Speaker of the House John Boehner has refused to bring a bill to the House floor to put to bed the ridiculous fiscal cliff mess. A bill that the President could have signed has not been put up for a vote. Boehner's own bill, the so-called "Plan B" bill, would have left tax rates where they are for people making less than $1 million, but Boehner was unable to get a "majority of the majority" to vote for it, so it never came to the floor. In other words, Boehner won't have the House vote on a bill unless he has a majority of Republicans willing to vote for it.
The bill would have passed, however, had it been put up for a vote, because it would have had the support of enough Democrats to put it over the top. More work would have had to be done, of course, as Democrats want a threshold of something along the lines of $250,000-$400,000... but a million would have been a good start. As a result of not even bringing the bill up for a vote, all Americans will have their taxes go up on January 1, the unemployed will be hurt, and there are a number of other things that may plunge the economy back into recession right when it's starting to recover. Christmas sales have already been lower than expected, and the possible plunge off the fiscal cliff is why.
This all because Boehner is more concerned about his career than about what could happen on January 1. See, he's up for a vote to continue as Speaker on January 3. Until then, he most likely won't do anything to avoid the fiscal cliff unless he gets political pressure to do so.
Yep, this is all about one man's career. If your paycheck is lower in January, this is why. Speaker Boehner needs to realize one important thing -- this is not about him and his career. This is about what's best for the continued recovery of the American economy.
By the way, Boehner, last time I looked you were Speaker of the entire House, not just the Republican side. You might want to remember that.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
A Moment of Silence for Common Sense
The head of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, finally broke the group's silence today one week after the horrible shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. After earlier stating that the NRA would join in a constructive debate about gun control, he instead doubled down and proposed the stupidest, most nonsensical, idiotic idea about how to protect citizens of any age from being a victim in a mass shooting that he could possibly have come up with.
Mr. LaPierre actually suggested that the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." He actually said that. Here's his proposition: that every school in America hire an armed guard. No kidding. There's so much wrong with this moronic idea I don't hardly know how to begin. But let's just, for the sake of argument, think about what would have happened had there been an armed guard with a Glock or something in Sandy Hook Elementary. The shooter, Adam Lanza, would have just laughed before he shot and killed him. "I'll meet that Glock and raise you a Sig Sauer and a Bushmaster assault rifle, dude!" Yeah, that would be a great plan. Not to mention, where would the money be found to hire such guards, and who would be crazy (or suicidal) enough to take the job? What if the shooter has a bulletproof vest, making the guard's gun about as worthless as a marshmallow on a stick?
I don't happen to believe that children's lives are worth more than adults', but it does seem so much more sad that so many first-graders were killed in such a horrific way. But Mr. LaPierre, whose elevator apparently doesn't go all the way to the top, forgets one thing... children don't just go to school. They go to McDonald's, Chuck E. Cheese, the mall, the grocery store, the hair salon.... does Mr. LaPierre think every business in America should hire these armed guards? Does he really want to turn America into an armed camp? And who's to say that the people packing these guns know what they're doing or that they won't flip and do the same thing Adam Lanza did?
The deaths of these children and the adult teachers and administrators who died with them should lead us to some sane laws, starting with an assault weapons ban. If the assault weapons ban had still been in place and Nancy Lanza had been unable to legally buy that assault rifle, some of those people would be alive today. The coroner's report showed that all the children who died had been shot more than once.
I'm not completely against having a gun in your home for protection, and I wouldn't want a ban on hunting rifles either although I think killing animals and calling it "fun" and a "sport" is frankly sick. But we can make some common sense changes, such as banning the sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, requiring a criminal background check for every weapon sale, and closing the gun show loophole.
There was a survey recently that said 70+% of NRA members wanted at least some of these changes. If they really feel this way, what they need to do is dump their NRA membership immediately. Don't give this organization, now run by people who are just, to use a technical term, fruitcakes, one more red cent. It's time for the NRA to become completely and totally irrelevant in America.
If your Congressman or Senator continues to follow the NRA's orders, you should vote him or her out of office as soon as possible or recall them immediately. We need to make sure our representatives make decisions about laws that make common sense, and not blindly follow an organization who has not only outlived its usefulness, but is led by extremists who can't even see what's so blindingly obvious to the rest of us.
Mr. LaPierre actually suggested that the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." He actually said that. Here's his proposition: that every school in America hire an armed guard. No kidding. There's so much wrong with this moronic idea I don't hardly know how to begin. But let's just, for the sake of argument, think about what would have happened had there been an armed guard with a Glock or something in Sandy Hook Elementary. The shooter, Adam Lanza, would have just laughed before he shot and killed him. "I'll meet that Glock and raise you a Sig Sauer and a Bushmaster assault rifle, dude!" Yeah, that would be a great plan. Not to mention, where would the money be found to hire such guards, and who would be crazy (or suicidal) enough to take the job? What if the shooter has a bulletproof vest, making the guard's gun about as worthless as a marshmallow on a stick?
I don't happen to believe that children's lives are worth more than adults', but it does seem so much more sad that so many first-graders were killed in such a horrific way. But Mr. LaPierre, whose elevator apparently doesn't go all the way to the top, forgets one thing... children don't just go to school. They go to McDonald's, Chuck E. Cheese, the mall, the grocery store, the hair salon.... does Mr. LaPierre think every business in America should hire these armed guards? Does he really want to turn America into an armed camp? And who's to say that the people packing these guns know what they're doing or that they won't flip and do the same thing Adam Lanza did?
The deaths of these children and the adult teachers and administrators who died with them should lead us to some sane laws, starting with an assault weapons ban. If the assault weapons ban had still been in place and Nancy Lanza had been unable to legally buy that assault rifle, some of those people would be alive today. The coroner's report showed that all the children who died had been shot more than once.
I'm not completely against having a gun in your home for protection, and I wouldn't want a ban on hunting rifles either although I think killing animals and calling it "fun" and a "sport" is frankly sick. But we can make some common sense changes, such as banning the sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, requiring a criminal background check for every weapon sale, and closing the gun show loophole.
There was a survey recently that said 70+% of NRA members wanted at least some of these changes. If they really feel this way, what they need to do is dump their NRA membership immediately. Don't give this organization, now run by people who are just, to use a technical term, fruitcakes, one more red cent. It's time for the NRA to become completely and totally irrelevant in America.
If your Congressman or Senator continues to follow the NRA's orders, you should vote him or her out of office as soon as possible or recall them immediately. We need to make sure our representatives make decisions about laws that make common sense, and not blindly follow an organization who has not only outlived its usefulness, but is led by extremists who can't even see what's so blindingly obvious to the rest of us.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Hybrid Cars vs Non-Hybrid Cars - What Some Are Missing
When I hear people talk about hybrid cars vs. a "regular" car, quite frequently the major topic is naturally mpg. After all, that's the major reason why a lot of people want to buy a hybrid. There is a premium on hybrid cars, and they want to recoup that money over the lifetime of the vehicle. That's very understandable in this age of $3.25/gallon gas prices. But if your only comparison of whether or not you should buy a hybrid lies in the EPA mpg estimates, or even the cost of one versus the other, you're missing something pretty important, because guess what... if you could find a non-hybrid car that got the same mpg as a hybrid, you'd still be putting more pollutants into the air.
While hybrid cars are largely about how little gas you can buy, they're also about how little poisonous gases we output from our vehicles. If you think climate change isn't real, and that it isn't caused by all the bad stuff we humans put into our environment, then you can stop reading now because you won't get it. But if you believe, as the vast majority of the scientific community does, that climate change is an enormous threat to our health, our way of life, our food supply and our weather patterns, then read on.
Climate change isn't the only thing being affected by our air quality. I live in a city that has regular ozone warnings in the heat of the summer, and I am one of those people in the sensitive groups. Childhood asthma and other pollution-related diseases have exploded in recent years, I believe in large part due to air pollution. The numbers don't lie. You can read the statistics on the CDC website here.
So back to hybrids vs. non-hybrid cars. While it's certainly laudable for someone to buy a fuel-efficient non-hybrid vehicle, and it's definitely preferable to driving a gas hog, there's a myth out there that if you could find a regular car that gets the same mileage as a hybrid, there's an equal cost to the environment. Unfortunately, that's just not true.
There are several websites out there with calculators for determining the pollutants coming out of your tailpipe. I like the one on HybridCars.com here, because you can compare two cars side-by-side. Their calculator is what I will use for the below example.
Let's take a Chevrolet Cruze and compare it to a Toyota Prius. Not a fair fight, you say, as the Cruze is rated at 28 mpg and the Prius at 50. But I'll adjust for that in a second, hang in there. I chose the 1.4L (smaller) engine for the Cruze in this example. The Prius has a bigger 2.0L 4 cylinder. I then put in 10,000 miles driven every year, and $3.25 for the price of gas. As expected, the Cruze cost quite a bit more in annual gasoline expenses, but how about pollutants? Let's assume Chevrolet had found a way to make the Cruze some kind of non-hybrid wondercar and it was now rated at the same 50 mpg as the Prius. Currently it has 56% of the Prius' mpg rating (28 / 50 = 56%). So let's look at adjusting the Cruze's pollution output by this factor.
The carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) emissions of the Cruze for the year would be 6,729 lbs. vs. the Prius' 3,830. 3,830 / 6,729 = 56.9%, or roughly the same percentage as the mpg between the two. But how about other pollutants? Aha! Here's where the big differences lie. Carbon monoxide output for the Cruze is 37 lbs. vs. 14 for the Prius. 14 /37 is 37.8%, in other words, the Prius has 37.8% of the carbon monoxide output of the Cruze, which you will remember, gets 56% of the Prius' mpg rating. Nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons are reduced as well. The Cruze clearly would produce more carbon monoxide than the Toyota even if Chevy waved a magic wand to get it to 50 mpg. One of the reasons for this is that the hybrids will shut down their gasoline engines at stoplights and most will cruise on the electric motor until reaching a certain speed.
While hybrid cars are largely about how little gas you can buy, they're also about how little poisonous gases we output from our vehicles. If you think climate change isn't real, and that it isn't caused by all the bad stuff we humans put into our environment, then you can stop reading now because you won't get it. But if you believe, as the vast majority of the scientific community does, that climate change is an enormous threat to our health, our way of life, our food supply and our weather patterns, then read on.
Climate change isn't the only thing being affected by our air quality. I live in a city that has regular ozone warnings in the heat of the summer, and I am one of those people in the sensitive groups. Childhood asthma and other pollution-related diseases have exploded in recent years, I believe in large part due to air pollution. The numbers don't lie. You can read the statistics on the CDC website here.
So back to hybrids vs. non-hybrid cars. While it's certainly laudable for someone to buy a fuel-efficient non-hybrid vehicle, and it's definitely preferable to driving a gas hog, there's a myth out there that if you could find a regular car that gets the same mileage as a hybrid, there's an equal cost to the environment. Unfortunately, that's just not true.
There are several websites out there with calculators for determining the pollutants coming out of your tailpipe. I like the one on HybridCars.com here, because you can compare two cars side-by-side. Their calculator is what I will use for the below example.
Let's take a Chevrolet Cruze and compare it to a Toyota Prius. Not a fair fight, you say, as the Cruze is rated at 28 mpg and the Prius at 50. But I'll adjust for that in a second, hang in there. I chose the 1.4L (smaller) engine for the Cruze in this example. The Prius has a bigger 2.0L 4 cylinder. I then put in 10,000 miles driven every year, and $3.25 for the price of gas. As expected, the Cruze cost quite a bit more in annual gasoline expenses, but how about pollutants? Let's assume Chevrolet had found a way to make the Cruze some kind of non-hybrid wondercar and it was now rated at the same 50 mpg as the Prius. Currently it has 56% of the Prius' mpg rating (28 / 50 = 56%). So let's look at adjusting the Cruze's pollution output by this factor.
The carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) emissions of the Cruze for the year would be 6,729 lbs. vs. the Prius' 3,830. 3,830 / 6,729 = 56.9%, or roughly the same percentage as the mpg between the two. But how about other pollutants? Aha! Here's where the big differences lie. Carbon monoxide output for the Cruze is 37 lbs. vs. 14 for the Prius. 14 /37 is 37.8%, in other words, the Prius has 37.8% of the carbon monoxide output of the Cruze, which you will remember, gets 56% of the Prius' mpg rating. Nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons are reduced as well. The Cruze clearly would produce more carbon monoxide than the Toyota even if Chevy waved a magic wand to get it to 50 mpg. One of the reasons for this is that the hybrids will shut down their gasoline engines at stoplights and most will cruise on the electric motor until reaching a certain speed.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
How Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly Killed the Republican Party
I can still hear the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over on the right since President Obama won re-election and the Senate stayed in Democratic hands. The Republican Party is battered, bruised and trying to figure out just what the hell happened, when Fox News was telling them all along that Mitt Romney (who was himself so assured of his victory that he didn't write a concession speech) would be the President-Elect.
But they shouldn't have been surprised. See my previous post about all the groups they managed to piss off in just one election. Now they're wondering... should we move back to the middle? How are we going to ever win a national election again? Yes, they still have control of the House -- where they lost seats -- but only because of the gerrymandering that happened after the 2010 elections. When it's the Democrats turn to reapportion those districts, watch out.
The Republicans are blaming everyone and everything from Karl Rove to Mitt himself to Hurricane Sandy for their losses. And granted, Mitt was a horrible candidate, Karl Rove still thinks you can buy votes and Mitt's campaign staff looked like amateurs. But there are others to blame here that the Republicans haven't even thought of.
They should look no further than Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly (and indeed the entire Fox News team), Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Glenn Beck and the other right-wing media crazies for this loss.
The Republican Party has gone so far right in large part because of their media cohorts that it has now ceased to have any effectiveness as a national party.
When Jon Huntsman, who was a very conservative former Republican governor, entered the Republican primaries I thought Obama's goose might be cooked. Apparently, so did the Obama folks according to recent reports. But Huntsman didn't make it very far into the primaries. Why? Because he asserted that he believed in the science behind global warming and evolution. OMG! A Republican who believes in science? Who worked for President Obama as his Ambassador to China? Clearly not a good candidate for the Republican Party! And so down Jon Huntsman went, while the likes of Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, and disgraced former Speaker of the House Gingrich all had turns at being at the top of the primary polls, all lauded by the right-wing media.
I knew that in my lifetime demographics would overtake the GOP, making it impossible for them to cling to their extreme right-wing views and win national elections, I just didn't think it would happen so soon. If -- actually, I should say WHEN -- Texas with its 38 electoral college votes turns blue, the Republican Party will have one hell of a hard time ever seeing the inside of the White House again.
Which led to some hand-wringing by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, who lamented that the "white establishment is now the minority" and that people who wanted "things" voted for Obama. Any Democrat who said something so blatantly racist would have been shoved off the air, but not O'Reilly. (By the way, as Jon Stewart pointed out, anyone named O'Reilly is clearly not a "native" American. His ancestors were also immigrants at some point, something O'Reilly conveniently forgets.) Does the Republican Party think it's a good idea to have someone with the ratings that O'Reilly gets out there spouting off with racist, sexist crap like this? How is this going to help them win elections? See O'Reilly's election night rant here:
Let's take Rush Limbaugh. Rush apparently thinks insurance companies shouldn't cover women's birth control -- although he doesn't seem to have an issue with them covering vasectomies or Viagra. He calls women "Feminazis" as if comparing us to the horrors that Adolph Hitler inflicted on Jews in WWII is going to endear us to him. He calls a Georgetown law student who had the guts to stand up for her rights and the rights of others a "slut." He calls President Obama "Santa Claus" because he's pushing this ridiculous idea on the right that Obama won by promising "gifts" to people of color. Sam Seder has it right in the video below:
So, is Limbaugh helping the Republican party appeal to a larger audience? I don't hardly think so. Note to Rush: women aren't as stupid as you think, and we don't forget.
On the day that Hurricane Sandy hit, CNN and MSNBC had wall-to-wall coverage of the devastation. Fox News barely covered it. A major hurricane hits several states, millions without power, whole swaths of the country destroyed, people dead, and what was Fox News covering that day? Their manufactured conspiracy theory that President Obama had orchestrated a cover-up in the Benghazi attack.
Seriously.
Maybe I shouldn't point this stuff out, because if they keep going like this the GOP will never be a national party again. But hey, I'd like to beat them fair and square, even though "fair and square" doesn't really seem to be in their vocabulary (just think about the voter ID laws they've passed in an effort to disenfranchise minority voters). It would be more fun to have a better fight, though.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Here's Why Mitt Romney Lost
Poor Ann Coulter. I hear the wacko right-winger is just devastated that Mitt Romney lost the election (despite the fact that she said if Chris Christie didn't get the nomination Romney would be nominated and he would lose). Well, Ann, guess what - the biggest surprise isn't that Romney lost; it's that he came as close as he did (if Obama wins Florida as expected, he will have 332 electoral college votes to Romney's 206). Clueless Republicans the country over are wondering what they should pretend they believe in order to get their guy elected President next time. They just don't understand what happened... so they don't have to go out and buy a clue, I will give them the lowdown. Here are just the major groups of voters Romney and Ryan managed to piss off this election cycle, and why:
Women - Over half the country is women, and here's what Romney and Ryan said to them: we're coming after your birth control, little ladies. Not only are we going to overturn Roe v. Wade if we get in office and put more righties on the Supreme Court, but us white Republican guys (some of whom showed a shocking lack of knowledge of how your bodies work), are going to make the decisions for you about how and when you can get pregnant, and what should happen after you do, because we don't think you can make these decisions for yourselves. You know what we said about small government? Well, it doesn't apply here. We want to make the decisions for you about every possible aspect of your reproductive health. That includes de-funding Planned Parenthood.
Equal pay for equal work? We Republicans shot that down before, and we will again. Don't worry your pretty heads about it, since you all should have husbands to take care of you anyway. It's cute that some of you want to work outside the home (where you really belong), but if I need a woman for a job I'll have one of my people put together a binder of possibilities just to look good.
Don't you want to be taken back to the 1950's? Just hop in that time machine over there, little lady, we'll give you a ride.
