‘World’s last’ WWI veteran Florence Green dies aged 110 [BBC]

Imagine the GOP is a sailor adrift at sea, holding a cup full of warm piss. The sea represents mainstream political opinion, the cup represents the GOP nomination race and the warm piss represents Mitt Romney. GOP voters can’t drink the salty seawater because… well, they’re crazy Teabaggers and they’ll die of dehydration if they try to drink mainstream seawater. Less toxic to them, is the warm piss. They can drink it, of course, and it will keep them alive, and they were pretty much resigned to it for while there, but that doesn’t mean they have to like it. Then came along Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is like an ugly, gnarled, twisted spoon that’s been caught in the disposal a few times, but somehow managed to stay in the silverware drawer nonetheless. Well, Gingrich drops into the race (the cup) and really starts stirring things up, getting the Teabaggers all hot and bothered. But then after Florida, he’s pretty much out. The spoon is tossed into the sink (and will probably fall into the disposall one more time). And then, just as Teabaggers were lifting the cup to their lips, something that no one expected happens. Absent a gnarled spoon to stirr it, the piss begins to settle and a frothy foam rises to the top. That would be Rick Santorum. He’s the foam.

So the question is this: will Rick Santorum run away with this thing? Will GOP voters lick the frothy foam off the top of the cup and pour the piss into the moderate ocean where they think it (Romney) belongs? Or will they come to their senses and realize that the head of a cup of warm piss that is Rick Santorum stands about as much chance of beating Barack Obama in November as a literal head of foam off a cup of warm piss.

Stay tuned!

*Full disclosure: I do not have a poly sci degree either.

So we’re chatting with the Male Parental Unit last night — well, listening, you know how that goes — and after the monologue drifts from the Ducks to Madonna to the Ducks, he mentions that he found a hundred-dollar savings bond in a drawer last year, and promptly cashed it.

Following which he received a Form 1099 for the taxes on it.

“Everybody pays taxes but the rich,” we tell him.

And he replies—

Wait, let’s set this up first. Male Parental Unit turns eighty this year. Male Parental Unit is a Union Democrat, but Male Parental Unit is not political. Male Parental Unit wouldn’t know half the references in this Blogging Establishment, presuming that Male Parental Unit even read it, which he doesn’t, because Male Parental Unit doesn’t know about it, because Male Parental Unit’s Son never told him, because Male Parental Unit’s Son doesn’t need Male Parental Unit to know that his Son is a Fucking Potty Mouth.

All of which is to say, Male Parental Unit is the last person we would expect to say what Male Parental Unit said. Well, besides Female Parental Unit.

So, as we were saying to Male Parental Unit, “Everybody pays taxes but the rich.”

To which Male Parental Unit replies:

“The One Percenters.”

We think we also heard a needle dragged across vinyl, but that’s probably our imagination.

We have been less than kind to the Occupy movement. We have considered them naive utopians. We have called them Fleabaggers. We’re still not exactly fans.

But credit where due: They changed the conversation.

We know this, not because of cable hosts, not because of polls, not because of politicians on both sides who have copped the language, but because of one simple fact:

They got Dad.

Dudes. Respect.

Our guest columnist is not Clint Eastwood.

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt [Mitt Romney, NYT, 11/18/2008]

[video via @markos]

Our guest columnist is Karen Handel, who until this morning was the senior vice president for public policy for Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

February 7, 2012

The Honorable Nancy Brinker
CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure
5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75244

Dear Ambassador Brinker:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world.

As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz.

We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.

I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.

What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.

Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission.

Karen Handel resigns from Komen for the Cure [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The 9th Circuit is ruling in Perry v. Brown on three things:

(1) Was it proper for District Judge Vaughn Walker to not recuse himself from the case because he is gay?

(2) If the answer to #1 is yes, do the proponents of the ballot measure have standing in federal court to appeal the decision since the Governator and Moonbeam won’t defend it?

(3) If the answer to #2 is yes, does Prop. 8 violate the 14th Amendment due process and equal protection rights of gays?

My prediction after the jump.

(1) Yes; (2) Yes; (3) Yes.  The panel could try to wimp out on procedural grounds on #2 and say the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, but that was partially a question of state law, so last year they asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on their interpretation of state law. CSC said yes, the Prop. 8 proponents have standing.  Federal court standing is different, and there’s caselaw that they could cite to let them punt on the big decision and say that the proponents didn’t have the right to appeal and therefore Walker’s decision stands, but my bet is that these three will want to get to the meat of the case.

My other prediction:  I don’t anticipate a balls-out, sweeping decision striking down Prop. H8 and proclaiming that all bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. There’s one somewhat conservative judge on the panel and a sweeping decision striking all bans down would result in a 2-1 decision and put it on the fast track to SCOTUS, where they love to bench-slap the 9th Circuit.  I anticipate a more narrow decision – a unanimous love letter from the panel to swing vote Justice Kennedy – that applies only to California and says that once the state supreme court articulated this fundamental right for gays to marry back in the spring of ’08, the state/voters cannot just take away the right to marry without a good reason.  This would track the reasoning of  Romer v. Evans, written by Kennedy, a decision that struck down a Colorado state amendment that would have prevented any government entity from enacting anti-discrimination laws that applied to gays. There may be some references to Lawrence v. Texas, the decision that overturned a ban on gay sodomy, also written by Justice Kennedy, with additional citations to Justice O’Connor’s concurrence that said rather than focus on the disputed act that is being outlawed (in that case sodomy, but the logic applies to marriage) it was a violation of equal protection to target a particular group (in that case, gays who engage in sodomy but not straights, but again, her logic applies to gays who want to marry).

Check back here for more linques.  Prognosticate away in the comments.

[9th Circ.: Perry v. Brown]

[AFER Livestream]

Our guest columnist is His Excellency, the Most Reverend Timothy P. Broglio, J.C.D., Archbishop for the Military Services, who issued the following “pastoral letter” on January 26, to be read at military Sunday Masses. After the Army chief of chaplains refused to allow the letter to be read from the pulpit, the Archbishop complained to Army Secretary John McHugh, who consented to the letter but suggested that the “unjust law” line be removed.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

It is imperative that I call to your attention an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful. It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those immoral “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to choose between violating our consciences or dropping health coverage for our employees (and suffering the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Your children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

Therefore, I ask two things of you. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

Grateful even now for your support, I remain

Sincerely in Christ,
(Most Reverend) Timothy P. Broglio
Archbishop for the Military Services

Archbishop Broglio Calls on Faithful to Stand Against Federally Mandated Health Insurance for Sterilization, Abortifacients and Contraception [Archdiocese for the Military Services]

Military chaplains told not to read archbishop’s letter on HHS mandate [Catholic News Service]

[Twitter]

We may not have the Stanford band to entertain us, but the Series of Tubes are busy today, first off with this Romney Family photo making the rounds.

Okay, okay, it’s a fake:

But still: A damn good fake.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana, Republican Congresscritter John Fleming falls for the oldest trick in the ebook:

We’d like to thank everybody for giving us something to work with today besides Gisele Bundchen.