28 Tuesday Feb 2012
Tags
I don’t know what they call this in Chicago, but where I come from it’s known as kickin’ ass and takin’ names. President Obama addressing the UAW:
Not sure where this guy has been for about the last 3 years, but I hope he sticks around a while.
28 Tuesday Feb 2012
Posted in Education, Rick Santorum
Tags
I guess nothing should surprise me any more in the anti-intellectualism, celebrating ignorance, party of Palin, that is the modern-day GOP, but I must admit I’m taken aback by Rick Santorum’s recent remarks. First his claim that President Obama wants kids to go to college so they can be indoctrinated. Where they go in as good little conservative Christians and come out librul, Godless, communists. Never mind that Santorum went to Penn State, Pitt, and Dickinson Law School and it didn’t seem to have that effect on him. I guess he had his Satan shields up at the time.
Then his latest blast at the president, calling Obama a “snob” who wants your kids to go to college so they can be remade in his image. Unfortunately, the appeal to ignorance plays well with some:
“I thought that was brilliant,” said Angie Clement of Commerce, Mich. “Not everybody has to go to college. We need garbagemen, we need welders, carpenters.”
“Everybody can’t be equal,” agreed Paul Murrow of Milford, MI seated nearby. “Somebody needs to do the manual labor.”
Clement’s husband, Stephen, said Santorum was right on the mark when he said that Obama wants to send kids to get college degrees so as to produce more liberals.
“It starts down at the elementary school level with all this bullshit about diversity, pardon my French,” he said. “Diversity and sensitivity and all that crap. That’s the stuff that needs to be taught at home not by my teachers. My teachers need to be academic: Math, science, history, social studies, that sort of thing and keep political opinions out of it, bottom line.”
Yeah, I’m sure you teach what you call “diversity and sensitivity and all that crap” at home.
In his “snob” speech Santorum also had this to say:
“I know what it means to have those manufacturing jobs at that entry level to get you in there, and it gives you the opportunity to accumulate more skills over time and rise, so you can provide a better standard of living for your family. And those opportunities are for working men and women — not all folks are gifted in the same way. Some people have incredible gifts with their hands.”
Mr. Santorum, may I invite you to join us in the 21st century. The days of getting a job on the line at the plant, putting in your 30+ years, and walking away with a gold watch and a pension are relics of a bygone era, kind of like your views on contraception. A piece by Adam Davidson at The Atlantic has two examples of how things work in the modern-day world of manufacturing.
One person went to community college (just what President Obama suggested in a speech to Congress in 2009) where he studied algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and machine tooling. He makes $30 an hour and has job security at a fuel injector plant in South Carolina. The other person, who works in the same plant, didn’t get the education needed to advance. She doesn’t know trig, calculus, or computer programming language. She makes $13 an hour and can be easily replaced. No matter how gifted with her hands she may be, the path to advancement and the middle-class life she desires is directly related to her level of education.
Education is the key, Rick. Or does that make me a snob?
27 Monday Feb 2012
Posted in Politics, Religion, Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum on This Week yesterday, describing his reaction to John Kennedy’s 1960 speech on the issue of separation of church and state:
“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum said.
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,” said Santorum.
Obviously Santorum is the one who hasn’t read JFK’s speech because that is not at all what Kennedy said. He didn’t say people of faith have no role in the public square. He did say this:
“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
…“I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views — in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates.”
Then there’s this:
“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country, said Santorum.”
That would put Santorum at odds with two other American presidents–James Madison, the man who wrote the First Amendment, and conservative icon Ronald Reagan.
Madison wrote in 1822:
“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together”
It was also Madison who, as president; vetoed a bill that granted a charter to an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia; vetoed a bill that would have given Federal land to a Baptist church in the Mississippi territory; opposed appointing chaplains to both Houses of Congress, all because it was his opinion that these actions violated the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, which he wrote. If Madison were around today he would no doubt be accused by Santorum of taking part in President Obama’s “war on religion.”
Reagan would also have made Santorum ill with these remarks in October of 1984:
“We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.”
Somebody pass Ricky another barf bag…or two.
26 Sunday Feb 2012
Posted in Politics, Rick Santorum
From Weld for Birmingham:
Ewww.
26 Sunday Feb 2012
Posted in Romney
Tags
Mitt Romney in Thursday night’s Republican debate:
“Talking about the relationship between Iran and Syria, Romney said: “It’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And …Syria is their key ally. It’s their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea.”
??????????
25 Saturday Feb 2012
Tags
The stadium may have been empty but the speech certainly wasn’t.