Veterans and the military - Obama has done more for veterans and the military than just about any president I could name. He has ended one war Bush started under false pretenses and killed Bin Laden (remember Bush famously said he just didn't care about him). Obama expanded the post-9/11 G.I. Bill to help returning vets get a college education. He gave tax credits to businesses who hired vets and disabled troops, and came up with a plan for a Veterans Job Corps.
Women - Over half the country is women, and here's what Romney and Ryan said to them: we're coming after your birth control, little ladies. Not only are we going to overturn Roe v. Wade if we get in office and put more righties on the Supreme Court, but us white Republican guys (some of whom showed a shocking lack of knowledge of how your bodies work), are going to make the decisions for you about how and when you can get pregnant, and what should happen after you do, because we don't think you can make these decisions for yourselves. You know what we said about small government? Well, it doesn't apply here. We want to make the decisions for you about every possible aspect of your reproductive health. That includes de-funding Planned Parenthood.
Equal pay for equal work? We Republicans shot that down before, and we will again. Don't worry your pretty heads about it, since you all should have husbands to take care of you anyway. It's cute that some of you want to work outside the home (where you really belong), but if I need a woman for a job I'll have one of my people put together a binder of possibilities just to look good.
Don't you want to be taken back to the 1950's? Just hop in that time machine over there, little lady, we'll give you a ride.
Veterans and the military - Obama has done more for veterans and the military than just about any president I could name. He has ended one war Bush started under false pretenses and killed Bin Laden (remember Bush famously said he just didn't care about him). Obama expanded the post-9/11 G.I. Bill to help returning vets get a college education. He gave tax credits to businesses who hired vets and disabled troops, and came up with a plan for a Veterans Job Corps.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Paul Ryan's #1 Priority
We now know what Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan considers to be the single most important issue of this campaign. One might think it would be, oh, maybe jobs. How about something else of importance, like getting the troops out of Afghanistan safely, or global warming's threat to change the entire planet, the ability to grow crops, i.e., food. How about that?
One might think it would be something of importance like that, but no, what Paul Ryan vows will be gone "on day 1" is... the contraception mandate included in the Affordable Care Act. Speaking to an audience at the University of Central Florida, Ryan "guaranteed" that the provision of the Act, which requires insurance companies to include coverage for contraception in their plans, would be gone.
So let's get this straight. Paul Ryan, a Catholic, has decided that women of any religion (or no religion at all), whether they work for a Catholic institution and/or are Catholic themselves, should not have birth control (which can run upwards of $100 or more a month), covered by their insurance plan. Why? Because the Pope says birth control is a sin, even though the Bible says no such thing. So this means if you work for a Catholic institution you have to abide by the Pope's rules, if you're a Baptist, a Methodist, or an atheist. So much for respecting other people's beliefs.
Insurance companies are more than happy to cover birth control in their plans, because covering that cost is much cheaper than covering a pregnancy. The New York Times spells it all out here.
I notice that no male Republican has had anything to say about having insurance companies stop covering vasectomies or Viagra, either. This is all about their effort to subjugate women by controlling what happens to their bodies.
So, Paul Ryan, if you're so concerned about what birth control women are using, it's only fair that you let us in on what you and your wife are doing to prevent pregnancy. She hasn't had a baby a year, Duggar-style, so how about you let us know what birth control you're using, hmmmm? How often are you having sex? Are you using the rhythm method? Or are you only interested once every couple of years or so? Why don't you let us in on this information if you're so concerned about what's happening in our bedrooms that you think it's important for you to take control of it on Day 1, at the expense of everything else that's going on in the country?
The Republicans' attempts to legislate their extreme religious views and continue their assault on women's rights has got to stop. We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a democracy where a woman's right to choose what happens to her body is guaranteed by the Constitution. Period. The best way to get this across to these Cretins is to vote them out of office, and never allow them back in.
One might think it would be something of importance like that, but no, what Paul Ryan vows will be gone "on day 1" is... the contraception mandate included in the Affordable Care Act. Speaking to an audience at the University of Central Florida, Ryan "guaranteed" that the provision of the Act, which requires insurance companies to include coverage for contraception in their plans, would be gone.
So let's get this straight. Paul Ryan, a Catholic, has decided that women of any religion (or no religion at all), whether they work for a Catholic institution and/or are Catholic themselves, should not have birth control (which can run upwards of $100 or more a month), covered by their insurance plan. Why? Because the Pope says birth control is a sin, even though the Bible says no such thing. So this means if you work for a Catholic institution you have to abide by the Pope's rules, if you're a Baptist, a Methodist, or an atheist. So much for respecting other people's beliefs.
Insurance companies are more than happy to cover birth control in their plans, because covering that cost is much cheaper than covering a pregnancy. The New York Times spells it all out here.
I notice that no male Republican has had anything to say about having insurance companies stop covering vasectomies or Viagra, either. This is all about their effort to subjugate women by controlling what happens to their bodies.
So, Paul Ryan, if you're so concerned about what birth control women are using, it's only fair that you let us in on what you and your wife are doing to prevent pregnancy. She hasn't had a baby a year, Duggar-style, so how about you let us know what birth control you're using, hmmmm? How often are you having sex? Are you using the rhythm method? Or are you only interested once every couple of years or so? Why don't you let us in on this information if you're so concerned about what's happening in our bedrooms that you think it's important for you to take control of it on Day 1, at the expense of everything else that's going on in the country?
The Republicans' attempts to legislate their extreme religious views and continue their assault on women's rights has got to stop. We do not live in a theocracy. We live in a democracy where a woman's right to choose what happens to her body is guaranteed by the Constitution. Period. The best way to get this across to these Cretins is to vote them out of office, and never allow them back in.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Todd Akin Isn't the First Republican to Be Ignorant of Basic Biology
So in Missouri the Republicans have a nominee for the Senate named Todd Akin, currently a Congressman. Rep. Akin is running for Senate, trying to take the seat of Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, a seat that was looking like the Republicans were going to get, and with it the very real possibility of the Senate tipping into Republican control.
That just became a whole lot harder, thanks to Akin's asinine comment when asked whether he would still oppose abortion in rape cases. His response was:
But Akin is by far not the first Republican to make some idiotic/incredibly offensive remark about rape. How about these zingers:
One has to ask -- are these Republicans really that ignorant? Did their parents make them skip health class? Or is this a case of a few morons whose anti-abortion views are so extreme that they can't fathom that a woman could get pregnant after being raped? And what does Clayton Williams not understand about the terrifying, invasive crime that is rape that he thinks women should "relax and enjoy it"??
Rep. Akin's comments about rape and conception are a very inconvenient truth for Rep. Paul Ryan, the newly-minted GOP veep nominee. Mitt Romney's campaign came out with a statement saying a Romney/Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in the case of rape (although I believe Romney said otherwise before -- oops, yet another flip-flop). This counters what Ryan believes, and that is that abortion should only be allowed in cases where the mother's life is in danger. He is in favor of a "personhood" amendment, which would make a fertilized egg a "person" in the eyes of the law. Rep. Ryan is all into facts and figures, since he loves budgeting so much, so in this case I will share with him the formula for making a baby, since he doesn't really seem to understand the process:
Now, if you only have the first two ingredients, guess what - there's no baby! You can put a sperm and an egg together in a petri dish and leave them there for nine months or nine years, and you still ain't gonna get no baby! If there's no implantation in the womb, there's no baby! Period. Sheesh, I wish they would learn that simple fact.
But then, with comments like the ones above, I despair of them ever having the intelligence to figure it out.
That just became a whole lot harder, thanks to Akin's asinine comment when asked whether he would still oppose abortion in rape cases. His response was:
"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said of pregnancy resulting from rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."
But Akin is by far not the first Republican to make some idiotic/incredibly offensive remark about rape. How about these zingers:
North Carolina state lawmaker Henry Aldridge: "The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work, and they don't pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."
Federal Judge James Leon Holmes (appointed by G.W. Bush): "Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."
Pennsylvania Republican Steven Freind insisted that women who are being raped "secrete a certain secretion" that kills the sperm of a rapist.
Clayton Williams, former GOP nominee for governor of Texas on the subject of rape: "It's like the weather. If it's inevitable, relax and enjoy it."
One has to ask -- are these Republicans really that ignorant? Did their parents make them skip health class? Or is this a case of a few morons whose anti-abortion views are so extreme that they can't fathom that a woman could get pregnant after being raped? And what does Clayton Williams not understand about the terrifying, invasive crime that is rape that he thinks women should "relax and enjoy it"??
Rep. Akin's comments about rape and conception are a very inconvenient truth for Rep. Paul Ryan, the newly-minted GOP veep nominee. Mitt Romney's campaign came out with a statement saying a Romney/Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in the case of rape (although I believe Romney said otherwise before -- oops, yet another flip-flop). This counters what Ryan believes, and that is that abortion should only be allowed in cases where the mother's life is in danger. He is in favor of a "personhood" amendment, which would make a fertilized egg a "person" in the eyes of the law. Rep. Ryan is all into facts and figures, since he loves budgeting so much, so in this case I will share with him the formula for making a baby, since he doesn't really seem to understand the process:
Egg from mother +
1 lucky-ass sperm from father +
implantation into womb of said Mother +
many weeks of gestation =
BABY
Now, if you only have the first two ingredients, guess what - there's no baby! You can put a sperm and an egg together in a petri dish and leave them there for nine months or nine years, and you still ain't gonna get no baby! If there's no implantation in the womb, there's no baby! Period. Sheesh, I wish they would learn that simple fact.
