Sunday, March 04, 2012
Keep The Secret Agent Man Talking
Right after Nikto put up his post yesterday, Rush Limbaugh apologized to Sandra Fluke. Right on the heels of his apology, Hell called and informed us earthlings that it had frozen over.
It's very serendipitous that all of this has happened. I'd been thinking about Rush of late and was about to do a column about him and how it was just about time for him to say something that would get him noticed again. I would say that this certainly qualifies.
So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.
My first thought after I heard this was...is Rush Limbaugh a secret agent for Barack Obama? There's no doubt that his ratings are higher when there is a Democrat in charge. Make it a black guy with a funny, Muslim-y name and we're talking pure gold here. Hell, not gold but platinum or onyx!
But this was so far over the top and played right to pissing off a key demographic that I had to wonder (and still do even though he has apologized) if Rush is helping the president with his re-election campaign. I know the conventional wisdom is that we need to all stop listening to Rush and then he will go away but now I don't think that's the case.
This, of course, adds another layer of fault to my line of thinking after the president won in 2008 when I spoke of the end of people like Rush fading into the sunset. After this recent gift, why on the heck would I want that? What was I thinking? How foolish of me....:)
I say, we need to keep him talking because he has to keep saying more and more offensive shit to be relevant in this day and age. Honestly, he doesn't really have a choice. The more he talks, the more independents run back to the president. That's why, in the face of departing sponsors, it's a good thing he apologized so now the very likely possibility of him losing control of himself again between now and the election remains intact.
Although I am little worried. Now that he has admitted fault, the perceptual framework that these folks have set up for themselves dictates that he is now weak and a pussy. Please don't let it be true!!!
It's very serendipitous that all of this has happened. I'd been thinking about Rush of late and was about to do a column about him and how it was just about time for him to say something that would get him noticed again. I would say that this certainly qualifies.
So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.
My first thought after I heard this was...is Rush Limbaugh a secret agent for Barack Obama? There's no doubt that his ratings are higher when there is a Democrat in charge. Make it a black guy with a funny, Muslim-y name and we're talking pure gold here. Hell, not gold but platinum or onyx!
But this was so far over the top and played right to pissing off a key demographic that I had to wonder (and still do even though he has apologized) if Rush is helping the president with his re-election campaign. I know the conventional wisdom is that we need to all stop listening to Rush and then he will go away but now I don't think that's the case.
This, of course, adds another layer of fault to my line of thinking after the president won in 2008 when I spoke of the end of people like Rush fading into the sunset. After this recent gift, why on the heck would I want that? What was I thinking? How foolish of me....:)
I say, we need to keep him talking because he has to keep saying more and more offensive shit to be relevant in this day and age. Honestly, he doesn't really have a choice. The more he talks, the more independents run back to the president. That's why, in the face of departing sponsors, it's a good thing he apologized so now the very likely possibility of him losing control of himself again between now and the election remains intact.
Although I am little worried. Now that he has admitted fault, the perceptual framework that these folks have set up for themselves dictates that he is now weak and a pussy. Please don't let it be true!!!
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Rush to Judgment
On Wednesday Rush Limbaugh said:
What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.
What right does Rush have to judge this woman? What Sandra Fluke actually said is that women need to use contraceptives for more than one reason. In particular, Fluke has a friend who used the pill to control ovarian cysts, and not prevent pregnancy. The friend was denied coverage, couldn't afford the drugs. A cyst developed and grew to the size of tennis ball. It had to be surgically removed along with her ovary.
This whole argument over employers covering birth control is bogus. Practically speaking, since contraceptives are medicine, they need to be dispensed under the supervision of a doctor. Therefore they need to be part of health insurance, and it would be stupidly bureaucratic to require a separate policy to cover it. Aren't Republicans against stupid bureaucratic nonsense?
What's more, as I (and Jon Stewart) have pointed out before, the employer is paying for birth control whether it's through health insurance or the employee's salary. This is inconsistent, unless they're also arguing that they have the right to fire anyone who uses contraception. Is this moral objection to birth control really just the first domino in the conservative plot to allow employers to discriminate against people they don't like, be they contraceptive users, Muslims, Baptists, Mormons, atheists, blacks, Latinos and women?
It's particular ironic that Limbaugh is making a big deal out of this. In 2009 Limbaugh was stopped by customs when he returned from the Dominican Republic for having a bottle of Viagra that was made out in his doctor's name. (He should have used the alias "Rash Limp-bough".) This was after he was caught abusing prescription drugs, doctor-shopping and skirting banking laws by withdrawing cash from his banks just below the threshold that would require it to be reported. He then sent his housekeeper out with shoeboxes full of money to buy prescription drugs illegally to support the addiction that may have cost him his hearing, requiring him to have cochlear implants.