During Mitt Romney’s speech in Detroit yesterday, he laid out his bold, new economic policy. Massive tax cuts for the top bracket paid for by cutting spending on programs that benefit the neediest of the needy. As Ezra Klein put it:
“When Romney said he “wasn’t concerned about the very poor,” he wasn’t kidding. He’s using the policies they depend on most as a piggy bank for tax cuts.”
Most of what Romney addressed was familiar territory–raising the retirement age, privatizing Medicare, and repealing “Obamacare.” He also called for cutting things like subsidies to Amtrak and Planned Parenthood, which amount to pocket change in the federal budget, and bringing federal worker’s pay down to the same crappy level as people in the private sector.
But the bulk of the spending cuts would come from sending Medicaid back to the states:
“Romney’s real savings come in the next section. He’ll “send Medicaid back to the states and cap that program’s rate of growth,” and then “do the same for other programs, like food stamps, housing subsidies and job training.”
Sending the programs back to the states is a red herring. The key bit for deficit reduction is capping their rates of growth. Which is to say, cutting their rates of growth. Which is to say, cutting them.
What Romney is essentially proposing to do is finance a massive tax cut by cutting Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies and job training. In other words, the neediest Americans…will be financing a massive tax cut.”
This is Romney’s idea of shared sacrifice:
“My plan for America requires real leadership. And it calls for sacrifice. It doesn’t require a leader to promise bigger and bigger benefits, and something for nothing. Let me underscore that. It doesn’t require a leader to promise bigger and bigger benefits, and free stuff. It requires a leader … to call for sacrifice.”
Here’s who would bear the brunt of that sacrifice (BCCA is an acronym for Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act that allows states to provide early access to Medicaid to women with cancer).
Here are the Medicaid dollars spent per beneficiary:
So in order for cuts in the scope of what Romney is proposing to have any substantial affect, here’s what would have to happen:
“…[T]he amount we spent per blind or disabled person, or per elderly person, is much, much more than the amount we spend per child or adult. This means that if we really want to cut Medicaid spending, and we want to do it on the backs of adults or children, we will have to drop many, many more of them to make a real impact on spending.
If we cut 1 million elderly from the Medicaid rolls, we reduce Medicaid spending by about 5%. If we cut 1 million adults, however, we reduce Medicaid spending by only 1%. We need to cut 5 times as many adults. If we want to cut Medicaid spending by 10%…we’d need to drop more than 10 million adults from Medicaid. That’s almost three-quarters of all of them. If we want to cut overall Medicaid spending by 20%, then we’d need to drop all non-elderly adults, including all pregnant women, as well as about 10 million kids, or more than a third of them.
So what will we do? Should we cut some of their benefits instead? Again, look how little we already spend on children and adults. If we cut spending on every child and every non-elderly adult by 25%, that will reduce overall Medicaid spending by less than 8%.
Or do you want to go after the money we spend on the blind and disabled? Women with breast cancer or colon cancer? The elderly?”
Right on, Mitt. Let’s take all that “free stuff” away from all those “something for nothing” freeloaders like the blind, the disabled, the elderly, and women with cancer. They’ve had it too easy for too long. It’s high damn time they sacrificed something so your buds can have another yacht to water ski behind or another vacation home.
24 Friday Feb 2012
Posted in Election 2012, Politics, Republicans, Rick Santorum
And God said, “This shall be a sign unto you. If Obamacare passeth, thou shalt surely run for president”:
“The wife of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum says that God is responsible for her husband’s recent surge in popularity.
“I personally think this is God’s will,” Karen Santorum told GBTV’s Glenn Beck on Thursday. “I think He has us on a path. And I do think there’s a lot more happening that what we are seeing.”
[…]
“Before we made the decision [to run], it was about a year, a year and a half, and initially when Rick mentioned it, I was just, ‘No way.’”
“I said we need to pray about it,” Rick Santorum recalled. “She said, ‘No, I’m not going to pray about it. God couldn’t possibly want you to do this.’”
But Karen Santorum said she eventually sought God’s guidance on the matter.
“I really started to pray about it, and I did always feel in my heart that God had big plans for Rick,” she explained. “Eventually it was there, that tugging at my heart.”
“It is hard because you know it’s a hard path,” Karen Santorum agreed. “What did it for me, though, was Obamacare. Because we have, as you know, a little precious — a little angel, little Bella — special needs little girl. And when Obamacare passed, that was it. That put the fire in my belly.”
” Vodpod videos no longer available.
“Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain have all claimed that God urged them to seek the Republican nomination for president.”
So going by what Republicans themselves have said, so far God’s 0 for 3. And BTW Mrs. Santorum, that skirt’s a bit short for the wife of the Morality Sheriff, don’t you think? Could it be…Satan.
23 Thursday Feb 2012
Posted in Politics, Republicans
A quick overview of last night’s Republican debate in Arizona. Mitt Romney is the sane person who has to play crazy to try and convince the base that he’s one of them. Something he hasn’t been able to accomplish in 5 years of running for president, but he keeps trying. Rick Santorum knows his crazy appeals to the base but he has to try and appear sane for anyone outside the rabid right-wing who might be tuning in. Newt Gingrich has had his day in the sun and is now back to the bomb-throwing Newt of old, like calling President Obama the “most dangerous president on national security grounds in American history,” and Ron Paul is…well, Ron Paul. Admiral Stockdale version 2.0.
Obviously the Romney campaign had the hall packed with their supporters. Everything he said got a standing ovation. Romney also had the best non-response response of the night when moderator John King asked all the candidates what was the most popular misconception about themselves. Romney launched into his boilerplate campaign stump speech, “ make America strong,” “fundamental change in Washington,” blah blah blah. When King tried to bring him back to the original question Romney went Sarah Palin:
“[Y]ou ask the questions you want– I give the answers I want.”
But the best take I’ve seen this morning comes from Andrew Sullivan:
“It’s like an etch-a-sketch party. Shake it one election cycle – and the past disappears completely!”
Hammer. Nail. Bam. Republicans can’t shake their fixation on solutions which are proven failures. Like tax cuts equals economic growth and prosperity for all. Keep lowering taxes on the so-called job creators and somehow the supply-side fairy will come and sprinkle trickle-down pixie dust on everyone else. Never mind that we have 30 years of evidence to the contrary. Romney released another tax cut plan yesterday, because the first one wasn’t big enough, which will cost 4 times what the Bush cuts did and by some slight-of-hand not increase the deficit.
Like get the gub’mint out of the way, cut regulations, and let the unfettered free market work. Never mind that lack of proper regulation and letting Wall Street run free is what led to the near-collapse of our entire system in 2008.
Like beating the war drums with the threat of imminent nuclear attack from Iran. Gingrich was the lead drummer last night:
“Everybody needs to understand, and by the way, we live in an age when we have to generally worry about nuclear weapons going off in our own cities. So everyone who serves in the fire department, the police department, not just the first responders but our National Guard, whoever’s going to respond, all of us are more at risk today, men and women, boys and girls, than at any time in the history of this country.”
That all sound very familiar. Never mind that it cost us a trillion dollars and 4400 dead Americans the first time we were sold that line, and that it is just as much a fabricated claim now as it was in 2003. The etch-a-sketch has been shaken since then.
22 Wednesday Feb 2012
Posted in Politics, Republicans
Bob Morris, a Republican (what else) state legislator in Indiana, says the Girl Scouts have “been subverted in the name of liberal progressive politics and the destruction of traditional American family values.” He knows this because he read it somewhere on the internet:
“Saying that the Girl Scouts is a “radicalized organization” that promotes “homosexual lifestyles” and is aligned with honorary president Michelle Obama’s “pro-abortion” viewpoint, an Indiana state legislator has told his fellow Republicans he can’t support a proclamation honoring the organization’s 100th anniversary.
[…]
The proclamation, as the newspapers says, “applauded the group ‘for the strong positive influence it has had on the American woman.’ ”
But Morris, saying he “did a small amount of web-based research,” claims to have found that the Girl Scouts has “a close strategic affiliation with Planned Parenthood.” He makes that assertion even as he concedes “you will not find evidence of this on the [Girl Scouts’] website — in fact, the websites of these two organizations explicitly deny funding Planned Parenthood.”
All in all, according to Morris, the Girl Scouts is an organization that’s “been subverted in the name of liberal progressive politics and the destruction of traditional American family values.”
You just can’t make this stuff up.
22 Wednesday Feb 2012
This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy, judgementalism, and not-so-thinly veiled racism that drove me away from organized religion. Franklin Graham on Morning Joe, when ask whether or not he believes President Obama is a Christian, first says “I cannot answer that question for anybody,” then goes on to do just that about Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. From Think Progress:
So Mr. Graham is sure about the Christianity of Gingrich the serial adulterer, and Santorum, the man whose “values are so clear on moral issues,” never mind that his stance on those moral issues changed for political expedience, but the monogamous black guy with the funny name not so much. That guy might be a seekrit Mooslim:
“Islam sees him as a son of Islam because his father was a Muslim, his grandfather was a Muslim, great grandfather was a Mulsim and so under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a Muslim,” Graham said, before explaining that he could not rule out the possibility that Obama may secretly be Muslim. “I can’t say categorically [that Obama is not a Muslim] because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama,” he said.”
You might want to check with Osama bin Laden about that “free pass,” Rev.
Desperado's Outpost 