Who are these moocher taker "government workers" anyway?

The GOP is sooo fond of talking about cutting government. Awesome blossom. Except they forget a few details.

1. Every single "government worker" who is extraneous, superfluous  a drain on society to the GOP is a person. A person who contributes to our economy. A person with a family, who needs to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter that family. A person who will likely need to now collect unemployment (which will be blamed on the President - he's not a job creator!) and who has to support a family without a job, so might need food stamps (WELFARE!!! NOOOOO!) and now cannot contribute to a growing, healthy economy.

2. The majority of losses in the public sector have been presided over not by the federal government, but by Republican governors and local entities. 12 Republican states have presided over 70% of the total public sector job losses. Simply put?

Republican states are responsible for the high rise in unemployment overall.

Why? Well, private sector jobs are up 30 months in a row, and have driven the national unemployment rate to 7.8%.  Just imagine if we didn't vilify teachers, firefighters or law enforcement officers.  Unemployment could be driven down even further.

President Clinton, Secretary of Explaining Things put it perfectly. I want a Congress who cheers when unemployment goes down.

Yes. This.

I don't want a Congress who refuses to enact legislation put forth and then blames those same folks for not getting the job done. I don't want a Congress who secretly (and not so secretly) roots against the American people simply to retain power. I don't want a Congress who looks down on the same people they want to lay off as deadbeats and moochers, takers, not givers. And I want a President who has the best interest of the American people at heart, not just the best interest of his bank account.

Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others are not superfluous. They are real people. They are the people responsible for educating our children, for keeping us safe in our homes and on the street. Without them, we go back to the lawless, uneducated society we once were.

Oh. Right. Never mind. That's the end goal anyway. Put guns in the hands of every single American (the more uneducated the better) so we can all STAND OUR GROUND because VIGILANTE JUSTICE AHOY!

I do not want to move backward. We've been there, done that. Obviously it didn't work. So we made changes. That's what civilized society does. It recognizes that society and societal values have changed, and shifts laws and other rules and regulations to fall in line with societal norms.

On the national level, we add amendments to the constitution. If our founding fathers had meant for that document to go unchanged foreverandeveramen, they never would have allowed the amendment process. As it is, they wrote the Constitution and immediately added 10 other things to it. At the state and local level, we write, update, repeal, and change laws also.

• We decided it wasn't proper to have people in the streets carrying firearms and shooting people when they had a disagreement.
• We decided it as important for our children to all be educated.
• We decided it was important that we not discriminate against others based upon the color of their skin, and that we not enslave those people.
• We decided that people shouldn't be allowed to drink alcohol, and then we decided we were wrong about that.
• We decided that presidents should only serve 2 terms.
• We decided that women and black people were smart enough to vote.
• We decided the government can't run without funds, and so gave the government the right to tax us.
• We decided that child labor was wrong and that children shouldn't be forced to work in unsatisfactory conditions.

I want to go FORWARD not backward.

I don't want to go back to the times when:

• Women had no control over their bodies.
• Women were 2nd class citizens.
• Discrimination was not only rampant and accepted, but condoned.
• Disputes were settled by guns at dawn.
• Only the rich were entitled to any deference.
• Children were only educated if they were wealthy and white.
• Children should be seen and not heard.
• Women who are raped brought it on themselves.
• We looked down upon those who came to us for refuge.
• It was ok for people to live on the street because they had nowhere else to go.
• We blamed people for not working, when they could lose their job at the whim of their employer.
• Only rich people could afford a higher education.
• People worked in unsafe conditions, and there was nothing they could do to protect themselves.
• It was ok to force children to work long hours in unsafe conditions for almost no pay.
• Equal pay for equal work was unheard of.
• It was ok to beat the crap out of your wife and children just because a man felt like it.
• You couldn't serve your country simply because of who you loved.
• We had a short life expectancy because people couldn't afford to receive medical treatment.
• Angry rich white men looked down on the rest of society as unworthy losers, inferior, not full people, or contemptible - to be sneered at and ridiculed. (Oh, wait...)

Add your own in the comments. What don't you want to go back to?

Let's move FORWARD not backward.

Quote Unquote: Math, math, math

"It's like saying you're going to drive from Boston to Los Angeles in 10 hours without speeding. There's just no way to make the numbers add up."
Daniel Shaviro, tax law professor at New York University

On making Mitt's numbers work. It simply can't be done. But what does this dude know anyway?