At the time of the Viagra bust Rush had been divorced from his third wife for five years and was seeing the woman who would become his fourth wife, Kathryn Rogers, who is 26 years younger than he is. They have no children, so, as Rush would, I'll just assume that she was using the pill to prevent pregnancy (I can't imagine someone like Limbaugh even considering a condom or diaphragm). I'll also assume her employer was paying for her health insurance, which in Limbaugh's fantasy world would mean she is a slut and a prostitute, her employer is a pimp and he is a john. As well as a fornicator.
Why isn't Rick Santorum holding up Rush Limbaugh as Exhibit A for all society's ills?
Sandra Fluke's motivation for speaking out appears to be outrage over the injustice that caused her friend to lose an ovary. Rush Limbaugh's motivation seems to be to slap down another slutty "feminazi" because she dared speak up instead of just lying there and taking it.
No wonder this man has gone through four wives.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
The best answer yet to Rick Santorum's snob comment....
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Indecision 2012 - Mitt Romney's & Rick Santorum's Michigan Campaigns | ||||
| ||||
Friday, March 02, 2012
A Friday Challenge
John Waxy, a sadly seldom author here, is a professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin. He's also an owner of a 20 million dollar manufacturing concern there but that's a post for another day (see: intimately familiar with the concerns of business owners in the 21st century even though a few mouth foamers who post here are under the mistaken impression that I am not).
John an I have known each other for 33 years and I count him as my closest friend. We talk at least once a week and, sadly more often than not, he tells me the same story about his Intro To Anthropology class that he teachers every semester and it goes something like this: A few weeks into the quarter, a third of his class will be failing. When I ask him why, he tells me that those failing students all essentially have the same problem.
They don't "believe" in evolution.
In fact, many of these students have told John that they needn't bother learning the required class because "It's all lies."
So when I saw this post on Kevin Baker's site, The Smallest Minority, I became curious as to what his response would be to such willful ignorance by John's students, given that his protestations fall along his usual line of "Every School Is Failing Everywhere Because of the Communist Take Over of Schools And Look At How Stupid The Kids Are As A Result of This and The Coddling." Certainly, this does not fit Kevin's (very much fictional) narrative!
Yet, if recollection serves me, there was a post a while back about the Constitution and how it was also being destroyed by liberals, commies, proggies, and the Ladies Auxiliary of New Prague, MN. I hadn't commented in a while but honestly felt it was necessary given how (ahem) off the mark he was in his assessment.
During the course of comments, I got the Sybil-like "You're a chicken"-"Get the Fuck Out of Here" nonsense that I always get so I put it to a vote: Yes, for me to stay...No, for me to go and never comment again. The vote was for the NO's 2-1 with several people abstaining. I will, of course, continue to abide by that decision and since have noticed several commenters (including Kevin once) posting here.
Despite this, Kevin continues to put up posts about education which he clearly does to bait and taunt me, trying to get me to comment. Other commenters mention my name and do the same. Don't they know that I am a man of my word and would not comment unless a new vote is taken and I am voted back on the island?
Of course, my promise does not extend to this site (my own, after all) and that's why today I am commenting on his last post on education. In fact, I'm going to do much more than that. I am officially challenging Kevin and any other commenter from his site or here to an ongoing debate on education. It's come to the point where I simply can't allow such a colossal amount of lying to go on by someone who very clearly has not set foot in a school in a long time. That goes for most of his commenters as well. You want to know why schools are failing? Ask me. I'm a teacher so I am an authority as to what is going on. And then go spend a week in a school (preferably a junior high for the real action) so you can gauge if what I am saying is true.
To put it simply, start learning something, get some actual first-hand experience, and then you can run your mouth. After that, I'm hoping that we can have a substantive discussion about how much our society has changed and how incredibly naive (see: FUBAR) it would be to try to "go back to the old days."
To kick off this challenge, let's get back to that video he put up. First, anyone ever hear of the concept of editing? Obviously, it can make people look at stupid or smart as possible. Jay Leno does it all the time. In this case, it's stupid and, because Kevin eternally embraces confirmation bias (especially when it comes to schools), he believes that all students are this "stupid." I guess I'm wondering what ended up on the cutting room floor and how many answered the questions correctly.
Second, for every school that is "failing," there are schools like this one that are turning around.
Every time Kevin puts up something on his site about "failing schools," I'll be putting up a post here about successful ones. I have plenty. This is going to happen even if my challenge is declined or ignored. Because the simple truth is that there are many schools that are doing well already or improving. If he and the others set aside their irrational hatred of Barack X, they would see that he and Secretary Duncan are pursuing many of the same goals as they are. If they did that and spent some time in a school, then they would see that this remark from the comments of that post
They are not being taught history anymore. It's all part of the Socialist Plan.
is beyond laughable. In fact, I question whether or not it was intended in jest.
So, the challenge has been extended. The gauntlet has been thrown down. This is a chance here (and in future education related threads) to have a dialogue with someone who has been in the education system for the last 9 years (public and private).
If you really care about the future of education in this country and are serious about improving the system, this is an opportunity to do so.
John an I have known each other for 33 years and I count him as my closest friend. We talk at least once a week and, sadly more often than not, he tells me the same story about his Intro To Anthropology class that he teachers every semester and it goes something like this: A few weeks into the quarter, a third of his class will be failing. When I ask him why, he tells me that those failing students all essentially have the same problem.
They don't "believe" in evolution.
In fact, many of these students have told John that they needn't bother learning the required class because "It's all lies."
So when I saw this post on Kevin Baker's site, The Smallest Minority, I became curious as to what his response would be to such willful ignorance by John's students, given that his protestations fall along his usual line of "Every School Is Failing Everywhere Because of the Communist Take Over of Schools And Look At How Stupid The Kids Are As A Result of This and The Coddling." Certainly, this does not fit Kevin's (very much fictional) narrative!
Yet, if recollection serves me, there was a post a while back about the Constitution and how it was also being destroyed by liberals, commies, proggies, and the Ladies Auxiliary of New Prague, MN. I hadn't commented in a while but honestly felt it was necessary given how (ahem) off the mark he was in his assessment.
During the course of comments, I got the Sybil-like "You're a chicken"-"Get the Fuck Out of Here" nonsense that I always get so I put it to a vote: Yes, for me to stay...No, for me to go and never comment again. The vote was for the NO's 2-1 with several people abstaining. I will, of course, continue to abide by that decision and since have noticed several commenters (including Kevin once) posting here.
Despite this, Kevin continues to put up posts about education which he clearly does to bait and taunt me, trying to get me to comment. Other commenters mention my name and do the same. Don't they know that I am a man of my word and would not comment unless a new vote is taken and I am voted back on the island?
Of course, my promise does not extend to this site (my own, after all) and that's why today I am commenting on his last post on education. In fact, I'm going to do much more than that. I am officially challenging Kevin and any other commenter from his site or here to an ongoing debate on education. It's come to the point where I simply can't allow such a colossal amount of lying to go on by someone who very clearly has not set foot in a school in a long time. That goes for most of his commenters as well. You want to know why schools are failing? Ask me. I'm a teacher so I am an authority as to what is going on. And then go spend a week in a school (preferably a junior high for the real action) so you can gauge if what I am saying is true.
To put it simply, start learning something, get some actual first-hand experience, and then you can run your mouth. After that, I'm hoping that we can have a substantive discussion about how much our society has changed and how incredibly naive (see: FUBAR) it would be to try to "go back to the old days."
To kick off this challenge, let's get back to that video he put up. First, anyone ever hear of the concept of editing? Obviously, it can make people look at stupid or smart as possible. Jay Leno does it all the time. In this case, it's stupid and, because Kevin eternally embraces confirmation bias (especially when it comes to schools), he believes that all students are this "stupid." I guess I'm wondering what ended up on the cutting room floor and how many answered the questions correctly.
Second, for every school that is "failing," there are schools like this one that are turning around.
Booker T. Washington High School’s graduation rate went from 55% in 2007 to 81.6% in 2010. The school has taken steps such as establishing separate freshmen academies for boys and girls to help students adjust to the school culture and creating an atmosphere where teachers take personal interest in seeing students take pride in their schoolwork. Students can now take AP classes, learn about engineering through robotics competitions, and earn college credits.
Every time Kevin puts up something on his site about "failing schools," I'll be putting up a post here about successful ones. I have plenty. This is going to happen even if my challenge is declined or ignored. Because the simple truth is that there are many schools that are doing well already or improving. If he and the others set aside their irrational hatred of Barack X, they would see that he and Secretary Duncan are pursuing many of the same goals as they are. If they did that and spent some time in a school, then they would see that this remark from the comments of that post
They are not being taught history anymore. It's all part of the Socialist Plan.
is beyond laughable. In fact, I question whether or not it was intended in jest.
So, the challenge has been extended. The gauntlet has been thrown down. This is a chance here (and in future education related threads) to have a dialogue with someone who has been in the education system for the last 9 years (public and private).
If you really care about the future of education in this country and are serious about improving the system, this is an opportunity to do so.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Wow.
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| I Can't Believe It Got Better! | ||||
| ||||
At least now, Fox News is admitting it...
And I wonder what last in line thinks about the guy from Fox saying, "Regardless of the numbers, it's how you feel..."
Stunned
The news just came over the wire that conservative blogger Andrew Brietbart, whose name I invoked quite a bit in comments, has died. He was only 43 years old. The cause of death is unknown. Apparently he does have some underlying health issues and he suddenly collapsed so hopefully we will know more soon.
My thoughts and prayers are with his family as should all of yours. I am very much going to miss his hyperbolic appearances on Real Time with Bill Maher.
My thoughts and prayers are with his family as should all of yours. I am very much going to miss his hyperbolic appearances on Real Time with Bill Maher.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Snowe Fall
Mark expressed pleasure at the announcement that Olympia Snowe is retiring, but I wish she could stay. And I wish there were more Republicans like her. With the fall of the last Republican moderates, I fear more deadlock in Congress in the near term, but the eventual fall of the Republican Party in the long term.
It's a common trope that both the Republican and Democratic parties are gathered at the extremes of the political spectrum, but it's the Republicans that have all clustered in the deep end of the ideological pool. The truth is, there are almost no liberals in the Democratic Party anymore.
You need look no further than President Obama for an example. Republicans insist he is a radical socialist, but he has compromised on dozens of issues, agreeing to solutions Republicans once embraced wholeheartedly just a few years ago. Including, but not limited to, the health care mandate, which Obama strongly opposed during the 2008 election campaign but agreed to in a compromise with the health care industry.
Democrats generally reflect the political bent of the districts they represent, ranging from right of center (there are dozens of Blue Dog Democrats like Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona until she resigned, and so on), to liberal few (Dennis Kucinich). Even though they don't agree on every little issue, the common thread among Democrats is that they want government to work for the people they represent.
But the vast majority of Republicans in government are now radically conservative no matter where they come from. They have either always been that way, or have been forced to change (like John McCain) or face being "primaried" by the Tea Party and Grover Norquist. Republicans like Snowe and Arlen Specter are being drummed out of the party. The only real exception is Scott Brown, because half a Republican senator from Massachusetts is better than none. (But if he loses, Republican pundits will say it's because he was too liberal and didn't do enough to "differentiate" himself from Warren.)
Republicans constantly carp about "political correctness," but they've got their own ideological enforcers who will viciously destroy any Republican who dares stray from the one true faith of Grover Norquist.
There are dozens of pro-life Democrats in Congress, but almost no pro-choice Republicans. Even though a thoroughly convincing libertarian argument can be made against the government telling you what you can do with your own body. There are hundreds of anti-gun control Democrats, but no pro-gun control Republicans. There are hundreds of Democrats in Congress who agree that we need to do something serious about Social Security and Medicare to avoid a future default, that we need to plan for balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, that we need a strong defense. But there are essentially no Republicans who will admit that real taxes on corporations (not the official rate, which almost no one pays) and the wealthy—especially capital gains taxes—are too low and a combination of budget cuts and selective tax increases are needed to fix our long-term problems.
The dictatorial nature of the Republican Party does not bode well for its long-term survival. Americans actually believe in freedom, and will grow tired of being constantly lectured about it by people who want to take their right to self-determination away, to be told when and with whom they can have sex, when and how they can have kids and who they can marry.
If one good thing comes of the bile and sewage the Republican primary campaigns and their Super PACs spewed over the airwaves, it will be a reversal of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision. Perhaps then Republican candidates can focus on what their constituents want and need, instead of the demands of the cabals at Grover Norquist's Wednesday meetings, corporate board rooms and Fox News.
It's a common trope that both the Republican and Democratic parties are gathered at the extremes of the political spectrum, but it's the Republicans that have all clustered in the deep end of the ideological pool. The truth is, there are almost no liberals in the Democratic Party anymore.
You need look no further than President Obama for an example. Republicans insist he is a radical socialist, but he has compromised on dozens of issues, agreeing to solutions Republicans once embraced wholeheartedly just a few years ago. Including, but not limited to, the health care mandate, which Obama strongly opposed during the 2008 election campaign but agreed to in a compromise with the health care industry.
Democrats generally reflect the political bent of the districts they represent, ranging from right of center (there are dozens of Blue Dog Democrats like Jim Cooper of Tennessee, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona until she resigned, and so on), to liberal few (Dennis Kucinich). Even though they don't agree on every little issue, the common thread among Democrats is that they want government to work for the people they represent.