But then, with comments like the ones above, I despair of them ever having the intelligence to figure it out.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Paul Ryan Can't Explain Mitt Romney's Plan
OK, first, I HAVE to do this -- sorry, it's just too funny:
Oh, oh! So they haven't "run the numbers" on Romney's plan? WHAAATT??? You just can't make this sh*t up. Seriously. They haven't "run the numbers." So neither he nor Romney has a clue what Romney's budget would cost or what it would do to the economy.
Now, Ryan already has his own budget, which has been run through the House a couple of times, so he knows it backwards and forwards. What did he say about it? That it wouldn't balance until the 2030's. Actually, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it would take until at least the 2050's. The problem is it's hard to tell exactly what it would do, since it calls for huge tax cuts for the wealthy (Romney himself would pay almost nothing) and large corporations, but pays for it by taking money out of everything from Medicare to education to food stamps to transportation to PBS and Big Bird.
The Ryan plan would like people to choose independent insurance companies instead of Medicare. Why? Because large insurers donate a lot of money to Republicans. The Ryan plan would like to spend more for defense even though we don't need it. Why? Because large defense contractors donate a lot of money to Republicans. The Ryan plan wants to cut taxes for large corporations -- guess why. Ryan thinks renewable energy is a "fad," and wants to cut out all loans to green energy companies in favor of expanding natural gas and oil drilling. Why? Well, oil companies aren't sending a lot of big checks to Democrats. In short, it's corruption, pure and simple. Being bought by the very people who keep you in office, and to hell with what happens to the environment, the middle class and especially the poor. There is no better argument for public funding of political campaigns than that.
And by the way, his wife is a lawyer and former corporate lobbyist. Ryan is worth millions because he married money, so naturally he will do whatever he can to benefit those like himself.
Paul Ryan believes wholeheartedly in the Ayn Rand philosophy of economics, which essentially says that the wealthy are to be pampered while the middle class and the poor should be left to fend for themselves. According to her, it's not up to the government to help anyone other than the wealthy. (People do tend to forget that Social Security, Medicare and unemployment payouts are paid for with taxes taken out of your paychecks.) It used to be that Republicans were more surreptitious about their elitism, but now they've become very bald-faced about their "let 'em eat cake" philosophy. And why not? People still vote for them, even though they're voting against their own best interests. Should Romney and Ryan win this election, the people who voted for them will get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to live with it, too.
I know I shouldn't, but....
Now to the budget. Paul Ryan went on Republican Party propaganda network Fox News and sat down for an interview with Brit Hume to talk -- what else -- budget (because let's face it, Ryan knows jack about anything else, like foreign policy). You would think he would have had an easy time. But I have to hand it to Hume, he didn't just throw softballs at the new VP nominee. He did try to get some actual answers out of him. Trouble is, Ryan couldn't answer anything concerning the budget of the man who chose him for his veep slot.
Hume: "The budget plan you're now supporting would get to balance when?"
Ryan: "Well, there are different -- the budget plan that Mitt Romney is supporting gets us down to 20% of GDP (gross domestic product) government spending by 2016. That means get the size of government back to where it historically has been. What President Obama has done is he brought the size of government to as high as it hasn't been since World War II. We want to reduce the size of government to have more economic freedom."
Hume: "I get that. What about balance?"
Ryan: "I don't know exactly what the balance is. I don't want to get wonky on you, but we haven't run the numbers on that specific plan. The plan we offer in the House balances the budget. I'd put a contrast. President Obama, never once, ever, has offered a plan to ever balance the budget. The United States Senate, they haven't even balanced, they haven't passed a budget in three years."
Hume: "I understand that. But your own budget, that you --
Ryan: "You are talking about the House budget?"
Hume: "I'm talking about the House budget. Your budget will be a political issue in this campaign."
Ryan: "The House budget doesn't balance until the 2030s under the current measurement of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) baseline."
Oh, oh! So they haven't "run the numbers" on Romney's plan? WHAAATT??? You just can't make this sh*t up. Seriously. They haven't "run the numbers." So neither he nor Romney has a clue what Romney's budget would cost or what it would do to the economy.
Now, Ryan already has his own budget, which has been run through the House a couple of times, so he knows it backwards and forwards. What did he say about it? That it wouldn't balance until the 2030's. Actually, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it would take until at least the 2050's. The problem is it's hard to tell exactly what it would do, since it calls for huge tax cuts for the wealthy (Romney himself would pay almost nothing) and large corporations, but pays for it by taking money out of everything from Medicare to education to food stamps to transportation to PBS and Big Bird.
The Ryan plan would like people to choose independent insurance companies instead of Medicare. Why? Because large insurers donate a lot of money to Republicans. The Ryan plan would like to spend more for defense even though we don't need it. Why? Because large defense contractors donate a lot of money to Republicans. The Ryan plan wants to cut taxes for large corporations -- guess why. Ryan thinks renewable energy is a "fad," and wants to cut out all loans to green energy companies in favor of expanding natural gas and oil drilling. Why? Well, oil companies aren't sending a lot of big checks to Democrats. In short, it's corruption, pure and simple. Being bought by the very people who keep you in office, and to hell with what happens to the environment, the middle class and especially the poor. There is no better argument for public funding of political campaigns than that.
And by the way, his wife is a lawyer and former corporate lobbyist. Ryan is worth millions because he married money, so naturally he will do whatever he can to benefit those like himself.
Paul Ryan believes wholeheartedly in the Ayn Rand philosophy of economics, which essentially says that the wealthy are to be pampered while the middle class and the poor should be left to fend for themselves. According to her, it's not up to the government to help anyone other than the wealthy. (People do tend to forget that Social Security, Medicare and unemployment payouts are paid for with taxes taken out of your paychecks.) It used to be that Republicans were more surreptitious about their elitism, but now they've become very bald-faced about their "let 'em eat cake" philosophy. And why not? People still vote for them, even though they're voting against their own best interests. Should Romney and Ryan win this election, the people who voted for them will get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to live with it, too.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Mitt Chooses Paul Ryan as Veep; Obama Gets Present
Watching Morning Joe yesterday, when the hosts and panelists were discussing the possibility that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney would choose Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, I was thinking - YESSSSS!!! Pleeeease pick Paul Ryan! But then I thought Mitt was too smart to do that. My thinking was that he would pick someone boring like Rob Portman or Tim Pawlenty.
Clearly I overestimated Mitt Romney. According to news outlets, he has in fact made just about the most ridiculous veep choice he could have made (outside of Sarah Palin) in choosing Ryan.
For those who may not know Rep. Ryan, he is the much-heralded -- on the right, anyway -- architect of the Ryan Budget Plan. The plan that eliminates Medicare as we know it, privatizes it and replaces it with a voucher system (there goes the senior vote). The so-called Bush tax cuts which went almost entirely to the wealthy -- and, we must remember, were put in place because Bill Clinton left behind a budget surplus -- would be made permanent. The plan would actually increase defense spending, even though we are winding down Bush's two unpaid-for wars. It would repeal the Dodd-Frank bank regulation measures, because who needs pesky government regulation anyway?
Ryan's budget would slash the top tax rates from 35 to 25 percent for individuals and corporations (most large corporations pay little or no income tax now, btw). Pell grants, which many students rely on to help pay for their college education, would be cut back to 2008 levels. Food stamps and low-income housing for the poor would be cut drastically (but then, according to Romney, the poor are doing fine anyway. Someone please give Romney a definition for the word 'poor'.) And you can guess what he'd like to do to things like the Obama health care plan and environmental protections.
But wait, it gets better! Ryan is Catholic. Bishops, nuns, and other leaders of the Catholic Church have ripped Ryan a new one about this budget, calling it, among other things, downright immoral. Immoral! His own church has pointed out that it's very non-Christian to take money from the poor and the middle class to give it to people who are already wealthy, not to mention downright stupid if you want to get this economy moving again. But that's exactly what Ryan's budget plan does. But then again, Ryan is a devotee of Ayn Rand, who was famously an atheist. Oops. That's sure to piss off the Church.
Romney, Ryan and other members of the GOP are out to do one thing and one thing only - destroy the middle class in order to give even more to the wealthy.
Congratulations, President Obama. Your ad writers can take a vacation. The ads will now write themselves.
Information about Ryan's plan, called "The Path to Prosperity," can be viewed here and here. A .pdf of it is here.
Clearly I overestimated Mitt Romney. According to news outlets, he has in fact made just about the most ridiculous veep choice he could have made (outside of Sarah Palin) in choosing Ryan.