Here's another thought on this. Romney/Ryan claim they aren't giving specifics because they want to work in a bipartisan fashion to make it work. Awwww. How sweet. But we're dealing with the most obstructionist Congress in history (granted, they were obstructing the black dude) - people who have no history of working with others at all (except to ensure the black dude doesn't get re-elected).

Also? It's the President's job to lay down a plan the way he'd like to see it implemented and then Congress' job to debate, compromise, and make it work the best way for the American people (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!).

So by refusing to give that first direction as to how he'd most like to implement it, Romney continues to show a remarkable lack of leadership.

Shocking, I know.

ETA: Wait! I stand corrected. Here are the specifics... RomneyTaxPlan.com

Also, have a gander at the Secretary of Explaining Stuff's newest video on Mitt's numbers. And I swear, as long as we keep talking Constitutional amendments, can we please repeal the 22nd amendment for this guy?

The one debate question on women's rights

So, apparently, last night we had a debate between Smokin Joe Biden and Lyin Paul Ryan.

A lot has been made about Biden interrupting Ryan (GASP - WHO would do that in a debate?!), but finally... finally Martha Radditz got to a question about women's rights. She asked about their Catholic faith and how it relates to abortion. Here are the answers as well as a few other thoughts from me and others.

Ryan on why he can't separate his faith from his politics (and he never really did answer the question; another shock, I'm sure):

"Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.

You know, I think about ten and a half years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven week ultrasound for our first born child, and we saw that heart beat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day we have nick named our first born, Liza, bean.

Now I believe that life begins at conception. Those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now I realize that this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother."

So, reason and science are what named his daughter Bean? Ok. I can dig that. My oldest was flipping me off during his first ultrasound. It sure explains a lot if I go by Ryan's theory.

Also this: "My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life." This doesn't say a whole lot about Ryan's interpretation of Catholicism if his policies reflect how he believes he should take care of the vulnerable. SUFFER, ASSHOLE!! AYN RAND 2016!

What I'd love is for one of these guys to just have the balls to stand up and say that he believes in life at conception and that he's more important than me so his beliefs are more important than mine. Therefore, I have to do what he wants. That's the bottom line of their thought process anyway. Cut out the bullshit and say what you mean. Then people could make a more informed decision.

Biden on why he separated his religion from his politics:
Joe Biden's answer is far more in line historically with other presidents and thought leaders. He has his own beliefs and lives his life by them, but also realizes that it isn't his role or the role of government to impose his religious beliefs on anyone else.

"My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. People who need help.

With regard to abortion, I accept my Church’s position on abortion as a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. I accept that position in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, and Muslims and and Jews…I just refuse to do that, unlike my friend here, the Congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women that they cannot control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor in my view, and the Supreme Court. And I’m not going to interfere with that."

John F. Kennedy was asked about how being Catholic might bring on an imposition of faith based upon the papacy. He gave this answer, in part, during his speech on the issue. (Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960):

"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."

Watch the speech in its entirety. Seriously. he was a truly awe-inspiring speaker. And it's so interesting to me that back then (only 50 years ago!), the answer that he MUST give in order to be accepted as a viable candidate was that his religion wouldn't impinge upon his politics. And now? It seems the required answer is the opposite. Which sucks big hairy donkey balls. It just does.

Jimmy Carter, a self-admitted evangelical Christian, in his book Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (which I reviewed here), contends that religion has its place in politics in the same way that it has its place in everyday life - by guiding our hand toward being valuable, moral and compassionate human beings - not by guiding public policy and law.

He also said this in Christianity Today, March 2, 1998:

"Last year I was on Pat Robertson's show, and we discussed our basic Christian faith - for instance, separation of church and state. It's contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education."

I like this page of presidential & thought leader quotes on the separation of church and state.

This one, though, sums it all up, in my opinion. Damn, they sure were smart back then...

"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."
~ Benjamin Franklin

And today in Someone Invokes Hitler

For the love of all that is holy, cut it the fuck out.

Oops - mom, you might want to stop reading now. A 'splosion of eff words is about to spew forth...

I feel like if I have to explain the difference between Hitler and anything else even one more time my head will 'splode.

So, commence with the 'sploding heads.

Adolf Hitler had a specific plan in mind. He wanted to, in a fit of 'I'm so much better than you', rid the world of anyone who wasn't exactly like him and his cronies. Meaning white, Aryan, straight, etc (although there is a lot of evidence that Hitler's cronies all visited the easily found gay hangouts and ...errr... enjoyed them tremendously).

Hitler, in that effort, systematically rounded up anyone not fitting his own vision of perfection, sent them off to prisons in cattle cars hundreds of people deep, worked them to death in camps, gassed and shot them, medically experimented on them in unspeakable ways, buried them in mass graves and cremated them in huge ovens to not only hide the evidence, but because there were so many damn bodies they had to do something with them, and tried to wipe evidence of their existence from the earth altogether.

While Christians may advocate converting everyone to their way of thinking, most people would raise a fuss over exterminating entire populations of people in the same manner as Hitler did. Or maybe that's just my innate optimism shining through.

What? You don't think I'm optimistic? I'm actually a pretty sunny person.

So, why do I feel the need today to explain this yet again (to the dismay of my poor 'sploding head)? Two reasons:

Today, the Wall Street Journal decided that President Obama's campaign team calling Mitt Romney a liar (and he is!) is a path down the road to Nazism. I shit you not.

Explicitly calling someone a "liar" is—or used to be—a serious and rare charge, in or out of politics. It's a loaded word. It crosses a line. "Liar" suggests bad faith and conscious duplicity—a total, cynical falsity.

Do go on... I'm fine with this so far. Seems to describe Romney to a T.

The Obama campaign's resurrection of "liar" as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s.

Say what? Was the term liar invented for Hitler? Somehow I missed out on that in my Jewish and American history education. Oh, my mistake.

No. Calling someone out on their untruths (aka LIES) is not being a sleazy fascist. It is not invoking totalitarian propaganda. It simply means that Romney is lying. If they want to call out President Obama on lies, by all means, call him a liar, too, if he is. But hmmm... that doesn't seem to be happening. Perhaps because Romney is such a big, bald-faced liar.

The other Nazi reference came today here. The former Archbishop of Canterbury has now likened opponents of gay marriage to Jews in Nazi Germany. Awww, those poor folks who want to diminish the rights of others are just like all the Jews who were killed. Uhhh...

Just shut the fuck up, with all due respect (and apparently very little is due).

From The Guardian: Asked about opponents of gay marriage being described as "bigots" – on one occasion by Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister – Carey said: "Let us remember the Jews in Nazi Germany. What started against them was when they started to be called names. (ed note: not true)

"And that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state. We have to resist them. We treasure democracy. We treasure our Christian inheritance and we want to debate this in a fair way."
...
Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, said: "We're deeply saddened that Lord Carey seems to be resorting to student union abuse. The reality is that gay people are very well aware of the consequences of the Holocaust, for obvious reasons, and when someone descends to this level of rhetoric it suggests they don't think they have very powerful arguments to rely on.

"Lord Carey is perfectly entitled to his view and we respect that. It's the view of many people of his generation and we accept that, but to compare Cameron to Hitler is just sad as well as being entirely inappropriate.

"It's extraordinary that he should resort to this sort of invective and profoundly unchristian. There will be gay people of faith who are very disturbed by what he has said.

Stop with the Hitler calling. Do I need to say it again? Why yes, apparently I do. Stop with the Hitler calling.

It's especially galling here because Hitler included gays in his extermination plans, and now Carey is trying to use those that hate gays (aka, if we have to make comparisons... those on Hitler's side of the issue)  as pseudo-victims and intimate that they will suffer the same fate as the actual people that Hitler wanted to kill off (aka, if we have to make comparisons... gays). Really? Such unmitigated gall.

No, no, no. You do NOT get to use the backs of those killed in such a horrific manner to advance your own political agenda (which appears to be,...errr... to rid the earth of gays. Sound familiar?)

My head has now 'sploded and there is nothing left of my brain but a pile of goo and mush. Lucky you. Hopefully that means this is the last post of the day.

Romney and the media-condoned lies

Dear news media,

You suck. Seriously. I don't care whose pocket you're in - left, right, whatever. Report the news, not the news bites. Or stop calling yourself news.

The news is, that Romney lied his ass off during the debate, and that he has in the week since, continued to lie his ass off. He says one thing on the national news (like, I have no intention of signing legislation to restrict a woman's rights) - BIG NEWS, and his campaign quietly corrects that statement a couple hours later (Romney is firmly pro-life and will support all pro-life legislation) - no news. 

