Logic

Oh, he didn't...

Oh, he didn’t…

I have not had my first cuppa coffee yet, and I’m already beating my head against my desk. Anyway, one of the amicus briefs for the Marriage Equality case tells us…

“In a nutshell: A reduction in the opposite-sex marriage rate means an increase in the percentage of women who are unmarried and who, according to all available data, have much higher abortion rates than married women. And based on past experience, institutionalizing same-sex marriage poses an enormous risk of reduced opposite-sex marriage rates.”

Let the ‘mos get hitched and all the skirts will be ‘borting babies. What fresh hell is this?

One Lump of Stupid, or Two Rep. Brat?

face-palm stoogesToday’s lump of stupid comes to us from Ayn Rand economist and strip-mall Ezekial David Brat via Right Wing Watch. The aptly-named Brat, as you might recall, successfully primaried Iago Eric Cantor:

Brat said that Obamacare, which Larson inaccurately referred to as “a health care system run by government,” will move America away from a free market system. He pointed to the two Koreas as an example of the dangers of such policies: “Look at every country in the world. Look at North Korea and South Korea. It’s the same culture, it’s the same people, look at a map at night, one of the countries is not lit, there’s no lights, and the bottom free-market country, all Koreans, is lit up. So you make your bet on which country you want to be, you want to go free market.”

“We have poverty on the rise because we’re moving away from free markets,” he said.

Shorter Brat: Obamacare is making the US like North Korea.

Your Daily Gohmert

gohmert

“Homeland Security is so overwhelmed in trying to bring in and ship around illegal aliens and give amnesty to as many people as they can, the millions we’re told will ultimately have this amnesty, that they can’t do something as simple as protect the United States Capitol [from postal workers flying in gyrocoptors].”

Grifters Gotta Grift

Get off the Cross, cont.

piles-of-moneyThe founders of GoFundME must be so proud of the attention that their site is getting lately.

Besides bigot pizzas grifters, and possibly sabotaged car grifters, you can now fund white supremacists grifters!

Here’s the short version: some white guy put a hand-made White History Month poster in the window of his deli (and we must ask ourselves if there is a single month that is NOT white history month in the USA, but I digress). His bidness dried up, not surprisingly.

So he has started his own GoFundMe campaign, amusingly called Jimbos white history sign gone bad.

“On march 1st I hung a sign in my deli window saying, ‘Celebrate your white heritage in March, White History Month.’

“If you haven’t heard of this story and you want to read about it, just google Flemington white history or go on YouTube and search White History Month. Anyway, it went crazy for four days and then I had to take the sign down for various reasons. It was only supposed to be a white thing, but people read more into it than that.”

I bet they did, Sparky.

“I did get tons of supporting letters from all across the USA.”

I’m guessing from the Confederacy. What are the odds?

“Which was very comforting during such a stressful time.”

A stressful time of your own making, but do continue.

“Then the bottom dropped out and customers were no longer coming into my deli, and now I am forced to close down my Deli and lose my American dream.”

Because of your own actions. What lesson the class learn from this tale?

“I don’t think I deserve this just because I wanted to be proud of being white and be able to celebrate my heritage like everyone else does.”

But you do deserve it, Whitey. What message do you think you were sending, and more importantly who did you think it was going to attract?

This is called the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace. He’s raised $215 from 15 people in 4 days, which is far more than I would have thought.

You made your bed, now you get to sleep in it, apparently without delicious deli meats.

I’m Calling BS

fart trumpetThe WaPo has a puff piece up on “Ryan T. Anderson, the conservative movement’s fresh-faced, millennial, Ivy League-educated spokesman against same-sex marriage.” And that is a direct quote.

If you read the article, The right finds a fresh voice on same-sex marriage, you’ll be treated to some embarrassing and lavish tongue-bathing, but also some amazingly façile arguments that anyone who has spent any time with Jesuits would understand: Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because the definition of marriage is open only to a man and a woman.

We used to call it the fencing-in strategy, which was essentially declaring a closed set and then not allowing any outside factors into the set. “If we all agree that God has a plan, then no matter what happens it is part of that plan.” But if we don’t agree with the basic premise, then the argument is shot to hell.

It works amazingly well at first blush, when the wunderkind says:

“Gays and lesbians undoubtedly have been discriminated against,” Anderson says. “But marriage is not part of that discrimination.”

You see, it cannot be discrimination because gay couples were never part of marriage to begin with; except that it always was discrimination, if you don’t agree with the basic premise.

The way this argument worked back in my day was usually with a little bit of a history lesson, almost always positioned as “let’s look at how we got to where we are today,” and if you agree or don’t add information into the premise, you might as well give up now. Because, when you object later, you will be told, “but we all agreed that..”

But then he does bring an new touch to the old technique:

“This is the question I will close with: If you do assume marriage equality of the same-sex couple, on what basis do you deny marriage equality for the same-sex throuple?”

Heads turn. People whisper. No one seems sure what a throuple is.

He explains, not for the first or last time that day, that a throuple is three same-sex people who might want to marry. The New York Post reported on one in Indonesia, he says. Likewise, he talks about the “wed-lease,” an idea he say was “floated” by The Washington Post. He later clarifies that it was an op-ed from a Florida lawyer who proposed, instead of “wedlock” meant to last forever, renewable five-year marriage contracts.

So after he has fenced everyone in with an argument based on defining everything by his own terms, he concludes by doing an O. Henry stunt supplying us with a surprise ending, introducing something outside the fence he so elaborately built.

It probably is good theater, but it is a cheap trick and not a good argument.

News That Will Drive You To Drink: It’s Schlafly Time!

face-palm
Ancient hate goblin pessary Phyllis Schlafly knows what killed Walter Scott:

“Why was Walter Scott running away from a policeman who tried to stop him for a broken taillight? The media are trying to make a South Carolina policeman’s killing of a black man, Walter Scott, another sensational case of racism, but the media have missed the point of the tragedy.”

“The problem wasn’t racism, or even dangerous driving or stolen property. It was caused by the obnoxious anti-father rulings of the family courts and Scott’s fear that he would be returned to debtor’s prison. Scott had already been jailed three times for failure to pay child support, and he didn’t want to be sent to prison again.”

…and from there, after some nostalgia for debtor’s prison, she fingers who really killed Walter Scott: It was welfare!

“Debtors’ prisons were common in England in the colonial period. You can read about them in the writings of Charles Dickens, who wrote from first-hand knowledge; his own father spent time in a debtor’s prison.
We kicked out British rule by the American Revolution and abolished some of its trappings, such as royalty and its titles, primogeniture and bowing to our top national official. We thought we abolished debtor’s prisons even before we abolished slavery, but they continue to exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely labeled “child support.”

“We say “falsely” because the money collected from the poor guy usually doesn’t go to his kid or her mother. It just supports the welfare-state bureaucracy.”