The Frightening Part Is (Updated)

that these people are being treated seriously.

First, Ron Paul:

Take a look at the state of Nevada. Do the people own the property in Nevada? No. Who’s the biggest landowner? It’s the federal government. I would like to see the development of this state the way that Texas had the privilege of developing. Before we went in the Union, it was owned entirely by private owners and it has developed all the natural resources, a very big state. So you can imagine how wonderful it would be if land will be or should be returned to the states and then for the best parts sold off to private owners.

First, the blinding ignorance: I don't know if anyone has pointed out to Congressman Paul that the government holds the land on behalf of the people. Yes, stupid, the people do own the land, which is held and managed in trust by the federal government. That's sort of basic.

I live in Chicago and one thing we are justifiably proud of in this city is our park system, fully tax supported. As part of this system, we have beaches, marinas and harbors, wildlife refuges, open space, a first-class zoo, and conservatories. You know what? No admission. It's all open to the public and you don't have to pay to get in. I go to Lincoln Park Zoo a lot, because it's a wonderful place to just walk and watch the waterfowl in the lagoon, see if the lions have finished their nap yet, watch the monkeys and apes being just a little bit too human sometimes. Aside from the animals, I see a lot of families, school groups, young couples on a cheap date. And our parks in general get a lot of use, maybe because of something that those like Ron Paul who worship money haven't figured out: people need open space, they need to be able to get out someplace where there are grass and trees and flowers blooming, so they don't get as crazy as he is. It's not a luxury -- it's a necessity. In private hands, you'd have to pay admission and a lot of people would be excluded simply because of that. (Food service in the parks is privately run, and it's expensive. I mean, six dollars for a taco?)

And next, never to be outdone, Vatican spokesman Rick Santorum:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”:

[Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

Get that? "Counter to how things are supposed to be." That man's head is so fucked up that I can't even think how to address it. How about, for starters, that fact that not only am I not Catholic, I'm not even Christian, and I'm gay. I don't see any reason to pay any attention to someone who subscribes to a tradition in which women were sold as property for "procreation." As for how sex is "supposed to be" -- it's supposed to be whatever you want it to be. Some approaches are more rewarding than others -- I'm not too keen on casual, anonymous sex just to get my rocks off, myself (that's why God made pornography), but I'm not about to tell anyone else that they can't do it.

Santorum seems to live in a world in which we are all children and have to be under someone's control at all times. I don't quite know how to break it to him, but I'm a grown-up, and have been for a long time. I'm used to making my own decisions about things like sex, and I don't need him or the government telling me what to do. It's not his business.

More from Santorum (go ahead and google it -- you know you want to).

I may come back to this -- I thought about including a recent experience at a "progressive" blog, but it's still too raw -- I haven't been that effectively bullied since I was in high school. Maybe it's just enough to say that those blinkered, authoritarian patterns of thought are not limited to the right.

Update:

Can't leave out the John Boehner/Paul Clement team fighting to maintain DOMA.

In an Oct. 14 motion filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, attorneys representing the House make the case that gay people "are far from politically powerless" and can't say they face "discrimination [that] is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means" -- unlike other groups of people who are discriminated against.

"The very significant gains made by homosexual-rights groups both in legislative terms and in popular opinion -- and the phenomenal speed at which those victories have come -- demonstrate that they have ample ability to attract the favorable attention of lawmakers," reads the 36-page brief filed by Bancroft PLLC, the firm hired by House Republican leaders to defend the constitutionality of DOMA.

Of course, they left out all the setbacks, including all the "marriage" amendments and the semi-repeal of DADT. More rehash of the same tired old "arguments" that no one's buying any more. This hard on the heels of their last pathetic attempt, which included the time-honored technique of misrepresenting scientific research and a desperate attempt to avoid having to call "expert" witnesses.