But the vast majority of Republicans in government are now radically conservative no matter where they come from. They have either always been that way, or have been forced to change (like John McCain) or face being "primaried" by the Tea Party and Grover Norquist. Republicans like Snowe and Arlen Specter are being drummed out of the party. The only real exception is Scott Brown, because half a Republican senator from Massachusetts is better than none. (But if he loses, Republican pundits will say it's because he was too liberal and didn't do enough to "differentiate" himself from Warren.)
Republicans constantly carp about "political correctness," but they've got their own ideological enforcers who will viciously destroy any Republican who dares stray from the one true faith of Grover Norquist.
There are dozens of pro-life Democrats in Congress, but almost no pro-choice Republicans. Even though a thoroughly convincing libertarian argument can be made against the government telling you what you can do with your own body. There are hundreds of anti-gun control Democrats, but no pro-gun control Republicans. There are hundreds of Democrats in Congress who agree that we need to do something serious about Social Security and Medicare to avoid a future default, that we need to plan for balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, that we need a strong defense. But there are essentially no Republicans who will admit that real taxes on corporations (not the official rate, which almost no one pays) and the wealthy—especially capital gains taxes—are too low and a combination of budget cuts and selective tax increases are needed to fix our long-term problems.
The dictatorial nature of the Republican Party does not bode well for its long-term survival. Americans actually believe in freedom, and will grow tired of being constantly lectured about it by people who want to take their right to self-determination away, to be told when and with whom they can have sex, when and how they can have kids and who they can marry.
If one good thing comes of the bile and sewage the Republican primary campaigns and their Super PACs spewed over the airwaves, it will be a reversal of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision. Perhaps then Republican candidates can focus on what their constituents want and need, instead of the demands of the cabals at Grover Norquist's Wednesday meetings, corporate board rooms and Fox News.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Breaking...
Maine Senator Olympia Snowe has announced she is retiring which puts Maine in play now for the Democrats. I'd say there is a very good chance they take that one back. They are certainly going to need every chance they have with the way things are looking in the Senate.
Goodbye Hello!
Well, I had to wait 15 years and, even though it was due to redistricting and not an election, I am FINALLY represented by a Democrat, Keith Ellison. And the 1st Muslim in the US Congress!
Goodbye CD3. You are now more conservative and Erik Paulsen will be your representative for as long as the Democrats continue to nominate people who have never been elected to public office. Hello, CD5, perhaps you may end up being too liberal for me?
Goodbye CD3. You are now more conservative and Erik Paulsen will be your representative for as long as the Democrats continue to nominate people who have never been elected to public office. Hello, CD5, perhaps you may end up being too liberal for me?
The Anti-College Crusade
The other day Rick Santorum said:
Not all folks are gifted in the same way. Some people have incredible gifts with their hands. Some people have incredible gifts and ... want to work out there making things. President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.The fact is, Obama said that he wants everyone to go to a university or two-year community college or vocational school of their choice. In this modern world of computerized cars and highly-automated factory floors that require the people running those machines to have programming skills, you need to know more than just readin', ritin' and 'rithmetic. After the tea-party crowd finished applauding, Santorum continued:
There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his.
Santorum went to Penn State (I wonder if he knew Jerry Sandusky?). He also got an MBA and a law degree. He seems to have escaped his indoctrination by liberal secular state university professors. Santorum also seems to be unafraid of his own children being indoctrinated: his two oldest have started college, though they're taking a break to work on his campaign.
The fact is, on average people with college educations make a lot more money than people who don't. The unemployment rate among the college-educated is half that of the rest of the nation. Their divorce rate and out-of-wedlock birthrate is much lower. They have better health and live longer. People make connections at college that will set them up for life, even if they drop out like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
For a long time now Republicans seem to have been striving to become the party of stupid. Now they have a candidate who's actively denigrating getting a college education. It seems crazy for the party of the rich and soon-to-be rich to advocate against the best track to wealth and influence.
Is Santorum off his rocker? Or has he unwittingly revealed the Republican party's real agenda?
Two camps of Republicans have long been at odds. The first camp is big business and its frontmen, guys like Rick Perry, George Bush and (until recently) John McCain. These businesses have relied on large numbers of illegal aliens to pick tomatoes, clean hotel rooms and butcher chickens. The same group has been relentlessly busting unions, most recently with states like Wisconsin and Indiana gutting the ability of unions to even exist.