For those who may not know Rep. Ryan, he is the much-heralded -- on the right, anyway -- architect of the Ryan Budget Plan. The plan that eliminates Medicare as we know it, privatizes it and replaces it with a voucher system (there goes the senior vote). The so-called Bush tax cuts which went almost entirely to the wealthy -- and, we must remember, were put in place because Bill Clinton left behind a budget surplus -- would be made permanent. The plan would actually increase defense spending, even though we are winding down Bush's two unpaid-for wars. It would repeal the Dodd-Frank bank regulation measures, because who needs pesky government regulation anyway?
Ryan's budget would slash the top tax rates from 35 to 25 percent for individuals and corporations (most large corporations pay little or no income tax now, btw). Pell grants, which many students rely on to help pay for their college education, would be cut back to 2008 levels. Food stamps and low-income housing for the poor would be cut drastically (but then, according to Romney, the poor are doing fine anyway. Someone please give Romney a definition for the word 'poor'.) And you can guess what he'd like to do to things like the Obama health care plan and environmental protections.
But wait, it gets better! Ryan is Catholic. Bishops, nuns, and other leaders of the Catholic Church have ripped Ryan a new one about this budget, calling it, among other things, downright immoral. Immoral! His own church has pointed out that it's very non-Christian to take money from the poor and the middle class to give it to people who are already wealthy, not to mention downright stupid if you want to get this economy moving again. But that's exactly what Ryan's budget plan does. But then again, Ryan is a devotee of Ayn Rand, who was famously an atheist. Oops. That's sure to piss off the Church.
Romney, Ryan and other members of the GOP are out to do one thing and one thing only - destroy the middle class in order to give even more to the wealthy.
Congratulations, President Obama. Your ad writers can take a vacation. The ads will now write themselves.
Information about Ryan's plan, called "The Path to Prosperity," can be viewed here and here. A .pdf of it is here.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Chick-Fil-A Debate From a Secular Point of View
I passed a Chick-Fil-A restaurant yesterday and outside on the lawn were some pro-gay discrimination people with a sound system and a mike, just to make sure as many people as possible could hear their hate speech.
Since I've now decided I will have to give up my waffle fries and egg and cheese biscuits (I'm a vegetarian so I don't eat chicken anyway), I do have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I have friends and co-workers who are gay and I feel their pain at being discriminated against. I am myself a somewhat "closeted" secularist, as I have had idiotic comments directed toward me regarding my lack of belief in a supernatural creature before, so I understand the ignorance and intolerance of some Christians toward people who don't believe as they do.
I may not understand on a personal level why someone would be attracted to a person of the same gender, but here's what I understand that Christians do not... I don't have to get it. Gay people are people, they're human beings, they're not "God's mistakes" -- because there is no "God" in the first place -- and they should have the same rights as everyone else, including the right not to be discriminated against because of the circumstances of their birth. To use one line from a book that was clearly written not by "God" but by men as an excuse to hate and discriminate against an entire segment of the population, even though this same book preached tolerance and "loving thy neighbor," is simply moronic.
If someone wants to believe there's a supernatural creature in the sky that's their prerogative, and I pretty much like to leave Christians alone with their illusions. But when they want to legislate their beliefs through our political process, or when they want to use the words in a book that has no basis in reality as a bald-faced excuse for hatred, then I get my back up.
Besides, I'm already paying more in taxes than I should because the religious write off their church contributions on their tax returns, and churches (which have been preaching politics from the pulpit in a clear violation of the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Constitution) get to keep the money they make tax-free as well. But that's a whole 'nother post.
If you're a Christian take your money and your intolerance to Chick-Fil-A if you will, but I won't be joining you.
Since I've now decided I will have to give up my waffle fries and egg and cheese biscuits (I'm a vegetarian so I don't eat chicken anyway), I do have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I have friends and co-workers who are gay and I feel their pain at being discriminated against. I am myself a somewhat "closeted" secularist, as I have had idiotic comments directed toward me regarding my lack of belief in a supernatural creature before, so I understand the ignorance and intolerance of some Christians toward people who don't believe as they do.
I may not understand on a personal level why someone would be attracted to a person of the same gender, but here's what I understand that Christians do not... I don't have to get it. Gay people are people, they're human beings, they're not "God's mistakes" -- because there is no "God" in the first place -- and they should have the same rights as everyone else, including the right not to be discriminated against because of the circumstances of their birth. To use one line from a book that was clearly written not by "God" but by men as an excuse to hate and discriminate against an entire segment of the population, even though this same book preached tolerance and "loving thy neighbor," is simply moronic.
If someone wants to believe there's a supernatural creature in the sky that's their prerogative, and I pretty much like to leave Christians alone with their illusions. But when they want to legislate their beliefs through our political process, or when they want to use the words in a book that has no basis in reality as a bald-faced excuse for hatred, then I get my back up.
Besides, I'm already paying more in taxes than I should because the religious write off their church contributions on their tax returns, and churches (which have been preaching politics from the pulpit in a clear violation of the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Constitution) get to keep the money they make tax-free as well. But that's a whole 'nother post.
If you're a Christian take your money and your intolerance to Chick-Fil-A if you will, but I won't be joining you.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Paterno Family STILL Doesn't Get It
Today the NCAA came down pretty hard on the Penn State football program in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky trial and the Louis Freeh investigation. Now the family of Joe Paterno has released a statement, saying in part:
How Sandusky was able to get away with his crimes for so long has yet to be fully understoodand
the sanctions announced by the NCAA today defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach...Sandusky was able to get away with his crimes for so long precisely because Joe Paterno ignored the fact that a coach that reported to him continued to rape and sexually abuse children, sometimes right on college grounds. Why does the Paterno family refuse to grasp this? If Paterno had done what any self-respecting person would have done and called the cops on Sandusky back in 1989, many more children would have escaped the abuse they now must live with for the rest of their lives. But Paterno allowed it to happen, making him complicit in the abuse. This is no better than the Catholic bishops who knowingly moved pedophile priests from parish to parish rather than end their abuse of children. Paterno himself is the one who defamed his own legacy, and that of Penn State. The NCAA made the right call. As obsessed as some people are with it, football is just a game. The rape and abuse of children cannot ever be considered to be less important than that.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Vote No on North Carolina's Amendment One
Tomorrow North Carolinians will vote on Amendment One, the so-called gay state constitution marriage amendment. While the language of the amendment sounds straight-forward ("Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized by this State"), this amendment is more far-reaching than one would imagine from the wording.
ProtectAllNCFamilies.org spells out the unintended consequences of voting in this legislation. I won't try to repeat what they have said here, because I have other fish to fry with this, so I will just point you in their direction for that information.
I am ashamed that North Carolina, instead of following in the footsteps of more progressive and tolerant states who have legalized gay marriage, has chosen to discriminate against its gay citizens in so openly a fashion as this. Instead of rolling back the already existing law which prohibits gay marriage, North Carolina's Republicans have decided they want to double-down on their legalization of discrimination.
If you're voting for this amendment, shame on you. It is not appropriate to legislate discrimination against people because of the circumstances of their birth. If you're voting for it because of your religion, you should be doubly ashamed. Legislating your religious beliefs is for theocracies and the Taliban, not democracies where everyone should have equal rights. Everyone. You might want to look into what the Bible has to say about loving your neighbor. I seem to recall something in there about that.
If you live in North Carolina, how do you think companies are going to view such a state as a place to move its business if such a law is passed? Do you think outlawing gay marriage is going to be good for tourism? Or do you think it will make North Carolina look as backward, intolerant and discriminatory as, say, Mississippi?
Vote No tomorrow on Amendment One. Don't legislate discrimination and bigotry.
ProtectAllNCFamilies.org spells out the unintended consequences of voting in this legislation. I won't try to repeat what they have said here, because I have other fish to fry with this, so I will just point you in their direction for that information.
I am ashamed that North Carolina, instead of following in the footsteps of more progressive and tolerant states who have legalized gay marriage, has chosen to discriminate against its gay citizens in so openly a fashion as this. Instead of rolling back the already existing law which prohibits gay marriage, North Carolina's Republicans have decided they want to double-down on their legalization of discrimination.
If you're voting for this amendment, shame on you. It is not appropriate to legislate discrimination against people because of the circumstances of their birth. If you're voting for it because of your religion, you should be doubly ashamed. Legislating your religious beliefs is for theocracies and the Taliban, not democracies where everyone should have equal rights. Everyone. You might want to look into what the Bible has to say about loving your neighbor. I seem to recall something in there about that.
If you live in North Carolina, how do you think companies are going to view such a state as a place to move its business if such a law is passed? Do you think outlawing gay marriage is going to be good for tourism? Or do you think it will make North Carolina look as backward, intolerant and discriminatory as, say, Mississippi?
Vote No tomorrow on Amendment One. Don't legislate discrimination and bigotry.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Paul Ryan Tries to School the Catholic Church
Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, thinks he knows Catholic doctrine better the bishops of the church themselves. That's how big an ego this guy has.
Ryan came up with a budget plan that cuts programs for the poor and middle-class and gives yet more tax breaks to the wealthy. Remember a while back there was a discussion about letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy lapse -- the "gimme more" breaks which never should have been inacted in the first place and have been going for more than 10 years? Well, Ryan not only wants to continue those, but he wants to give the wealthy even more money, despite the obvious proof that giving the wealthy more money doesn't help the economy whatsoever. Not to mention, if enacted Ryan's plan would make the deficit even worse than it already is.
In order to justify his rob-the-poor-to-pay-the-rich scheme, Ryan turned to what he thought was a winning gambit, using the teachings of the Catholic Church to justify his plan. He didn't just hint at this, he came right out and said it. The only problem was the Catholic Church was having none of it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent him a letter (which you can read here) reminding him that the Bible frowns upon such things as cutting programs for the poor and hungry. They called his budget plan immoral. The Bishops of the Catholic Church ripped him a new one, and yet what did Paul Ryan have to say about the criticism from the leaders of his own church? "I suppose that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly... on the social teaching of our church," he said, "but no more. The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it." So take that, Bishops, you thought you knew what being a Catholic was all about!
In addition, the Bishops sent letters to other heads of Congressional committees urging them not to support Ryan's plan. I don't agree with the Catholic church about much of anything, but I have to give them kudos for (finally) calling out a Republican for proposing such drastic cuts to programs that help seniors and the needy so the wealthy can benefit. Where Republican lawmakers' sympathies lie could not be any more obvious than that.
Ryan is a disciple of Ayn Rand, who was a proponent of limited government, but also an atheist and supporter of abortion rights. Obviously not someone the Catholic Church wants their members to follow anyway.
We'll see how this shakes out, but my guess is Ryan's plan has zero chance of passing. Back to the drawing board, and next time try not to make your elitism quite so obvious.
Ryan came up with a budget plan that cuts programs for the poor and middle-class and gives yet more tax breaks to the wealthy. Remember a while back there was a discussion about letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy lapse -- the "gimme more" breaks which never should have been inacted in the first place and have been going for more than 10 years? Well, Ryan not only wants to continue those, but he wants to give the wealthy even more money, despite the obvious proof that giving the wealthy more money doesn't help the economy whatsoever. Not to mention, if enacted Ryan's plan would make the deficit even worse than it already is.
In order to justify his rob-the-poor-to-pay-the-rich scheme, Ryan turned to what he thought was a winning gambit, using the teachings of the Catholic Church to justify his plan. He didn't just hint at this, he came right out and said it. The only problem was the Catholic Church was having none of it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent him a letter (which you can read here) reminding him that the Bible frowns upon such things as cutting programs for the poor and hungry. They called his budget plan immoral. The Bishops of the Catholic Church ripped him a new one, and yet what did Paul Ryan have to say about the criticism from the leaders of his own church? "I suppose that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly... on the social teaching of our church," he said, "but no more. The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it." So take that, Bishops, you thought you knew what being a Catholic was all about!
In addition, the Bishops sent letters to other heads of Congressional committees urging them not to support Ryan's plan. I don't agree with the Catholic church about much of anything, but I have to give them kudos for (finally) calling out a Republican for proposing such drastic cuts to programs that help seniors and the needy so the wealthy can benefit. Where Republican lawmakers' sympathies lie could not be any more obvious than that.
Ryan is a disciple of Ayn Rand, who was a proponent of limited government, but also an atheist and supporter of abortion rights. Obviously not someone the Catholic Church wants their members to follow anyway.
We'll see how this shakes out, but my guess is Ryan's plan has zero chance of passing. Back to the drawing board, and next time try not to make your elitism quite so obvious.
House Passes Student Loan Bill - Cuts Health Program To Fund It
Republican men are continuing their war on women, whether they want to own up to it or not.
In the latest salvo, House Speaker John Boehner called a program aimed at wellness, prevention and early cancer detection a "slush fund" and cut it in order to pay for the bill that would keep student loan interest rates from doubling.
First of all, it's utterly ridiculous that this program is being called a "slush fund" by the right. This program is called the Prevention and Public Health Fund and is part of the health care act passed under President Obama. Secondly, the Republicans blocked a Democratic bill that would have paid for the student loan interest rate extension by eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies. That's right. The Republicans would rather cut health care benefits than eliminate tax subsidies for oil companies that are making record profits. Can you say corruption?? Could it be any more obvious, at least to those of us with any common sense whatsoever, that the Republicans only care about old wealthy white guy CEO's, particularly those from oil companies, than they do about the rest of us?
Why does anyone vote for these people again? I really don't get it.
And Boehner keeps saying that the so-called Republican "war on women" is just something the Democrats cooked up for political purposes. Seriously. OK, explain then, Mr. Speaker, how the Democrats forced Republican state legislatures to come up with over 90 bills cutting women's health care, particularly abortion rights. I know you guys on the right tend to forget, but abortion is legal. Explain to me how the Democrats forced Rush Limbaugh to call a law student a "slut" and a "prostitute." She was, after all, simply wanting Georgetown's student health care plan to cover contraception. (Georgetown covers contraception for their employees, just not the students, btw, a fact that has gotten lost in all the hoopla.) Explain how the Democrats have forced Republicans to do all this, if you want to say it's all made up by the lefties.
You, John Boehner, are an embarassment to the office of House Speaker.
The Republicans have now managed to alienate most women, men who think women should have equal rights, union workers, minorities, secularists and gay people. The only audience they have left are the wealthy, right-wing male nutcases and women who are on the extreme religious right. If I were them, I'd be getting plenty nervous about this upcoming election.
See the Huffington Post article here.
In the latest salvo, House Speaker John Boehner called a program aimed at wellness, prevention and early cancer detection a "slush fund" and cut it in order to pay for the bill that would keep student loan interest rates from doubling.
First of all, it's utterly ridiculous that this program is being called a "slush fund" by the right. This program is called the Prevention and Public Health Fund and is part of the health care act passed under President Obama. Secondly, the Republicans blocked a Democratic bill that would have paid for the student loan interest rate extension by eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies. That's right. The Republicans would rather cut health care benefits than eliminate tax subsidies for oil companies that are making record profits. Can you say corruption?? Could it be any more obvious, at least to those of us with any common sense whatsoever, that the Republicans only care about old wealthy white guy CEO's, particularly those from oil companies, than they do about the rest of us?
Why does anyone vote for these people again? I really don't get it.
And Boehner keeps saying that the so-called Republican "war on women" is just something the Democrats cooked up for political purposes. Seriously. OK, explain then, Mr. Speaker, how the Democrats forced Republican state legislatures to come up with over 90 bills cutting women's health care, particularly abortion rights. I know you guys on the right tend to forget, but abortion is legal. Explain to me how the Democrats forced Rush Limbaugh to call a law student a "slut" and a "prostitute." She was, after all, simply wanting Georgetown's student health care plan to cover contraception. (Georgetown covers contraception for their employees, just not the students, btw, a fact that has gotten lost in all the hoopla.) Explain how the Democrats have forced Republicans to do all this, if you want to say it's all made up by the lefties.
You, John Boehner, are an embarassment to the office of House Speaker.
The Republicans have now managed to alienate most women, men who think women should have equal rights, union workers, minorities, secularists and gay people. The only audience they have left are the wealthy, right-wing male nutcases and women who are on the extreme religious right. If I were them, I'd be getting plenty nervous about this upcoming election.
See the Huffington Post article here.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Up with Chris Hayes Explores Atheism
Finally - someone who has the guts to have an intelligent conversation with and about atheism, as Chris Hayes of MSNBC did this morning (Hayes himself is an atheist). The show's website is here. You can see some clips from the show there.
The Reason Rally, a gathering of atheists and agnostics, took place in Washington, DC yesterday, and listed among its speakers Richard Dawkins; Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), the only identified atheist in Congress; actor/comedian Eddie Izzard; Jessica Ahlquist, the 16-year old student who successfully sued and forced her school to remove a prayer; and producer of the movie The Artistocrats Paul Provenza. (Washington Post story is here.)
Hayes' show included as guests Dawkins; Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor; author Susan Jacoby; journalist Jamila Bey; The Atlantic editor Robert Wright; and comedian/radio host Jamie Kilstein. Particularly interesting was his guest Paster Mike Aus, who was "coming out" as an atheist on the show (he said he will be meeting with the leaders of his church next week to discuss his conversion to atheism. I suspect they won't be terribly supportive). You can view that clip from the website linked above.
Thank you, Chris Hayes, so much for doing this show!
The Reason Rally, a gathering of atheists and agnostics, took place in Washington, DC yesterday, and listed among its speakers Richard Dawkins; Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), the only identified atheist in Congress; actor/comedian Eddie Izzard; Jessica Ahlquist, the 16-year old student who successfully sued and forced her school to remove a prayer; and producer of the movie The Artistocrats Paul Provenza. (Washington Post story is here.)
Hayes' show included as guests Dawkins; Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor; author Susan Jacoby; journalist Jamila Bey; The Atlantic editor Robert Wright; and comedian/radio host Jamie Kilstein. Particularly interesting was his guest Paster Mike Aus, who was "coming out" as an atheist on the show (he said he will be meeting with the leaders of his church next week to discuss his conversion to atheism. I suspect they won't be terribly supportive). You can view that clip from the website linked above.
Thank you, Chris Hayes, so much for doing this show!
