LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT FOR FOUR MINUTES
Sometimes, we wish he were pounding the table or stamping his foot. Yet at the end of the day, quiet and calm can sometimes speak louder. Listen.
LISTEN TO RACHEL ON MINNESOTA
This clip is longer, so if you don’t have time to watch the first six or eight minutes, here’s the executive summary: the Republicans seem to actually want to shut down the government (one hint: their enthusiastic chant, “shut it down! shut it down!”) and are now making budget negotiations contingent on things like restricting stem cell research (lest a blastocyst be harmed in pursuit of saving actual, fully formed adult lives).
More on our economic path tomorrow. Today, as New York’s adoption of marriage equality continues to reverberate . . .
DAVD FRUM: “I WAS WRONG ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE”
Conservative David Frum long opposed same-sex marriage – as some of your friends and relatives, especially the older ones, probably still do. It’s not a concept that gains near immediate enthusiastic acceptance as, say, color TV or “going to the moon” once did. Please forward his current thinking to those friends and relatives. It will be a sign of respect: that you respect their concerns and their willingness to consider new information, as David Frum did. (“The case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.”) They might even reach the same conclusion.
NEW YORK TIMES: HE SURE WAS
From an editorial last week:
. . . Any Congress with a real respect for personal freedom would repeal [The Defense of Marriage Act]. That, of course, does not describe the current Congress, where many members talk a great deal about freedom but apply it mainly to businesses and gun owners. . . .
GET RID OF MARRIAGE?
Peter Kaczowka: “We need to eliminate marriage. Marriage is a government subsidy program, a form of discrimination against single people. The state should not be in the business of blessing unions. I favor banning discrimination on the basis of marital status: no spousal Social Security benefits or tax breaks. I’d ask: gay or straight, should people be marrying for money, not love? Government marriage subsidies cloud the issue, reduce the commitment being made.”
☞ An interesting perspective, for sure. But I think we have more pressing problems than to try to reach consensus on this – and I don’t discredit the other side of the argument: namely, that society has an interest in encouraging committed relationships. Whereas I don’t see ANY valid “other side” to allowing all couples this legal status except gay ones.
Russell Bell: “Remember Dave Barry’s comment? ‘I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn’t have to get one?’ Now comes Onion Radio News: ‘Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry.’”
☞ Note to cave-dwellers: The Onion is . . . satire.
TTNP / DVAX / DYAX
At Guru’s suggestion – and only with money I can truly afford to lose – I am now the proud owner of TTNP at a bit more than $1.77 a share and of DVAX at a bit more than $2.77 a share, hoping for good news on one or both in the next little while. (Famous last words.)
Separately, selling one with a similar symbol, at about $2, that didn’t work out – DYAX, suggested almost two years ago, at $3.17.
Quote of the Day
Governments are necessarily continuing concerns. They have to keep going in good times and bad. They therefore need a wide margin of safety. If taxes and debt are made all the people can bear when times are good, there will be certain disaster when times are bad.~Calvin Coolidge
Request email delivery
- Jan 26:
- Jan 24:
The Inauguration . . . PRKR, BOREF, CNF
- Jan 22:
The Other Pillow Guy*
- Jan 21:
How Great Was That?
- Jan 20:
You Respond To Umair Haque
- Jan 19:
The Three Big Lies
- Jan 18:
Two Harvard Grads Still For Trump
- Jan 15:
Of Insurrection, Inequality, And Your Stocks
- Jan 14:
Meanwhile . . .
- Jan 13:
Ronald Reagan Speaks
- Jan 26: