It is a hateful, hurtful image. What precisely is it that you have against Cleveland?

Oh, and I did detect a mistake in your graphic. I haven't calculated the exact area of the relative parts, but I estimate this to be about 5/8 noble Indian and 3/8 Trail-of-Tears.

Couldn't help but send this to a big tribe fan (a couple ThreeSourcers know exactly to whom I refer) he says she is only 1/25th tribe fan.

Love the 'toon!

Pedant Man must point out that "Me & Bobby McGee" was written by Kris Kristofferson. Mister Kristofferson is an avowed Socialist and may or may not accept your apologies.

She's not white, she's melanin challenged.

Agreed and well said. There are quite a few things which may be defined as sinful which we do not elevate to statute. "Coveting thy neighbor's ass" is still okay in Weld County, as far as I know.

I allowed a many-years-old subscription to National Review elapse when they demanded -- on the cover -- a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. I wasn't petulant about it, still respect NR, and have slid a little money their way since.

But I basically reached the same conclusion, that I could not employ the supremacy clause for a personal matter and expect others to defend my economic liberty. I suspect that would not have happened under WFB's more libertarian hand but I have no empirical proof.

On the pragmatic side, I think it remains a killer. Trying to attract somebody younger than 30 to the table of liberty is difficult in the wake of North Carolina's vote and now Colorado's lack of vote.

JK drops his subscription to the National Review and I drop out of the Republican party. I struggled for several weeks about attending our caucuses, knowing that Party of God types would choose Rick Santorum and that a majority of the evening would be spent pushing an amendment to our state constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Even before Obama weighed in the strategy was to generate voter turnout based on opposition to gays. I cant possibly vote for Obama but I will not be in a party or campaign that seeks to benefit from an assault on the dignity and liberty of my brothers and sisters. And I won't be alone. Republicans are on the wrong side of history when it comes to Gay rights and they will pay a price for decades to come. Fifty years from now nobody will remember the Bidden gaffes or Obama's fundraising predicament; people will remember the first black president was the first to run for office as a supporter of gay marriage. Democrats enjoy almost unanimous suppport in the African American community based on Kennedy/Johnson era civil rights legislation and if Republicans don't wake up they will lose another voting block.

JK and John Galt, as always, provide a reasoned argument rooted in the Constitution and I appreciate that but this has become something more visceral for me. A couple of weeks ago a little girl in a town next to ours hung herself after being bullied for a year over her mother's sexual orientation. Last night I went to a funeral for one of my daughter's classmates. He climbed onto an overpass and jumped onto the highway below. He was bullied to death for being Gay. I am sickened and heartbroken. I will not be in a party that would deny the basic human dignity and equallity due every man and woman. I wont be part of a political movent that would deny the choice of marriage, the most important, valuable and meaningful decision I've ever made, to others. Bob Marley sings of "forwardin' this generation triumphantly," though in my case it is our younger generation that has been "forwarding" me. Henceforth I intend to help them "sing songs of freedom" and if the Republican party wants to block freedom's way I intend to roll right over them.

JK is correct about established attitudes, and I think my brother's beliefs reflect his environment more than his heart. The Kansas friend I mentioned lives near Wichita, more evangelical even than Colorado Springs and yet he replied to me, "in my world in Kansas USA I could care less what the corn-****ers do, just don't interfere with me or my family." A libertarian position that, if a bit intemperately stated.

I can't cite examples of friends or neighbors who've been affected by discrimination, and dagny observed that my attitude has *ahem* evolved. I can say I was profoundly ashamed when my neighbors and fellow delegates loudly booed the speaker from Colorado Log Cabin Republicans when he suggested the Colorado civil unions bill should be supported. When I said, fairly loudly and to no one in particular, "Hey, be nice" the woman next to me turned around incredulously. The rest of the conversation was unspoken but I do believe I impressed upon her that her attitude was something upon which she should reflect.

I had a similar experience at the Romney rally last week. A woman asked me if I wanted to sign her pro-life petition, ubiquitious at GOP events. I shook my head and asked her if she was aware that over two-thirds of Republican delegates to the state convention approved a resolution that abortion and pregnancy are personal, private matters and not the business of government. She was speechless but a man nearby blurted out, "Well they are wrong!"

In the first case I pleaded for civility, and in the second merely cited a fact. The reaction from those who heard me was reflexive, but shallow and unsupported. There was no furher debate or discussion, the respondents merely drifted away silently. These are simply ideas which they've never considered. None has dared utter them in such settings, in all likelihood.

Ayn Rand said that silence in the presence of ideas which you find abhorrent is tacit approval of them. Simply say, "I disagree" she advised in 'Philosophy, Who Needs It?' I hope that brother Sugarchuck, or any of the rest of us, will not abandon the Republican party when it most needs a voice for liberty. Our country's present state of divisivness and the failed leadership of the president present an opportunity to discredit the idea of socialism, but the left is not the only source of discredited ideas - the unchallenged dogma of social "norms" on the right should be confronted at the very same time.

To those who say that gay marriage or even civil unions are just a "drip, drip, drip of liberalism" I give the following reply:

Liberalism was established for the promotion of liberty. Thomas Jefferson was a "liberal." George Washington was a "liberal." Modern leftists co-opted the term and it has come to mean socialist or communist. I'm all for liberalism, but not socialism or communism. I understand the difference. Do you?

Laffer curve, shmaffer curve.

California producer class to state government: "Up yours!"

Obama painting Romney as killing jobs? Is there a Nobel Prize for Irony that he's competing for?

RING-RING. Click. "Hello? Yeah, hi, how are you doing?... Sure, he's here. You want me to put him on the line?... Okay, hang on..." "Hey, Kettle? It's for you; it's Pot. He says he's got something he wants to tell you..."

On top of that, all jobs are not equal. The jobs Romney "killed" were economically non-viable before he ever arrived on the scene. Otherwise, he would not have arrived on the scene. President Ironic, on the other hand, kills jobs making cheap, reliable electric power (among many, many, others) and fabricates new temporary jobs intended to make expensive, part-time power to replace it.

All of this leads me to ask the question, Is Barack Obama America's first third-world president?

The more things change, the more they stay the same:

http://stand.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/16/california_does_not_have_a_budget_crisis_-_vote_no_on_propositions_1a-f.thtml

Three years ago this very week.

Golden State fiscal misfeasance is always comment bait for Keith, but this one is a home run, bro:

We're sorry. We admit, we've overspent ourselves into bankruptcy. We've taken all the money you've given us previously and frittered it away on shiny things that caught our attention. We've ignored every previous law, budget reform, and policy statement ever enacted. We can't help ourselves; we can't control our spending habits. We need you to control us with a new set of budget reforms and spending limits, and we promise you, this time, we'll obey them. Really. We mean it this time. And we want you to give us a whole truckload of additional money while you're at it. You can trust us this time. We promise. We really, really promise.

Trust us.

Plus a great band name: "The Golden State Fiscal Misfeasance!" Live at Beaudreaux's in Sacramento -- this weekend only!

Right on, right on, right on. And the "magical" revenue cure teased at the bottom of that post is quite prophetic as well. And yet, Governor Jerry still refuses to see.

Anecdote: A San Diego cousin of dagny's (and spouse) visited last week. They were scouting for a new Colorado neighborhood. Their young daughter's middle name is Reagan. I won't identify them further lest they be apprehended and punished for thinking of abandoning Jerry and Ivy's "family."

NASCAR retard approved!

(Approbation or disapprobation? The ambiguity is painful.)

Did Willie grow his hair and take up weed as atonement?

Approbation set to full. These guys have added much to the rich lexicon of American music. Glen Campbell was always known by guitar players to be a hoss before he chose the pop star path. Great to have YouTube as a permanent display.

I can't even say the years have been hard on Willie. I could post my picture from 1965. . .

I was speaking to the song lyrics. The musical talent is righteous.

I don't know. But may I just say "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

He obviously didn't get the memo that paying $1,382,400,000 in capital gains taxes is patriotic!

You're right - but it is enlightened self-interest.

My snark undercut my message. Of course he is entitled, but it is one of the sadder moments to think that the benefits of US Citizenship for such a producer no longer outweigh their costs. This, Mr. VP, is a big ^&*^&* deal.

It is sad, but not unexpected. I live in California, and "one-percenters" loading up the Y'all-Haul and voting with their feet for friendlier places like Texas is not uncommon. It's sad that this is being ratcheted up from the interstate level to the international one for America. It happened in Hong Kong, and will happen soon in France.

In your defense, the snark did not undercut your message - in fact, it put an exclamation mark on it. With a bang, I might add (a nod to *nix users everywhere)!

So - sad for America, happy for Singapore. It is a zero-sum game, after all. Costa Rica is still looking nice to me!

Actually, Keith, it's been happening already for a long time.

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/nice-unemployment-if-you-can-get-it.html

I'm largely quoting an old friend, to whose words I added a few of my own. Here's his zinger:

"The list includes many thousands of retired French business persons who, once they sold their French assets, chose to spend their retirement in Switzerland. Since France and Switzerland are on the same latitude, it can't be for the balmy climate."

As a huge Buffy fan, I will never understand the fascination with "Once More With Feeling". To this day I cringe at the thought of an all-musical Buffy. The one exception: Anthony Stewart Head -- now that man can carry a tune. Sorry hubby.

My personal favorites: "Halloween", "Innocence" and "Becoming" (Part 1 and 2), "The Wish", "The Prom", "The Gift", "Villains" (fileting Warren alive is just classic!) and what to my mind is the antithesis of "Once More With Feeling" - "Hush".

And yes, I am a sucker for season finales although I still think Adam and the Initiative was a letdown of what could've been a great season.

The best part of Buffy posts is smoking out another of the cognoscenti! Well done! Great list!

But we shall have to disagree on OMWF. I salute it because it was not just a cheap trick; it was integral to several story arcs. In fact I consider it like the focus of a lens, completing older lines and setting up the finale/denouement. Every major arc has its moment.

I watch it with others and every time somebody shows me something I had missed. A young daughter of a good friend of this blog pointed out that Sweet's three minions had the haircuts of Buffy beaus Angel, Riley and Spike. I now wait for that moment every time.

And Whedon's real gift is villains. A lot of folks can do big damn heroes, but I can't think of another who could provide Jubal Early, the existentialist Bounty Hunter, Mr. Trick, the Master, or Wolfram & Hart. "Sweet" is a gift to the ages. I wanted to record "What You Feel" as the title track for my band's second CD but time did not allow.

I will concede that OMWF did propel the plot forward. My distaste stems from the format more than the content.

I will also concede that Hinton Battle (Sweet) is a gifted performer.

Alas, I have yet to become a "Brown Coat" thus the Jubal Early reference didn't come across as familiar.

And I do whole-heartedly agree that Wheedon's gift is crafting out his villains. The list you've put forth is very distinguished but let me add one more - Caleb.

And may I just, in complete deference to Wheedon's craftiness and Allyson Hannigan's talent, say Vampire Willow and Dark Willow are totally awesome creatures.

Caleb, yes! Nathan Fillion and Gina Torres (Jasmine) both get promoted -- or is that demoted? -- to Firefly heroes from Buffy/Angel villains.

And "The Operative" (Chiwetel Ejiofor) in the movie Serenity is another all-time great Whedon villain.

They you'll want to add one more villain to this list if that's where you're going, since Whedon brought the Avengers to the silver screen. Anyone not versed in the Marvel timeline should google "Thanos." I don't believe you ever hear the name in the movie, but I'm wondering if we'll see him in the next installment.

Is this something? We all know of Joss Whedon's predilection for making use of actors repeatedly (as jk points out concerning Nathan Fillion and Gina Torres). The actor playing Thanos is also a Whedon alumnus - as a minion of Adelai Niska in the Firefly episode "War Stories," and as Yankee from Dollhouse...

And the great Trifecta: Jonathan Woodward was on Buffy, Angel and Firefly. Many were on two, but I think he is the only one to make all three.

When government spends billions of you and your neighbors' dollars through sloppiness and bad judgement it isn't called waste, it's called "stimulus."

Except when it is a measly two billion. Then it is called "a rounding error."

Wow. This could really tarnish his image if it went viral. Imagine that guy rolling a fatty.

1. Why does marriage need to be a function of the state?

2. This is being heralded as some bold political decision. Why? Are the evangelicals not going to come out for Obama now? Oh, wait...

Good point -- was "Julia" even married?

