-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Obama comes out...
Author: Raine
Date: 05/10/2012 12:41:35
in support of Marriage equality.
Mitt Romney says that he will take credit for the idea....
This is all VERY big news, and I am going to write some more about this. Or not, since everyone else and their mother is. -- either way, I'll be back with some more stuff in a bit.
Mitt Romney says that he will take credit for the idea....
This is all VERY big news, and I am going to write some more about this. Or not, since everyone else and their mother is. -- either way, I'll be back with some more stuff in a bit.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
wickedpam on 05/10/2012 12:52:34
wickedpam on 05/10/2012 12:52:34
Morning 
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 13:20:02
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 13:20:02
Hola mi amigos.
Comment by 
Raine on 05/10/2012 13:33:20
Raine on 05/10/2012 13:33:20
This is really tough to write about, but it appears to me that with Obama saying that marriage equality being a state issue is actually a very calculated move, In my reading so far this morning it appears that his statement coupled with the DoJ not enforcing DOMA it will force the Full faith and credit clause of the constitution to be applied, there by forcing the states to recognize all marriages in all states even if the states ban marriage equality itself.
This is a natural progression. After DADT was appealed this had to be the next step. Obama coming out in support is a really brave and amazing thing. Considering that technically there is not FEDERAL marriage law, he cannot say that the federal government must recognize marriage equality. It can however repeal DOMA which explicitly gives certain legal rights to some of the population and not all.
It's rather confusing, but it is good stuff.
This is a natural progression. After DADT was appealed this had to be the next step. Obama coming out in support is a really brave and amazing thing. Considering that technically there is not FEDERAL marriage law, he cannot say that the federal government must recognize marriage equality. It can however repeal DOMA which explicitly gives certain legal rights to some of the population and not all.
It's rather confusing, but it is good stuff.
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 13:38:56
The is really subtle and con-law professorish on the part of POTUS. Well played sir! Well played Raine for figuring that out!
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 13:38:56
Quote by Raine:
This is really tough to write about, but it appears to me that with Obama saying that marriage equality being a state issue is actually a very calculated move, In my reading so far this morning it appears that his statement coupled with the DoJ not enforcing DOMA it will force the Full faith and credit clause of the constitution to be applied, there by forcing the states to recognize all marriages in all states even if the states ban marriage equality itself.
This is a natural progression. After DADT was appealed this had to be the next step. Obama coming out in support is a really brave and amazing thing. Considering that technically there is not FEDERAL marriage law, he cannot say that the federal government must recognize marriage equality. It can however repeal DOMA which explicitly gives certain legal rights to some of the population and not all.
It's rather confusing, but it is good stuff.
The is really subtle and con-law professorish on the part of POTUS. Well played sir! Well played Raine for figuring that out!
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 13:55:50
Thank you! I've been trying to figure it out all morning, and like I said, it is tough to explain. But in this light, it makes sense. The federal Government can't really pass a federal marriage law -- I think that is why conservatives are pushing so hard to amend the US constitution --
Raine on 05/10/2012 13:55:50
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:
This is really tough to write about, but it appears to me that with Obama saying that marriage equality being a state issue is actually a very calculated move, In my reading so far this morning it appears that his statement coupled with the DoJ not enforcing DOMA it will force the Full faith and credit clause of the constitution to be applied, there by forcing the states to recognize all marriages in all states even if the states ban marriage equality itself.
This is a natural progression. After DADT was appealed this had to be the next step. Obama coming out in support is a really brave and amazing thing. Considering that technically there is not FEDERAL marriage law, he cannot say that the federal government must recognize marriage equality. It can however repeal DOMA which explicitly gives certain legal rights to some of the population and not all.
It's rather confusing, but it is good stuff.
The is really subtle and con-law professorish on the part of POTUS. Well played sir! Well played Raine for figuring that out!
Thank you! I've been trying to figure it out all morning, and like I said, it is tough to explain. But in this light, it makes sense. The federal Government can't really pass a federal marriage law -- I think that is why conservatives are pushing so hard to amend the US constitution --
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 14:02:27
Raine on 05/10/2012 14:02:27
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 14:08:02
Raine on 05/10/2012 14:08:02
Quote by Raine:
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
But Friedemann and several people closest to Romney in those formative years say there was a sharp edge to him. In an English class, Gary Hummel, who was a closeted gay student at the time, recalled that his efforts to speak out in class were punctuated with Romney shouting, “Atta girl!†In the culture of that time and place, that was not entirely out of the norm. Hummel recalled some teachers using similar language.
