May 2012

Here's the summary from Slashdot:

"Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte said, '[this] turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity.' Republican Senator Thomas O'Mara added, '[this will] help lend some accountability to the Internet age.' The two are sponsoring a bill that would ban any New York-based websites from allowing comments (or well, anything) to be posted unless the person posting it attaches their name to it. But the bill also goes further, saying New York-based websites, such as blogs and newspapers, must 'remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post.'"

What strikes me as highly interesting with this is that Republicans are always against actual anti-bullying legislation. They always consider it part of a nanny state type conspiracy. But now we have them going after bullying online, so long as it's done anonymously.

Are they really this stupid?

First off, nothing you do online is really anonymous. There are IP logs that always trace back to you. Thinking you are really anonymous is really lying to yourself.

Face it - the GOP has a really bad memory. It became evident in January of 2009, when Republicans suddenly realized our economy was in serious trouble the day President Obama was sworn into office. They constantly ignored that the great recession had already been going on for over a year and anytime someone on the left tried to remind them, the Republicans stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted "na na na - I can't hear you. Stop blaming Bush!".

As matter of fact it has been so bad that the Republicans have either ignored or tried to rewrite a big part of this history of this recession - TARP. They constantly act like TARP was an Obama planned, enacted by him while in office. But here are the key facts around TARP:

• During the 2008 campaign, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain took an unprecedented step to suspend his campaign to work on TARP.
• TARP passed the Senate in October of 2008, with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain voting for it.
• On October 8, 2008, President George W. Bush signed Tarp into law.

There were a number of Republicans in the House that voted against TARP (108 to be exact), so President Bush could have pulled out the veto pen, especially given the fact that the House was 20 some votes short of a veto-proof majority. But he didn't. Instead he signed it into law and became the President that actually enacted TARP.

Another interesting supporter of TARP was Paul Ryan. This is the GOP's man when it comes to budget and monetary policy. They always turn to him for guidance and plan, yet they ignore the fact that he supported a key piece of legislation that the GOP now opposes.

Since President Obama announced his support of gay marriage last week the pundits have gone into overdrive. Some are saying this could spell the end to his presidency, while others are saying it shows he embraces a future. A new poll out by CBS sheds a little bit of light into this:

A new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows a solid majority of Americans support legal recognition for same-sex couples - though not necessarily through the official act of marriage - and the number of people who do support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples is significantly higher among younger generations.

Overall, 38 percent of those who responded to the survey said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, just like any other couple. Another 24 percent said civil unions should be used to grant same-sex couples legal rights similar to male-female partnerships. Combined, that means 62 percent - close to two thirds - of Americans believe that same-sex unions should be recognized by law.

Of all those who participated, 33 percent said there should be no legal recognition for same-sex couples.

What's really interesting is when you look at how public opinion has changed over the years:

(Click for larger view)

Today's Washington Post is out with a story of a young Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.