Of course your solution is correct. Get gub'mint out of the marryin' biz and let the Rosicrucians bond whomever they choose. Sadly, this is another example of a lonely libertarian position. A "Baptist & Bootleggers" coalition of evangelicals and gay rights activists is not going to accept our sagacious counsel on this.

(I am taking a page from jk and responding to my own comments...)

Perhaps I am being too harsh, as I do think this is a net benefit for liberty. However, in looking at the media coverage I fear that this has become more about the president than the issue.

In completely unrelated news, the President has a $15 Million (40K/plate) fundraiser planned tonight with George Clooney and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Like I said, completely off-topic. Don't know why I even brought it up at all...

I'm going to temper that "net benefit for liberty" thought for a moment. That might have some validity if anyone believed him, but it's JK's words that frame this: "nakedly political."

In 2008, the SCOAMF campaigned saying he was against homosexual marriage; four years later, his stance has now "evolved." The truth of the matter is that, whatever he actually believes about the issue (if in fact he does actually have a belief about the issue), what he's done is given the most authoritative voices on both sides of the homosexual marriage debate the right to presume it's the pandering of political theater. Neither side believes that either of his pronouncements represent a closely-held belief; both sides recognize that he says what he says, when he says it, for political reasons.

In 2008, he stated he was against homosexual marriage to placate mainstream America's fears that he was too left, too radical, and he was casting himself as a moderate centrist; history is now the proof of theory, and all but the blindest among us now admit that was a sham. Now in 2012, he knows the evangelicals aren't going to vote for him, so that's a lost cause. Moderate America has abandoned him. It costs him nothing to offend those groups, because he's not getting them back no matter what he does. What he's facing is a very motivated right wanting him out, and a disillusioned left that he needs to get into a voting booth. There aren't enough dead voters in America to get him to 52% this year without the left, and the left is complaining that the SCOAMF isn't left enough.

In 2008, the McCain candidacy persuaded a lot of conservatives to stay home on election day; a pumped-up Obama voting bloc gave us the result we have now. This year, those roles are reversed; desperate to give the left a reason to pull the handle for him, we get stuff like this. "Romney won't back homosexual marriage! That's why you've got to vote for me!"

This might be the "net benefit for liberty" you're looking for if someone were saying this on the basis of principle. The SCOAMF is not that person. He's given everyone on both sides the right to read this as cynical pandering,

As Ed Morrissey says:

"And for all of those who cheered this flip-flop, here's a question: wouldn't it have been more effective in North Carolina had Obama made this announcement before Amendment One went to the polls? According to Obama himself, he'd already changed position on same-sex marriage. An announcement last week or the week before that, with a personal plea to African-American voters, might have made a difference. Instead, Obama hid, the White House fibbed, and Amendment One won easily in a state that Obama carried in 2008. Regardless of whatever else this might be called, leadership isn't among the terms that come to mind."

I'm really enjoying the discussion on these pages - and staying out of it.

As for your Facebook friends, they claim that gay marriage is a civil right because, among other things, gay individuals were born into their circumstance. Is this any different than wealthy individuals being born into a prosperous family? Don't they have a civil right to equal taxation? To equal earned income tax credits? To food stamps?

Sure, some wealthy people choose to be rich but the vast majority of them are just following their nature. Right?

And you were doing a superlative job of staying out of it, jg...

I'm clearly not too good at cheerleading for this Administration. I do find his Wednesday position more appealing than his Monday position. And I agree with Mister Morrissey that it's too bad he was a closed-minded, irrational homophobe for the election on Tuesday.

I suggested to one FB-friend that it is also too bad that he let that whole his-party-runs-Congress-and-has-a-Senatorial-supermajority thing go to waste when he was in his troglodyte, knuckle-dragging redneck phase.

So I'm not cheerleading, but as I once advised a blog brother: when you train a dog, and he finally does what you want is a bad time to get out the rolled up newspaper. "Good President!"

Yes I was, and I maintain I am still staying out of it. I do not seek, as do social conservatives, to infringe on the individual's right to live and marry as he or she sees fit. And I do not seek, as do the so-called Progressives, to infringe on the individual's right to produce and trade as he or she sees fit.

Unlike both of the constituencies mentioned, I do not want to make anyone eat an excrement sandwich. Instead, I seek to eradicate everyone's ability to infringe anyone else's liberty. (And that is a fate worse than death for the second-handers who now control our two-party government.)