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 14:11:09
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 14:11:09
I have to say viewing a dead body still creeps me out. On the other hand, the mortician who worked on Lauren did amazing work considering the number of injuries she suffered in the accident.
Lori (Lauren's mom) and I had a nice long talk about grief and the grieving process. She handling is handling it well. Therapy is a Good Thing.
Lori (Lauren's mom) and I had a nice long talk about grief and the grieving process. She handling is handling it well. Therapy is a Good Thing.
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 14:18:59
Mitt is violating Wil Wheaton rule for life, "Don't be a dick."
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 14:18:59
Quote by Raine:
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
Mitt is violating Wil Wheaton rule for life, "Don't be a dick."
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 14:31:38
The boy he bullied later came out as gay.
Romney is a bully.
Raine on 05/10/2012 14:31:38
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
Mitt is violating Wil Wheaton rule for life, "Don't be a dick."
Romney is a bully.
Comment by wickedpam on 05/10/2012 14:36:03
omg he's almost Santana without the quippy one liners
wickedpam on 05/10/2012 14:36:03
Quote by Raine:
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
omg he's almost Santana without the quippy one liners
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 14:41:20
I understand that kids do kid things... but this is all indicative of a pattern with him. From the Dog on the car to his arrest for disorderly conduct -- his totally out of touch attitude and his sense of entitlement is all just too much.
Raine on 05/10/2012 14:41:20
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
omg he's almost Santana without the quippy one liners
Comment by wickedpam on 05/10/2012 14:43:23
there's a mean streak in him if he thinks its funny to be hurtful to others.
Yeah kids to kid things but what he did was just kind mean.
wickedpam on 05/10/2012 14:43:23
Quote by Raine:I understand that kids do kid things... but this is all indicative of a pattern with him. From the Dog on the car to his arrest for disorderly conduct -- his totally out of touch attitude and his sense of entitlement is all just too much.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
omg he's almost Santana without the quippy one liners
there's a mean streak in him if he thinks its funny to be hurtful to others.
Yeah kids to kid things but what he did was just kind mean.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 14:44:56
Raine on 05/10/2012 14:44:56
Comment by 
Scoopster on 05/10/2012 14:45:32
Scoopster on 05/10/2012 14:45:32
Mornin' all.. 
Not sure if anyone saw this yesterday.. but it might be relevant to the conversation:
Quote by Raine:
This is really tough to write about, but it appears to me that with Obama saying that marriage equality being a state issue is actually a very calculated move, In my reading so far this morning it appears that his statement coupled with the DoJ not enforcing DOMA it will force the Full faith and credit clause of the constitution to be applied, there by forcing the states to recognize all marriages in all states even if the states ban marriage equality itself.
This is a natural progression. After DADT was appealed this had to be the next step. Obama coming out in support is a really brave and amazing thing. Considering that technically there is not FEDERAL marriage law, he cannot say that the federal government must recognize marriage equality. It can however repeal DOMA which explicitly gives certain legal rights to some of the population and not all.
It's rather confusing, but it is good stuff.
Not sure if anyone saw this yesterday.. but it might be relevant to the conversation:
Hmmm.. a friend of mine just brought up the point that "...federal court can rule that something in a state constitution violates the US constitution... which will most likely end up being the equal protection clause".
Now, I debated this with him for a few minutes then kinda let it go because I just don't understand how you get around the right of the States to establish their own constitutions. Can anyone help me out here?
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 14:46:00
He has a lack of compassion that exists -- imo -- with bullies.
Raine on 05/10/2012 14:46:00
Quote by wickedpam:
there's a mean streak in him if he thinks its funny to be hurtful to others.
Yeah kids to kid things but what he did was just kind mean.
Comment by wickedpam on 05/10/2012 14:50:06
agreed
wickedpam on 05/10/2012 14:50:06
Quote by Raine:He has a lack of compassion that exists -- imo -- with bullies.Quote by wickedpam:
there's a mean streak in him if he thinks its funny to be hurtful to others.
Yeah kids to kid things but what he did was just kind mean.
agreed
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 14:56:34
The10th : Federal government can't pass a federal marriage law without a constitutional amendment. (either for equality or against) States have the right to regulate marriage laws as they see fit-- often to the detriment of people.