The second camp is relatively uneducated lower- to middle-income, blue-collar, union-hating, anti-amnesty Republicans who are afraid that illegal aliens will steal their jobs. Because the only real qualification the aliens lack is the ability to speak English. So they want the aliens out now, though they aren't interested in taking the aliens' jobs because they don't pay enough to live on.
Is the real Republican agenda to encourage the economic descent of the average American so that they will fill the void left by all those deported illegals? To get this to work, Republicans have to make low-wage blue-collar Americans feel smug and superior and that they're somehow more authentic than college-educated politicians (and their multi-millionaire CEO buddies, but let's not mention them). Santorum and Sarah Palin seem to be doing just that.
Or would we be better served by sending more people to college who will study computer science and engineering to fill the hundreds of thousands of current high-tech job vacancies here in the United States? Jobs that are now going to foreigners with college educations. These well-educated Americans could start companies that build machines that pick tomatoes, butcher chickens and clean hotel rooms, eliminating the need for illiterate aliens who can't speak English. Maintaining and programming those machines would create decent-paying jobs for Americans who like to work with their hands. This would also increase the productivity of the American economy and allow us to beat out China, which still relies on prison slave labor and low-wage workers stacked eight to a dorm room.
Will all these Tea Party Republicans still feel proud and smug when it's their kids lopping off their fingers on the meat-packing floors instead of illegal aliens or shiny metal robots?
The fact is, on average people with college educations make a lot more money than people who don't. The unemployment rate among the college-educated is half that of the rest of the nation. Their divorce rate and out-of-wedlock birthrate is much lower. They have better health and live longer. People make connections at college that will set them up for life, even if they drop out like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
For a long time now Republicans seem to have been striving to become the party of stupid. Now they have a candidate who's actively denigrating getting a college education. It seems crazy for the party of the rich and soon-to-be rich to advocate against the best track to wealth and influence.
Is Santorum off his rocker? Or has he unwittingly revealed the Republican party's real agenda?
Two camps of Republicans have long been at odds. The first camp is big business and its frontmen, guys like Rick Perry, George Bush and (until recently) John McCain. These businesses have relied on large numbers of illegal aliens to pick tomatoes, clean hotel rooms and butcher chickens. The same group has been relentlessly busting unions, most recently with states like Wisconsin and Indiana gutting the ability of unions to even exist.
The second camp is relatively uneducated lower- to middle-income, blue-collar, union-hating, anti-amnesty Republicans who are afraid that illegal aliens will steal their jobs. Because the only real qualification the aliens lack is the ability to speak English. So they want the aliens out now, though they aren't interested in taking the aliens' jobs because they don't pay enough to live on.
Is the real Republican agenda to encourage the economic descent of the average American so that they will fill the void left by all those deported illegals? To get this to work, Republicans have to make low-wage blue-collar Americans feel smug and superior and that they're somehow more authentic than college-educated politicians (and their multi-millionaire CEO buddies, but let's not mention them). Santorum and Sarah Palin seem to be doing just that.
Or would we be better served by sending more people to college who will study computer science and engineering to fill the hundreds of thousands of current high-tech job vacancies here in the United States? Jobs that are now going to foreigners with college educations. These well-educated Americans could start companies that build machines that pick tomatoes, butcher chickens and clean hotel rooms, eliminating the need for illiterate aliens who can't speak English. Maintaining and programming those machines would create decent-paying jobs for Americans who like to work with their hands. This would also increase the productivity of the American economy and allow us to beat out China, which still relies on prison slave labor and low-wage workers stacked eight to a dorm room.
Will all these Tea Party Republicans still feel proud and smug when it's their kids lopping off their fingers on the meat-packing floors instead of illegal aliens or shiny metal robots?
Maher on the Bubble
This is the bubble they live in. It's hard to get actual facts into this impermeable membrane. They are running against a fictional president. A president who has slashed defense, who has raised taxes, who goes around the world apologizing to different countries, who coddles terrorists, all of which, of course, never happened. But that's who they think the president is. And it's very, very hard. That's why we have this bubble we built on this show to physically illustrate this.---Bill Maher on "The Bubble."
Monday, February 27, 2012
It's Not Just Fox News
I'd add in the Right Wing Blogsphere as well. In fact, it's really more appropriate for them:)
Interesting....
The Keystone Fight Is Uniting Tea Partiers With Environmentalists.
I knew it was only a matter of time before there was some crossover. It makes sense when you really sit back and think about how one could make a case for the government failing to protect property rights.
I knew it was only a matter of time before there was some crossover. It makes sense when you really sit back and think about how one could make a case for the government failing to protect property rights.
Uh...Huh?
