, Associate Judge Thompson, writing for the majority, said “We therefore affirm the Superior Court’s rulings that the Council acted lawfully in imposing the Human Rights Act safeguard and that the Board correctly determined that the safeguard required it to reject the proposed initiative.” While the dissenting judges disagreed concerning the authorities cited in the case, it is interesting to note that all nine justices unanimously agreed that a voted prohibition against gay marriage was a wholesale violation of the Human Rights Act, stating "the Board correctly determined that the proposed initiative would have the effect of authorizing such discrimination."


Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and in 2009 it began recognizing such marriages legally performed elsewhere.

Bishop Harry R. Jackson

Jackson has been staunchly opposing the efforts to legalize marriage equality in the District since the city first began considering such legislation. He writes in his weekly blog that extending the right to marry to LGBT citizens will result in "a call for legalization of polygamy, which includes polygyny (sic) (a man with multiple wives) or polyamory (which may be two men with a woman or any imaginable combination)." He calls supporters of marriage equality "all bullies or terrorists" and claims that "Marriage defenders have over 5,000 years of history, proven social science, natural law, the teachings of every major religion, and common sense on their side," conveniently ignoring the undisputed fact that, for most of those 5,000 years, polygamous marriages were the accepted norm and that todays 2-person, love-based marriages bear little resemblance to the property-based arranged marriages of the past.


He writes that he opposes marriage equality laws, "because of the impact this law will have on the way education and child rearing will be conducted," and that "Federal benefit changes will affect the already exorbitant cost of proposed healthcare reform." (It's interesting to note that he also opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, writing, "This legislation has the potential to criminalize the caring attempts of black clergy to maintain the tension of preaching clear traditional doctrine while reaching out to people in need of love and direction." He also agrees with the Pope on the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS, writing, "Pope Benedict XVI made the following statement in Yaounde, Cameroon, 'You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms... On the contrary, it increases the problem.' As far as I can tell, contrary to my friend's opinion, the Pope was right this time.")


According to the Washington Blade, Jackson and his wife don't even reside in the District of Columbia. It would appear that they own two houses in Montgomery County, Maryland, and neighbors claim they reside in one of those houses. For the purpose of voting, however, Jackson claims residence in a condominium in the Mount Vernon Triangle area of DC. Tax records show a Mr. Joseph Honaker owns this one-bedroom condo and also claims it as his primary residence. Must get pretty crowded. Maybe Jackson understands the ins and outs of polyamorous marriages from personal experience?


Below, video of Jackson interview after the appeals court ruling as he was preparing to take his case to SCOTUS:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris Colfer Wins the Golden Globe

Meet Reince Priebus, New GOP Head

After seven rounds of balloting, the Republican Party has replaced Michael Steele as its head with Reince Priebus, former chairman of the Wisconsin GOP. Before that, Priebus served as general counsel to the RNC.

Reince Priebus (l.) and Michael Steele (r.)

Prior to today's election, Priebus was best known nationally for this infamous gaffe during a conference call with journalists, when he repeatedly called for "Obama" to be executed:



After being corrected by a journalist, he apologized for the error before attacking former WI Senator Russ Feingold, saying, "Some people would just say, well, maybe he just used the wrong word, and that it was just a gaffe from a normally smooth, skilled politician. Well, if that's the case, then it's a pretty major misstep this close to the election."

On his election, Priebus said, "I am here to earn the trust and support of each and every one of you... I am going to start working right now as your chairman... We all recognize that there is a steep hill here ahead of us, and the only way we will be able to move forward is if we're all together."

AZ Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot

Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords

In a breaking story, CNN and NPR have confirmed that AZ Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot and killed during a "Congress on Your Corner" event at a Safeway in Tucson.


Five others have died from wounds sustained in the attack. At least six others were injured.


The shooter is in custody.


This story will continue to be updated as more facts come to light.


UPDATE: NPR and CNN reported that she had been killed, but Darci Slater, a hospital spokeswoman, said that Ms. Giffords was in surgery. She is reported to be in stable condition and responsive.


According to the Washington Post, "This was not the first time someone brought a gun to a Giffords event. A protester in August brought a gun to Giffords' Congress on Your Corner event in Douglas. Police were alerted after he dropped the firearm. "When you represent a district that includes the home of the O.K. Corral and Tombstone, 'the Town Too Tough to Die,' nothing's a surprise out in Cochise County," Giffords, D-Ariz., said. 


NBC News in confirming that U.S. District Court Judge John M. Roll was among those who was shot and had died. He was the chief judge in Arizona, appointed in 1991 by the first President Bush. He became chief judge in 2006.


This is a video interview with the Congresswoman concerning a break-in at her campaign headquarters during last year's elections in which she discussed Sarah Palin's website map showing cross-hairs over Giffords' district:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

BREAKING - Ruling (?) in Prop. 8 Trial

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an "Order Certifying a Question to the Supreme Court of California."

Theodore Olson

Basically, the appeals court has asked the California Supreme Court to answer the question as to whether or not the original proponents of the Proposition have the legal standing to challenge Judge Walker's ruling that it was unconstitutional. 


From Michael C. Dorf,  Robert S. Stevens Professor at Cornell University Law School:


"The named defendants in the Perry case were the Governor, the Attorney General, two other state officials, and the County Clerks of Los Angeles and Alameda counties. Yet they all declined to defend Prop. 8 in the district court--leaving that task to the Proposition's sponsors, who intervened. After the district court invalidated Prop. 8, the named defendants declined to appeal. Accordingly, before the appeals court can reach the merits, it must first decide whether the sponsors have legal standing to defend Prop. 8... Even if the appeals court holds that the sponsors lack standing, the case could go forward if another putative intervenor--the deputy clerk for Imperial County--is found to have standing."

David Boies

So... What happens next?  If none of the parties defending Prop. 8 are found to have the legal standing to do so, what does this mean?  Again, from Mr. Dorf:


"If the court simply dismisses the appeal, then presumably the district court order goes into effect, and same-sex couples can once again marry in California. But alternatively, a finding that no one has standing to defend Prop. 8 on appeal could be read to entail that no one had standing to defend it at trial--in which case the appeals court might have to vacate the entire opinion by the district court. The parties' briefs contest just this point--which could prove crucial if the court attempts to resolve the case on procedural grounds."


So at this point, it could go in any direction. Marriage equality, but only in California. No marriage equality for California. Or on to the Supreme Court in DC. If it does proceed to SCOTUS, David Boies will make the argument: "The United States Supreme Court has determined that intimate sexual conduct between same-sex couples is constitutionally protected. How can marriage rights be taken away when a person is engaged in a constitutionally protected activity? That right can not be taken away from individuals in this state. It is discrimination on the basis of sex and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."


UPDATE: Video added 1/4/11 at 4:45 PM