What the Federal government CAN do is make sure that federal laws do not discriminate -- Thus, as I see it -- the non defense of DOMA.
Raine on 05/10/2012 14:56:34
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all..Quote by Raine:
This is really tough to write about, but it appears to me that with Obama saying that marriage equality being a state issue is actually a very calculated move, In my reading so far this morning it appears that his statement coupled with the DoJ not enforcing DOMA it will force the Full faith and credit clause of the constitution to be applied, there by forcing the states to recognize all marriages in all states even if the states ban marriage equality itself.
This is a natural progression. After DADT was appealed this had to be the next step. Obama coming out in support is a really brave and amazing thing. Considering that technically there is not FEDERAL marriage law, he cannot say that the federal government must recognize marriage equality. It can however repeal DOMA which explicitly gives certain legal rights to some of the population and not all.
It's rather confusing, but it is good stuff.
Not sure if anyone saw this yesterday.. but it might be relevant to the conversation:Hmmm.. a friend of mine just brought up the point that "...federal court can rule that something in a state constitution violates the US constitution... which will most likely end up being the equal protection clause".
Now, I debated this with him for a few minutes then kinda let it go because I just don't understand how you get around the right of the States to establish their own constitutions. Can anyone help me out here?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What the Federal government CAN do is make sure that federal laws do not discriminate -- Thus, as I see it -- the non defense of DOMA.
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 14:58:16
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 14:58:16
Did my called Mitt a dick kill the blog???
Comment by 
BobR on 05/10/2012 15:02:09
plenty of comments between....
BobR on 05/10/2012 15:02:09
Quote by Mondobubba:
Did my called Mitt a dick kill the blog???
plenty of comments between....
Comment by Scoopster on 05/10/2012 15:17:08
Yeah I figured that much. I was more unclear on how the federal courts could invalidate a state's constitutional amendments. I mean, I know it makes sense because of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but I wasn't aware that the federal courts' power of judicial review had that kind of reach.
Scoopster on 05/10/2012 15:17:08
Quote by Raine:The10th :Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all..
Not sure if anyone saw this yesterday.. but it might be relevant to the conversation:Hmmm.. a friend of mine just brought up the point that "...federal court can rule that something in a state constitution violates the US constitution... which will most likely end up being the equal protection clause".
Now, I debated this with him for a few minutes then kinda let it go because I just don't understand how you get around the right of the States to establish their own constitutions. Can anyone help me out here?Federal government can't pass a federal marriage law without a constitutional amendment. (either for equality or against) States have the right to regulate marriage laws as they see fit-- often to the detriment of people.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What the Federal government CAN do is make sure that federal laws do not discriminate -- Thus, as I see it -- the non defense of DOMA.
Yeah I figured that much. I was more unclear on how the federal courts could invalidate a state's constitutional amendments. I mean, I know it makes sense because of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but I wasn't aware that the federal courts' power of judicial review had that kind of reach.
Comment by BobR on 05/10/2012 15:23:40
I think it will come down to if a state recognizes another state's hetero marriages, it has to recognize another state's homo marriages. Otherwise, the 14th is being violated.
BobR on 05/10/2012 15:23:40
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:The10th :Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all..
Not sure if anyone saw this yesterday.. but it might be relevant to the conversation:Hmmm.. a friend of mine just brought up the point that "...federal court can rule that something in a state constitution violates the US constitution... which will most likely end up being the equal protection clause".
Now, I debated this with him for a few minutes then kinda let it go because I just don't understand how you get around the right of the States to establish their own constitutions. Can anyone help me out here?Federal government can't pass a federal marriage law without a constitutional amendment. (either for equality or against) States have the right to regulate marriage laws as they see fit-- often to the detriment of people.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What the Federal government CAN do is make sure that federal laws do not discriminate -- Thus, as I see it -- the non defense of DOMA.
Yeah I figured that much. I was more unclear on how the federal courts could invalidate a state's constitutional amendments. I mean, I know it makes sense because of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but I wasn't aware that the federal courts' power of judicial review had that kind of reach.
I think it will come down to if a state recognizes another state's hetero marriages, it has to recognize another state's homo marriages. Otherwise, the 14th is being violated.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 15:25:44
Raine on 05/10/2012 15:25:44
You know, I just had a thought....
Want to fly it by here to see if it makes sense:
In as much as Bill Clinton is considered the First Black President, can we consider Barack Obama the first Gay president?
What do you think?
Want to fly it by here to see if it makes sense:
In as much as Bill Clinton is considered the First Black President, can we consider Barack Obama the first Gay president?
What do you think?
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 15:32:41
While the Washington Post calls this a vicious prank, I am more inclined to call it assault and battery.
Raine on 05/10/2012 15:32:41
Quote by Raine:
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 15:39:38
Hence him being a Dick. Dick covers a wide range of behaviors.
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 15:39:38
Quote by Raine:The boy he bullied later came out as gay.Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Raine:
Just compare and contrast. It appears the Romney wasn't just a prankster -- he bullied a kid in high school.
He's a damn bully. this storyis really wretched.
Mitt is violating Wil Wheaton rule for life, "Don't be a dick."
Romney is a bully.
Hence him being a Dick. Dick covers a wide range of behaviors.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 15:46:17
Raine on 05/10/2012 15:46:17
Comment by wickedpam on 05/10/2012 15:48:01
THat he participated in? Sounds like he was the ring leader of some of those. If he was swayed to pin someone down and cut their hair doesn't show any back bone on his part. He has a distinct lack of character and leadership. He's a follower. Why do I want that as president?
wickedpam on 05/10/2012 15:48:01
Quote by Raine:
Romney is on damage control
He's sorry...
THat he participated in? Sounds like he was the ring leader of some of those. If he was swayed to pin someone down and cut their hair doesn't show any back bone on his part. He has a distinct lack of character and leadership. He's a follower. Why do I want that as president?
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 15:48:23
Mitt Romney is very very sorry for everything he doesn't remember ever doing.
Raine on 05/10/2012 15:48:23
Again, if there’s anything I said that is offensive to someone, I certainly am sorry for that, very deeply sorry for that.â€
Mitt Romney is very very sorry for everything he doesn't remember ever doing.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 15:57:40
Raine on 05/10/2012 15:57:40
Comment by 
livingonli on 05/10/2012 16:10:10
livingonli on 05/10/2012 16:10:10
Good day everyone. Yeesh, the Post got a little cocky there. Just weary that both series have gone 7 games but hopefully the Rangers can seal the deal at the Garden since they are 4-0 on playoff games played at the Garden. Then, the Eastern conference finals will be the battle between Lundqvist and Brodeur at goal-tending.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 16:36:45
Raine on 05/10/2012 16:36:45
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 16:42:21
Raine on 05/10/2012 16:42:21
I think I am offened that Time seems to be demeaning mothers who don't look or act like this.
I thought breast feeding was an intimate thing. Not something to be hidden, but intimate -- this is just -- ugh.
I thought breast feeding was an intimate thing. Not something to be hidden, but intimate -- this is just -- ugh.
Comment by livingonli on 05/10/2012 16:45:46
livingonli on 05/10/2012 16:45:46
There has been a whole issue with Time publishing covers in the US focusing on soft news and human interest stories while hard news stories are on the cover in their European editions.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 16:48:02
This is a USA cover.
Raine on 05/10/2012 16:48:02
Quote by livingonli:
There has been a whole issue with Time publishing covers in the US focusing on soft news and human interest stories while hard news stories are on the cover in their European editions.
Comment by BobR on 05/10/2012 16:49:31
Having a 4 yr-old breastfeeding is bad enough - splashing a photo of it on the cover of an ostensible news magazine is just gross.
BobR on 05/10/2012 16:49:31
Quote by Raine:
Is it wrong that I am having a WTF moment here?
This is a real cover of TIME magazine.
Having a 4 yr-old breastfeeding is bad enough - splashing a photo of it on the cover of an ostensible news magazine is just gross.
Comment by livingonli on 05/10/2012 17:08:28
Figures.
livingonli on 05/10/2012 17:08:28
Quote by Raine:This is a USA cover.Quote by livingonli:
There has been a whole issue with Time publishing covers in the US focusing on soft news and human interest stories while hard news stories are on the cover in their European editions.
Figures.
Comment by Scoopster on 05/10/2012 17:18:56
at the "original" cover!
Scoopster on 05/10/2012 17:18:56
Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:
Is it wrong that I am having a WTF moment here?
This is a real cover of TIME magazine.
Having a 4 yr-old breastfeeding is bad enough - splashing a photo of it on the cover of an ostensible news magazine is just gross.
at the "original" cover!