Some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them? Into what exactly? Someone who can think for themselves? Good grief...
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday's Epistle
Social issues have once again come up in the political dialogue and with many states taking up the issue of gay marriage now and in the fall, Lisa Cressman's recent piece in the StarTribune is quite timely. More than that, it's wonderfully welcome in its elegant way of expressing several simple truths. And, coming from an assistant priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Lake Elmo, MN, it carries with it a great deal more weight.
Gay marriage opponents had put up a questionnaire titled ""Six questions for supporters of same-sex marriage to answer" and so, Cressman did. I have decided to reprint her entire response here as it is just that good.
1. Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted?
Our ancestors knew many truths, but not all. A common example of what our ancestors held to be self-evident, biblically sanctioned truth, which we now hold in abhorrence, is slavery. It's appropriate to ask ourselves whether a particular societal tradition is the best way for us to continue.
If the Bible condoned slavery, doesn't that mean that the authors may have not been completely accurate about everything?
2. Don't our sexual organs exist for reproduction?
Reproduction is one of their purposes, but so is intimacy. If our sexual organs existed solely for reproduction, couples would have sex only at the times necessary for procreation. Moreover, if this were the case, physical fulfillment in marriage wouldn't be enjoyed by couples who cannot have children (for medical reasons or by virtue of advanced age) or who choose not to do so.
3. Do we just give in to our sexual desires?
Our sexual desires have been channeled through the worthy tradition that people choose one mate and make a promise of fidelity through marriage. A mutual, joyful and public commitment, permanently held, one to another, is the healthiest way to build stable families and a stable society. This would argue for encouraging members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community likewise to make a commitment of marriage as the appropriate avenue for their sexuality.
4. Adultery, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. So homosexuality?
Adultery is a problem because of the trust shattered when marriage vows are broken. Pedophilia and bestiality are anathema because there cannot be mutual consent -- an adult always holds power over a child or an animal. Homosexual commitment is mutual between consenting adults.
Consenting adults is the key here. You don't have that with children, animals or inanimate objects.
5. Changes in norms require universal acceptance. Prevalent homosexuality will not work.
Many changes in our country have taken place without universal acceptance. Indeed, many laws in our country were designed to protect the very people who do not receive universal acceptance. As to prevalent homosexuality, the long-held estimate is that roughly 10 percent of the population is homosexual. No law has the ability to increase or decrease those numbers.
Civil rights, anyone?
Now the best one...
6. The religious question: Shouldn't we be trying to encourage others to repent of a wrong?
The assumption is that homosexuality is wrong. Assumptions are fair to question, even religious ones. We understand now, in a way our biblical ancestors could not, that medically and psychologically, homosexuals are born, not made. Would a loving God deliberately create someone who is fundamentally a mistake?
This is the very essence of the debate. Gay people don't learn to be gay or give in to their "sinful desires." They are born that way. That's how God made them.
If it's a question about "love the sinner but hate the sin," the way we discern whether something is, in fact, sinful, is to look at its consequences. The consequences that result from committed homosexual relationships are as positive as they are for committed heterosexual relationships: stable, tax-paying, caring-for-one-another-through-thick-and-thin families. These are the kinds of consequences that benefit all of society.
This brings up an issue that I have never understood. If the anti-gay crowd thinks homosexuals are engaging in deviant behavior, why are they against them trying to change that into something much more healthy? Like a marriage?
Personally, I think it's because the anti-gays are (surprise surprise) paranoid that accepting homosexuals will push they themselves over the edge into sin. You know how those folks love to have people all thinking the same way (due to massive insecurity).
Marriage matters to the GLBT among us as much as it does to the rest of us. Surrounded by family and friends, to make a promise to cherish that one other person until parted by death, matters.
This is a big change, surely. I am persuaded, however, that change based on a commitment, a lifelong commitment of mutual joy, will benefit us all.
It's obvious that those benefits are quickly becoming economical:)
Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage
Man, I love the free market!
Gay marriage opponents had put up a questionnaire titled ""Six questions for supporters of same-sex marriage to answer" and so, Cressman did. I have decided to reprint her entire response here as it is just that good.
1. Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted?
Our ancestors knew many truths, but not all. A common example of what our ancestors held to be self-evident, biblically sanctioned truth, which we now hold in abhorrence, is slavery. It's appropriate to ask ourselves whether a particular societal tradition is the best way for us to continue.
If the Bible condoned slavery, doesn't that mean that the authors may have not been completely accurate about everything?