By letting him get away with the lies, you endorse that as a campaign tactic. 

Romney was sooooo presidential at the debate!!! 

Yeah, you can look and sound presidential and forceful, but if what's coming out of your mouth is a pack of bullshit, I hesitate to call you presidential.

I implore you, report the facts. Call Romney on his lies (and yes, President Obama as well), but really actually dooo eeeet with as much gusto as you report the lie. Say, "Hey, today Romney said he has no idea of any anti-abortion legislation that might be part of his agenda, but for the last 2 years, he has claimed he'll put only pro-life justices on the supreme court who will overturn Roe v Wade, and would support personhood amendments to the constitution." 

Uhhh... little flip flopping there? How about you report that? And then how about you note that 2 hours later, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul says, "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president. Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

Here he is just 8 months ago:


And in 2011, he signed this pro-life pledge.

Also, when Romney claims that he has no idea of any legislation to restrict abortion, it's an obvious lie. But even if it wasn't... the President is the leader of the party by default. The GOP party platform in 2012 calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. Uhhh, I'd call that an idea for legislation, wouldn't you?

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

That's pretty effing clear as to the direction legislation might turn, isn't it? Report it, dammit!

I am so effing sick of the media being blamed for being so liberal, when in fact, they are so scared of being labeled as such that they continually report the news in a right-leaning fashion.

Where is your integrity? Where is your pride in a job well done? Where is your freaking dignity?

I don't care how much of an instant gratification world we live in. Realize the importance and consequence of what you say. This is not child's play for chrissake. This is the future of the United States of America and the world at stake. Act like it. Grow a pair of freaking balls and tell the people what needs to be said.

And if you can't? Then shut the hell up and get out of the game. Because you will ruin the future for us all.

Disgustedly yours,

Lori

Quote of the day: Hubby, Romney doesn't love you anymore

"[Obama] wants to hire more school teachers. We all like school teachers. It's a wonderful thing. Typically, school teachers are hired by states and localities, not by the federal government. But hiring school teachers is not going to raise the growth of the U.S. economy over the next three-to-four years."


Romney goes back to his original position on teachers now that the debate is over and the cameras are off (hint: he doesn't love you anymore).

His statement is typical of the short-term strategies of the GOP that create long-term problems. They cry that President Obama doesn't create long-term strategies, when in fact it's the other way around.

In the debate, when pressed, Romney lied his ass off (again) and said, "I reject the idea that I don't believe in great teachers or more teachers." (emphasis mine)

No, teachers as a group aren't going to fix the US economy in the next 3-4 years. But teachers will do the following:

Head households whom the government needs spending money to 'raise the growth of the US economy over the next 3-4 years.' The more we brag about reducing government jobs and public sector jobs, the more that the GOP can brag about all the teachers they've put out of work. Every single one of those government jobs that has been eliminated represents a person. A US citizen who pays taxes, buys product, and participates in our economy. Every one of those public sector workers that has gone on public assistance now represents the 47% of moochers that Romney would like to ignore. So when he says we don't need teachers (or other public sector workers) he is shooting the US economy in the foot. Also? Most of the public sector job losses have been presided over by Republican governors, not the federal government, so that isn't President Obama's fault, dude. It's your own party's lack of compassion for the people who work for the people.

What else will teachers do?

They will educate the next generation of folks who WILL 'raise the growth of the US economy'. Will that next generation of people be educated or will they be uneducated? Will they be respected in the global economy or will they be ridiculed? Will they know enough about history and economics in order to not repeat past mistakes and utilize the latest and greatest theories? Or will they rely on WWJD in an economy of 2000 years ago? Obviously, we know which Romney (and so many other GOPers) prefers.

So, the idea of the federal government not needing to be involved in education or the hiring of teachers or the policies of what our children should learn really comes down to a matter of priorities - as the President has said. Budgets reflect the values of the people who create them. If you are only thinking about the next couple of years when you talk about an economy the size of the US, then you are short-sighted and have very little compassion for the folks you are downsizing. But then again, we are talking about the king of downsizing and outsourcing and definitely not the king of compassion. So, you get what you pay for, don't you?

Please vote. And vote for the long term health of our economy, not the pretend quick fix brought by heaping the problems of our country onto the shoulders of teachers.