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 17:26:24
No, you're not having a WTF moment. I am too. You breast feed a four and five year old? WTF!
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 17:26:24
Quote by Raine:
Is it wrong that I am having a WTF moment here?
This is a real cover of TIME magazine.
No, you're not having a WTF moment. I am too. You breast feed a four and five year old? WTF!
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 17:28:57
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 17:28:57
I kinda like the mash up cover myself.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 18:53:15
Raine on 05/10/2012 18:53:15
BTW, I want to go back to what the POTUS said. What he said was really amazing. He came out in favor of marriage equality without pushing legislation. He is the first sitting president to EVER do this.
THIS piece from Rachel last night is what got me thinking:
Saying you like the gays is one thing --legislating against them is what pisses me off as well.
THIS piece from Rachel last night is what got me thinking:
Saying you like the gays is one thing --legislating against them is what pisses me off as well.
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 19:28:03
Levi Johnston, father of her child-- who has impregnated another woman. Keep talking Bristol.
Raine on 05/10/2012 19:28:03
Quote by Scoopster:
From the mouths ofbabesunwed teenage mothers..
Levi Johnston, father of her child-- who has impregnated another woman. Keep talking Bristol.
Comment by Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 19:28:52
Mondobubba on 05/10/2012 19:28:52
Comment by Raine on 05/10/2012 19:32:49
Raine on 05/10/2012 19:32:49
BArney Frank will be sorely missed in congress.
Frank disputed the contention that Obama was hedging when he said states have a right to decide the issue. “That’s just a statement of fact,†Frank said. “That’s like saying today is Wednesday. I mean that’s just a statement of the American Constitution.â€
So what’s next, apart from the administration’s effort to get rid of DOMA, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman?
“We’ll continue to fight this state by state,†Frank said, invoking an upcoming gay marriage referendum in Maryland. “And then the next time we have a Democratic House, Senate and president, pass a bill banning discrimination in employment.†He predicted that “within six or eight years†the GOP would start to come around on the issue of marriage equality. “The Republicans are clearly on the wrong side of this.â€
Comment by 
IzzyBitz on 05/10/2012 20:21:41
John Travolta fondling young men? Mittens a bully? President Obama supports marriage equality? Surprises come in all shapes and sizes, although some are not so shocking...
Proud and worried, but what's new?
IzzyBitz on 05/10/2012 20:21:41
John Travolta fondling young men? Mittens a bully? President Obama supports marriage equality? Surprises come in all shapes and sizes, although some are not so shocking...
Proud and worried, but what's new?
Comment by Scoopster on 05/10/2012 20:23:24
Scoopster on 05/10/2012 20:23:24
Izzy!! Welcome back!
Welcome back!
Comment by IzzyBitz on 05/10/2012 20:30:52
Hey Scoopster!
Happy to return to the blog of the sane. People on the TV machine are driving me crazy. Tamron had a real doozy on today. OY!
IzzyBitz on 05/10/2012 20:30:52
Quote by Scoopster:
Izzy!!
Hey Scoopster!
Happy to return to the blog of the sane. People on the TV machine are driving me crazy. Tamron had a real doozy on today. OY!
Comment by livingonli on 05/10/2012 20:37:25
Who was this genius that Tamron had to deal with?
livingonli on 05/10/2012 20:37:25
Quote by IzzyBitz:Quote by Scoopster:
Izzy!!
Hey Scoopster!
Happy to return to the blog of the sane. People on the TV machine are driving me crazy. Tamron had a real doozy on today. OY!
Who was this genius that Tamron had to deal with?
Comment by IzzyBitz on 05/10/2012 21:03:28
A right wingnut who could do nothing more than spew talking points and nonsense regarding marriage equality and other things that are damaging American families and ruining society, blah blah blah. Logical thinking not in his tool shed.
IzzyBitz on 05/10/2012 21:03:28
Quote by livingonli:Quote by IzzyBitz:Quote by Scoopster:
Izzy!!
Hey Scoopster!
Happy to return to the blog of the sane. People on the TV machine are driving me crazy. Tamron had a real doozy on today. OY!
Who was this genius that Tamron had to deal with?
A right wingnut who could do nothing more than spew talking points and nonsense regarding marriage equality and other things that are damaging American families and ruining society, blah blah blah. Logical thinking not in his tool shed.