2. Don't our sexual organs exist for reproduction?
Reproduction is one of their purposes, but so is intimacy. If our sexual organs existed solely for reproduction, couples would have sex only at the times necessary for procreation. Moreover, if this were the case, physical fulfillment in marriage wouldn't be enjoyed by couples who cannot have children (for medical reasons or by virtue of advanced age) or who choose not to do so.
3. Do we just give in to our sexual desires?
Our sexual desires have been channeled through the worthy tradition that people choose one mate and make a promise of fidelity through marriage. A mutual, joyful and public commitment, permanently held, one to another, is the healthiest way to build stable families and a stable society. This would argue for encouraging members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community likewise to make a commitment of marriage as the appropriate avenue for their sexuality.
4. Adultery, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. So homosexuality?
Adultery is a problem because of the trust shattered when marriage vows are broken. Pedophilia and bestiality are anathema because there cannot be mutual consent -- an adult always holds power over a child or an animal. Homosexual commitment is mutual between consenting adults.
Consenting adults is the key here. You don't have that with children, animals or inanimate objects.
5. Changes in norms require universal acceptance. Prevalent homosexuality will not work.
Many changes in our country have taken place without universal acceptance. Indeed, many laws in our country were designed to protect the very people who do not receive universal acceptance. As to prevalent homosexuality, the long-held estimate is that roughly 10 percent of the population is homosexual. No law has the ability to increase or decrease those numbers.
Civil rights, anyone?
Now the best one...
6. The religious question: Shouldn't we be trying to encourage others to repent of a wrong?
The assumption is that homosexuality is wrong. Assumptions are fair to question, even religious ones. We understand now, in a way our biblical ancestors could not, that medically and psychologically, homosexuals are born, not made. Would a loving God deliberately create someone who is fundamentally a mistake?
This is the very essence of the debate. Gay people don't learn to be gay or give in to their "sinful desires." They are born that way. That's how God made them.
If it's a question about "love the sinner but hate the sin," the way we discern whether something is, in fact, sinful, is to look at its consequences. The consequences that result from committed homosexual relationships are as positive as they are for committed heterosexual relationships: stable, tax-paying, caring-for-one-another-through-thick-and-thin families. These are the kinds of consequences that benefit all of society.
This brings up an issue that I have never understood. If the anti-gay crowd thinks homosexuals are engaging in deviant behavior, why are they against them trying to change that into something much more healthy? Like a marriage?
Personally, I think it's because the anti-gays are (surprise surprise) paranoid that accepting homosexuals will push they themselves over the edge into sin. You know how those folks love to have people all thinking the same way (due to massive insecurity).
Marriage matters to the GLBT among us as much as it does to the rest of us. Surrounded by family and friends, to make a promise to cherish that one other person until parted by death, matters.
This is a big change, surely. I am persuaded, however, that change based on a commitment, a lifelong commitment of mutual joy, will benefit us all.
It's obvious that those benefits are quickly becoming economical:)
Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage
Man, I love the free market!
Saturday, February 25, 2012
If You Are Really Concerned About The Debt and The Deficit...
...then the person you should be supporting is Ron Paul. After that, it's Barack Obama.
A recent report by the non partisan U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, showed that Mr. Paul's plan would only add less than 500 billion dollars to the deficit by the end of 2016. President Obama would add just a little more than that with 649 billion.
Yet, Mitt Romney would add 700-800 billion dollars to the deficit with 2.6 trillion added to the debt by 2012. Rick Santorum would add over 1 trillion dollars to the deficit by the end of 2016 with the debt rising to 4.5 trillion dollars by 2021. The worst offender, Newt Gingrich, would add 1.5 trillion to the deficit with a whopping 7 trillion dollars added to the debt by 2021.
So, why so much under the plans of the GOP hopefuls? Tax cuts. Well, they worked so well before...
Now that I think about it, they did work. The tax cuts have enabled the right to blame President Obama for all our economic problems.
A recent report by the non partisan U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, showed that Mr. Paul's plan would only add less than 500 billion dollars to the deficit by the end of 2016. President Obama would add just a little more than that with 649 billion.
Yet, Mitt Romney would add 700-800 billion dollars to the deficit with 2.6 trillion added to the debt by 2012. Rick Santorum would add over 1 trillion dollars to the deficit by the end of 2016 with the debt rising to 4.5 trillion dollars by 2021. The worst offender, Newt Gingrich, would add 1.5 trillion to the deficit with a whopping 7 trillion dollars added to the debt by 2021.
So, why so much under the plans of the GOP hopefuls? Tax cuts. Well, they worked so well before...
Now that I think about it, they did work. The tax cuts have enabled the right to blame President Obama for all our economic problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)