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Kansas Joins the Anti-Abortion Bill Idiocy
I'm sorry, young ladies of the United States. Apparently you are going to have to fight again a battle that the women of a generation before me fought and won. Many of you may not know who Gloria Steinem is, or would recognize the names of the ladies who fought to give you rights to decide about your sexual and reproductive health. But here we are, in 2012, going through the same crap all over again.
Let me just say right off that I have no personal dog in this fight. I am (thankfully) through menopause, so birth control and abortion rights have no personal meaning to me. However, when I see what the Republican Party is trying to do to women's rights in general, and our reproductive rights in particular, it makes steam come out of my ears.
The only way to stop them permanently is to vote the bastards the hell out of office and make sure they never get back in.
Kansas has now joined the chorus of states run by right-wingers who want to restrict a woman's right to an abortion. I have said before and I will say again that I don't think abortion should be used as birth control; that's what birth control is for. But there are occasions (rape, incest, extreme disabilities, including a fetus that is not viable outside the womb) where the decision whether to continue the pregnancy should be left to the woman, her partner, and her doctor. But for whatever reason, Republicans who preach daily about how government should de-regulate everything and stay out of our lives as much as possible are conjuring up the most insidious and invasive ways to get into our bedrooms and our reproductive choices.
The Kansas bill is just nothing short of immoral and downright sickening. This bill would allow a doctor to lie to the patient about the health of her fetus if the doctor thought telling the patient would lead the woman to seek an abortion. That's right... THE DOCTOR COULD LIE TO HIS PATIENT ABOUT THE HEALTH OF HER FETUS, and on top of that, the bill provides that when the woman finds out adverse information about her baby, as she inevitably will, right? that the doctor cannot be sued for not telling her the truth.
Well, obviously, because the little lady can't be trusted with the truth, right?
Never mind that not all couples who find out their baby will have disabilities would choose to abort. Some just appreciate the heads-up about the baby's condition.
But hey, it does still provide that a wrongful death suit can be filed if the mother dies. Nice. And the bill requires doctors to tell the pregnant woman that abortion causes breast cancer. Which isn't true. But it REQUIRES DOCTORS TO LIE TO YOU about that. Doesn't this run afoul of something called the Hippocratic Oath?
Kansas state representative Joe Patton (R-of course, Topeka) said "Kansas women don't want (abortions)." Who the hell is he to say? How dare he presume to speak for all women who happen to live in the state of Kansas? Does he think he just knows better than they do?
I happen to have known someone -- from Missouri, btw, next door to Kansas -- who sadly had to have a late second trimester abortion after she and her husband discovered through an ultrasound that the fetus was not viable outside the womb. (Missouri doesn't allow for abortions this late, so she had to travel to... get ready for it... Texas.) There have been cases where OB GYNs have known that a fetus could not survive (such as cases where the entire brain was missing), but haven't told the expectant couple because they knew they would want an abortion. How dare a legislator, or a doctor, think he or she has a right to tell a would-be parent facing such a horrible thing what to do?
I'm getting a kick, though, out of some female legislators (and one male - kudos to Ohio state representative Ted Celeste-D), who are turning the tables on the Republican holier-than-thou males passing these ridiculous laws. See the article here from Allison Yarrow of The Daily Beast. Hey guys, you want some Viagra? How about a rectal exam? How about being required to have your wife (or one of your past lovers) have to testify about your inability to get it up? I love it.
You know, I have always said that I thought Republicans wanted to take women back to the 1950's, and people pooh-poohed me. Unfortunately I was right. But if they think we're going to sit still and let it happen, they have absolutely no idea the fight they're in for. BRING IT ON.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Utterly Ridiculous and Degrading Contraception Law Arizona Wants to Pass
Arizona has passed some extreme right-wing laws before, but this one takes the cake, I think. Along with other bills around the country that seek to strip a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body, now the Arizona state legislature is proposing a doozy of a law that aims to strip women of their right to contraception. Included in this law is the right of your employer to demand that you prove to them you have to take birth control pills for medical conditions and not to prevent pregnancy; to deny birth control coverage in your health care plan; and to fire you if you take birth control if said employer doesn't want you to.
I'm not kidding.
See the article here from The Huffington Post.
Rick Santorum started this bullshit, and yet somehow the man is actually in the running to get the Republican presidential nomination. Why on earth any woman is actually voting for him is a puzzle to me. Makes one wish Romney were a better candidate! Not saying I like the guy or would ever vote for him, but he's the least worst of the four remaining contenders.
It's time for the women of Arizona to stand up against this kind of ridiculous government overreach and vote the bastards who dreamed this up out of office. I'm just very proud to say that I do NOT live in Arizona, and if I did I would move posthaste!
Whatever happened to the righties who want "government out of their lives"? Seems to me they want government to stick their noses into every woman's bedroom. This kind of legislation is just sickening.
Guys, you might want to perk your ears up as well. There will be a whole lot less sex going on in this country if women are denied birth control pills. Just sayin'.
I'm not kidding.
See the article here from The Huffington Post.
Rick Santorum started this bullshit, and yet somehow the man is actually in the running to get the Republican presidential nomination. Why on earth any woman is actually voting for him is a puzzle to me. Makes one wish Romney were a better candidate! Not saying I like the guy or would ever vote for him, but he's the least worst of the four remaining contenders.
It's time for the women of Arizona to stand up against this kind of ridiculous government overreach and vote the bastards who dreamed this up out of office. I'm just very proud to say that I do NOT live in Arizona, and if I did I would move posthaste!
Whatever happened to the righties who want "government out of their lives"? Seems to me they want government to stick their noses into every woman's bedroom. This kind of legislation is just sickening.
Guys, you might want to perk your ears up as well. There will be a whole lot less sex going on in this country if women are denied birth control pills. Just sayin'.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Bill O'Reilly Gets the Birth Control Debate Wrong (Again)
As promised, below is a list of the national sponsors of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. Bill-O again took on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified in front of a Congressional panel on behalf of a fellow student when the student health plan there refused to pay for birth control pills necessary to prevent ovarian cysts, the consequence of which was that the student lost one of her ovaries.
O'Reilly posits that this is really about the reelection of Barack Obama. That's right -- he now says that Democrats turned this from a war on religion (theirs) to a war against women (the Republicans'). Well, and here I thought the Democrats didn't have anything to do with Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly himself being asses and calling Ms. Fluke all kinds of horrible things and suggesting nasty ulterior motives on her part. Silly me.
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly are missing a lot about this debate, but many people and almost all the media are missing one other thing. For those who think Obama is still in the wrong about the birth control option in his health care bill, even after changing the provisions so a religiously-based organization of any kind doesn't directly pay for contraception, understand this... Obama didn't make that decision in a vacuum. That decision was OK'd by the leaders of several large Catholic organizations, including the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, with whom Obama consulted.
O'Reilly doesn't get that birth control pills are prescribed for things other than contraception, some quite serious conditions. On his show today he said this: "Why should anyone have to pay increased health insurance premiums so she (I presume he means Ms. Fluke) and others can get the pill free?" So he also doesn't understand that insurance companies would much rather provide contraception than pay for a) pregnancies, b) the other conditions that can be remediated by using birth control, particularly the pill, such as the condition that caused Ms. Fluke's fellow student to have to have surgery to remove her ovary. So, Mr. O'Reilly, no one is asking you to pay for anything. The idea is that contraception would simply be covered as part of the student health care plan. Also, and here's the kicker -- if insurance companies didn't pay for contraception, then your costs would go up. Hang with me here, I know this is really hard for knuckleheads like you, but pills are cheaper than babies. Or surgeries. You really need to get some schoolin' around this, Bill-O, before you spout off any more. Seriously.
Here is a partial list of advertisers on O'Reilly's Monday program:
T. Rowe Price
Viagra (I'm not making this up!)
Chevy Volt**
Advair
PCMatic.com
Aleve
Subaru
United Healthcare
HP
United Van Lines
Hyundai
Verizon
** There were at least two ads for the Chevy Volt on O'Reilly's program. But during his show O'Reilly made fun of the car by showing a disparaging internet video slamming the Volt. Way to bite the hand that feeds you, Bill-O!
O'Reilly posits that this is really about the reelection of Barack Obama. That's right -- he now says that Democrats turned this from a war on religion (theirs) to a war against women (the Republicans'). Well, and here I thought the Democrats didn't have anything to do with Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly himself being asses and calling Ms. Fluke all kinds of horrible things and suggesting nasty ulterior motives on her part. Silly me.
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly are missing a lot about this debate, but many people and almost all the media are missing one other thing. For those who think Obama is still in the wrong about the birth control option in his health care bill, even after changing the provisions so a religiously-based organization of any kind doesn't directly pay for contraception, understand this... Obama didn't make that decision in a vacuum. That decision was OK'd by the leaders of several large Catholic organizations, including the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, with whom Obama consulted.
O'Reilly doesn't get that birth control pills are prescribed for things other than contraception, some quite serious conditions. On his show today he said this: "Why should anyone have to pay increased health insurance premiums so she (I presume he means Ms. Fluke) and others can get the pill free?" So he also doesn't understand that insurance companies would much rather provide contraception than pay for a) pregnancies, b) the other conditions that can be remediated by using birth control, particularly the pill, such as the condition that caused Ms. Fluke's fellow student to have to have surgery to remove her ovary. So, Mr. O'Reilly, no one is asking you to pay for anything. The idea is that contraception would simply be covered as part of the student health care plan. Also, and here's the kicker -- if insurance companies didn't pay for contraception, then your costs would go up. Hang with me here, I know this is really hard for knuckleheads like you, but pills are cheaper than babies. Or surgeries. You really need to get some schoolin' around this, Bill-O, before you spout off any more. Seriously.
Here is a partial list of advertisers on O'Reilly's Monday program:
T. Rowe Price
Viagra (I'm not making this up!)
Chevy Volt**
Advair
PCMatic.com
Aleve
Subaru
United Healthcare
HP
United Van Lines
Hyundai
Verizon
** There were at least two ads for the Chevy Volt on O'Reilly's program. But during his show O'Reilly made fun of the car by showing a disparaging internet video slamming the Volt. Way to bite the hand that feeds you, Bill-O!
Let's Get Something Straight: Rush Limbaugh Did NOT Apologize for What He Said
They have it all wrong -- the headlines that say Rush Limbaugh "apologized" for what he said about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student who testified in front of a House committee (chaired by Nancy Pelosi) regarding the right to have birth control included in the student medical plan. In point of fact, he did not apologize for what he said, only for the two horrible things he called Ms. Fluke in saying it. (See the HuffPo article here.)
So Rush still doesn't understand how birth control pills work. He doesn't understand that taxpayers wouldn't be paying for the women of Georgetown to have sex, as he said. He doesn't understand why Ms. Fluke was testifying on behalf of a fellow student who lost an ovary, and he doesn't understand why advertisers are leaving in droves and women all over the country are upset. In short, Rush doesn't understand anything about the situation at all. Well, when you're talking to someone who calls women "femi-Nazis" what do you really expect?
By the way, surely one of his four wives must have taken birth control. He has no children. That only leaves... a) impotence, or b) infertility, or c) no desire to have children. It does make you wonder which it is...
Anyway, ProFlowers has suspended their advertising on the show. Not good enough! AOL and TaxResolution have also suspended their advertising. They should all make a pledge never to advertise on that show again.
Very disappointing is the fact that the Department of Defense continues to say they will maintain their advertising. Firstly, Rush on a daily basis disparages and flat makes up lies about their Commander in Chief, President Obama. Secondly, the Armed Forces has tremendous problems with sexualization and marginalization of women, as well as out and out sexual assault. They have absolutely no business advertising on a show where women are treated worse than dirt.
I will be looking to see what Bill O'Reilly has to say tonight as well. Which gives me the creeps, just that I have to watch any part of that show... but I guess it's for a good cause.
Ms. Fluke, I'm glad you didn't take Rush's "apology" seriously, because he certainly didn't mean it be serious. But if advertisers keep fleeing his show, he might want to rethink that.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Boycott Rush Limbaugh's Sponsors
[UPDATE 3/3 #3: Carbonite has issued a statement that despite Rush's non-apology apology, they are pulling their advertising from his show.]
[UPDATE 3/3 #2: RUSH STILL NOT GETTING IT - Rush issued a wimpy apology to Ms. Fluke (probably his sponsors pulling out of his show started to make him sweat), but said this: "I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities..blah blah blah... In other words, he still doesn't understand that Ms. Fluke was testifying on behalf of her friend who lost an ovary due to cysts, and he doesn't get that taxpayers aren't paying anything; the cost of the birth control pills were simply to be covered under the college's student health care plan. Jeez, I knew the man was stupid, but he's surpassing even my low expectations!! Don't get too complacent, O'Reilly -- we're comin' for you next.]
Unless you've been living under a rock the past couple of days (or maybe if you watch Fox News), you probably know the despicable things Rush Limbaugh has said on his radio show about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified before a House committee this week regarding the high cost of birth control.
I'm not going to repeat what he said here, because a) it was too disgusting to reprint, and b) you've probably already heard it and don't need to hear it again. But what a lot of people are missing is the fact that it's obvious from Rush's remarks that he doesn't understand how birth control pills work! So Rush is not only an arrogant asshole, he's an ignorant arrogant asshole! It reminds me of a woman I used to know who had a college roommate who asked her if she could have one of her birth control pills because she was going on an overnighter with her boyfriend. My friend gave her one (probably one of the inert ones), because she figured if she was that dumb she was bound to get pregnant at some point anyway (she didn't, at least not that weekend).
The other thing ignorant Rush doesn't get is that birth control pills can be prescribed for things other than contraception. In fact, Sandra Fluke was testifying on behalf of a friend of hers, who had been prescribed birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts. Georgetown has a student health plan, but being a Jesuit institution it does not pay for birth control pills on religious grounds. When her friend could no longer afford the pills (at $100 a month, that's $1,200 a year, let me help you with the math there, Rush), a tennis-ball sized cyst formed, and she had to have surgery to remove her ovary. This, quite frankly, was a senseless tragedy.
Now, Rush has said vile things before, and ignorant things on a minute-by-minute basis, so I normally just ignore him as he's not worth the bandwidth on my blog. Actually, he's not worth the dust bunnies under my computer... but this was so horrible and so egregious that I have to join the many others calling for him to be fired, and failing that, a boycott on his sponsors (three of which have already left - Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Quicken Loans). I have a list of the others hanging with Rush - so far - below:
Cleveland Cavaliers (suspending advertising for the year)
ProFlowers (reevaluating)
Citrix (suspending advertising)
Carbonite (pulled their advertising)
LegalZoom (pulled their advertising)
AutoZone (pulled their advertising)
I'm not going to repeat what he said here, because a) it was too disgusting to reprint, and b) you've probably already heard it and don't need to hear it again. But what a lot of people are missing is the fact that it's obvious from Rush's remarks that he doesn't understand how birth control pills work! So Rush is not only an arrogant asshole, he's an ignorant arrogant asshole! It reminds me of a woman I used to know who had a college roommate who asked her if she could have one of her birth control pills because she was going on an overnighter with her boyfriend. My friend gave her one (probably one of the inert ones), because she figured if she was that dumb she was bound to get pregnant at some point anyway (she didn't, at least not that weekend).
The other thing ignorant Rush doesn't get is that birth control pills can be prescribed for things other than contraception. In fact, Sandra Fluke was testifying on behalf of a friend of hers, who had been prescribed birth control pills to prevent ovarian cysts. Georgetown has a student health plan, but being a Jesuit institution it does not pay for birth control pills on religious grounds. When her friend could no longer afford the pills (at $100 a month, that's $1,200 a year, let me help you with the math there, Rush), a tennis-ball sized cyst formed, and she had to have surgery to remove her ovary. This, quite frankly, was a senseless tragedy.
Now, Rush has said vile things before, and ignorant things on a minute-by-minute basis, so I normally just ignore him as he's not worth the bandwidth on my blog. Actually, he's not worth the dust bunnies under my computer... but this was so horrible and so egregious that I have to join the many others calling for him to be fired, and failing that, a boycott on his sponsors (three of which have already left - Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Quicken Loans). I have a list of the others hanging with Rush - so far - below:
Cleveland Cavaliers (suspending advertising for the year)
ProFlowers (reevaluating)
Citrix (suspending advertising)
Carbonite (pulled their advertising)
LegalZoom (pulled their advertising)
AutoZone (pulled their advertising)
American Forces Network (DOES NOT INTEND TO LEAVE RUSH'S SHOW)
Mission Pharmacal (has not advertised on Rush's show for some time)
TaxResolution (suspended their advertising)
Sears (ad ran on Rush's show by mistake)
LifeLock (DOES NOT INTEND TO LEAVE RUSH'S SHOW)
AOL (suspended their advertising)
The Republicans in Congress, each and every one of them, should denounce Rush and his comments, but they are terrified of doing so because Rush has a huge (and apparently not very bright) audience. John Boehner, I'm going to call you out specifically, because you hid behind your spokesperson. As Speaker of the House, you are a coward if you don't get in front of the press cameras and throw Rush Limbaugh under a big, red, double-decker London bus.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Rick Santorum Just Disqualified Himself from the Presidency
On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum stated that he "almost threw up" when he read John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech regarding the role of religion in lawmaking. Here is what JFK's speech said, in part:
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
This sounds very reasonable to me, but Santorum says he "doesn't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."
Well, he must live in a different country than I do. Or perhaps he needs to move to one. We don't live in a theocracy, although by Santorum's whackadoodle comments I think he thinks we do.
You might want to put the Bible down for a minute, Santorum, and pick up a copy of the Constitution. Religion is mentioned exactly twice in that document, the one you want to be sworn in as president to defend. Here are those statements:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
and:
"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
In addition, here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."I think this is pretty clear, Mr. Santorum. I know that you want to govern via the Vatican, but that is clearly unconstitutional. Anyone who is president of this nation is president of the entire nation, including the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and anyone else who lives in it. Everyone. By your constant barrage of religious rhetoric, as well as the statement you made above, and your refusal to acknowledge the articles of the Constitution, you have proven that you are incapable and unsuited to be President of this country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)