The problem with debates is that you, by answering the question, accept the premise thereof. I like how Newt will argue the premise, so as not to appear to be accepting the idea behind the question before answering it.

As an example, if I say “Mr. Reader, because the sky is under your feet and the ground is in the air, what are you going to do to keep rocks from falling on your head?” If I answer that “I will place hard hats on all people,” I’ve accepted the premise, which is incredibly ridiculous, and then proposed a solution. Newt doesn’t play that game, and I love that he doesn’t.

I also love how a fact on there being more food stamp recipients than ever has turned “racist.” If the left is to be believed, and they should be, that more white people than any other group are on some sort of social program, why is criticism of people receiving those benefits and the government programs behind them considered racist?

I notice no one is arguing the validity of Newt’s statement, just the racial overtones thereof; proof that there is no “there” there.

This is a tough one.  On one hand, I take a bit of perverse pleasure in seeing people like Patricia McAllister, who probably would rush to fling her race card in the face of everyone else, get her comeuppance and be held to the same standards she undoubtedly holds everyone else to.

But that’s not really what this is about.

Yesterday, I wrote about a teacher in New York City who was fired for her anti-gay comments on Facebook and in that post, I said the following about that teacher’s beliefs:

On one hand, I find her beliefs repugnant, but I also feel she has the right to have them, and becoming a teacher doesn’t mean you have to abandon your own morality. I see a lot of people trying to rope her into every gay kid that has ever committed suicide, but I don’t see any evidence presented that she has actually treated a gay student any differently.

Had she done so, I think she should be fired immediately, then bludgeoned about the head with a trout, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here, which means she’s essentially being fired for expressing an opinion, namely an unpopular one.

Isn’t that why we have a free speech protection built into the constitution?

Any free-thinking person should see this as a cut-and-dried free speech issue.  Free speech protections entitle you to be a lout.  In fact, they’re more there to protect unpopular speech than popular speech, since popular speech by its nature doesn’t need protection.  I would also say that, like yesterday’s case, I would argue that if this woman is not mistreating students, then the school district is out of line in letting her go simply for expressing an opinion.

We have an obligation in this country not just to protect the speech we like, but to protect the speech we don’t like no matter how heinous it is.  I’m intellectually honest enough to admit that I hate what this woman said, and I don’t particularly care for her level of ignorance, but at the same time, she has a right to her ignorance and anti-semitism without being persecuted for it.

That’s a hard thing to say, and you really have to be comfortable with your convictions if you’re going to say it.

I am.

Fully embiggened version at the link at the top.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release September 20, 2011
Statement by the President on the Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Today, the discriminatory law known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is finally and formally repealed. As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love. As of today, our armed forces will no longer lose the extraordinary skills and combat experience of so many gay and lesbian service members. And today, as Commander in Chief, I want those who were discharged under this law to know that your country deeply values your service.

I was proud to sign the Repeal Act into law last December because I knew that it would enhance our national security, increase our military readiness, and bring us closer to the principles of equality and fairness that define us as Americans. Today’s achievement is a tribute to all the patriots who fought and marched for change; to Members of Congress, from both parties, who voted for repeal; to our civilian and military leaders who ensured a smooth transition; and to the professionalism of our men and women in uniform who showed that they were ready to move forward together, as one team, to meet the missions we ask of them.

For more than two centuries, we have worked to extend America’s promise to all our citizens. Our armed forces have been both a mirror and a catalyst of that progress, and our troops, including gays and lesbians, have given their lives to defend the freedoms and liberties that we cherish as Americans. Today, every American can be proud that we have taken another great step toward keeping our military the finest in the world and toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals.

Okay, cool. It never should’ve been in place to begin with.

Now when will someone answer my question (which I asked on October 13 of last year)?

As I mention in the comments section, the ruling didn’t actually ban discrimination. It said that any proceedings and investigations brought under DADT would be ended immediately. Great. What about the fact that repealing DADT should, effectively, revert the law back to “If you’re caught gay, you’re out?” After all, that was the prior policy, and there was nothing in the new ruling that said anything other than the current rule would be repealed.

Eventually, someone will have to answer the question of “what is the current policy and where is it codified?” because as of right now, it’s not.

The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.

Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work.

Even with the federal help, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees.

The Fremont, Calif.-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model. Obama visited the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking.

Since then, the implosion of the company and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he sells his new job-creation program around the country.

Uh oh. This isn’t good. It gets worse…

An Associated Press review of regulatory filings shows that Solyndra was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009. The company eventually got $528 million.

Given the company’s shaky financial condition, Republican lawmakers say the decision to restructure the loan raises questions about whether the administration protected political supporters at taxpayers’ expense.

“You should have protected the taxpayers and made some forceful actions here after this analysis,” Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., told a top Energy Department official this week. “Because you should have seen the problems. And you should have said, ‘Taxpayers need to be protected and this has got to stop.’ “

Remember the Bush administration scuttled this loan. They were warned that Solyndra was a bad risk and they took that warning seriously. Obama, on the other hand, wanted to reward a campaign contributor. WITH YOUR MONEY.

Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors — Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP — stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated. The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government.

Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation of Tulsa, Okla. The foundation is headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president’s aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs.

That’s a whole lot of money for a campaign contributor. In fact, if you consider the investment of $150,000, the $69m in returns is a great investment. Anyone want to pool some money and invest in this fund? I sure would.

The decision by Energy Secretary Steven Chu was not an easy one, Silver told the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but appeared to be the right action at the time.

“Without DOE’s agreement to restructure Solyndra’s loan, the company likely would have faced bankruptcy much earlier — in December 2010″ or soon after, Silver said. “Restructuring gave them a fighting chance to compete and succeed, and kept approximately 1,000 workers from losing their jobs.”

Republicans were not impressed.

“If their model was weak to begin with, and then the market gets worse, doesn’t that mean that maybe we should have just not thrown good money after bad?” asked Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va. “Because now we’re in a worse position in the bankruptcy courts to get our money back.”

Pft. Get our money back.

From whom? It’s over. We lost. Again. Just like GM.

They lost YOUR MONEY and they lined the pockets of a wealthy campaign contributor / bundler.

Feel better?

As some of you probably already know, I’m not a big fan of unions.  Not because I think people organizing together for their own common good are a bad thing, but because I think that’s usually not what happens with unions.  On the surface it appears as a bunch of workers trying to get better treatment from the man, but in the end, the union exists for one thing and one thing only: the preservation of the union and the bettering of the people running it.  How do I know this?  Because my father was in a union for almost the entire time I was aware enough of the world to know what a union actually was.  What I saw wasn’t an organization trying to help its members and do better for the little guy.  Instead, I saw a systematic dismantling of worker pride and the perpetual defense of mediocrity.  I saw a man, my father, who busted his ass and worked overtime whenever necessary to save up some cash to have when the inevitable yearly slowdown came and the union heads would all promise work “for the men” but deliver nothing.  At the same time as the workers were collecting unemployment and wondering when their cyclical lay off would end, the union heads were building themselves ornate offices on Park Avenue and spending millions of dollars on wood paneling for their office while their $30,000 a year workers were out on unemployment.  How many men in the local could completely live on $4 million?  Ponder that one.

My mother’s union was no different.  I could go on and on, but you get the picture.  If you’d like to read what I wrote about unions two years ago, be my guest.  Nothing in that post has changed.

Recently, in the debate over the Wisconsin Teacher’s Union and their fight over employee benefits, I was posting nearly regularly how wrong the union was.  I take the view that public sector unions should be outlawed and banned.  Surprisingly enough, so did FDR.  He believed, rightly, that it’s a fool’s game for a person in the public sector to make donations to a political campaign, then sit across the table from the person they helped get elected and negotiate a contract.  The idea that a public sector union could negotiate against taxpayers seemed ridiculous, and the even bigger idea that someone paying taxes could essentially vote themselves in a person who would give them a bigger share of the taxes they paid seemed ethically questionable.  Nothing has changed since then.  If you look at the public sector unions of today, millions of dollars are spent to elect Democrat candidates who promise to deliver to those same people the most tax money possible.  After all, it’s the taxpayer’s money, not theirs, so who really cares how it’s spent.

But private unions are a different story.  As much as I bemoan the lack of ethics and morality in the unions my parents were members of all of their life, there is a place for a private sector labor organization in the world.  It’s not that I believe private sector unions are any better in their dealings than public sector unions (and history has taught me otherwise), but if people want to organize in the free labor market, they’re more than welcome to.  That’s what brings us to where we are: the Verizon walkout.

At the beginning of negotiations, the CEO (or a duly selected representative thereof) came up with a long list of negotiating points and plopped them in front of the union.  That list was the term of the negotiations as they would be dictated.  The union was given a choice: negotiate on all of them or walk.  The union, correctly, walked.  I say correctly because the last time the Communications Workers of America went on strike, they made numerous concessions.  At the time, Verizon wasn’t doing as well, and the agreement was that they would make some concessions for the good of the company.  With the gauntlet thrown down this time around, the union wasn’t about to just sit there and be dictated to.  You don’t open negotiations with a list of unchangeable demands and expect the other side to sit there and take it, especially considering the history between the sides.

So the union walks out, and this is where it gets strange.  There were all kinds of wacky stories going on.  The usual accusations of sabotage and violence popped up nearly immediately.  Bad behavior was being alleged on both sides so regularly that the story became impossible to follow.  Some union guys decided to use their kid as props to stop trucks.  Some store managers decided to lay the smack down on some strikers.  A bunch of stupid kids decided it would be a good idea to become the poster children for everything that’s wrong in labor negotiations and protest inside a Verizon store.  The union showed up outside of Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg’s house and held a mock funeral for the middle class.  Mark Reed of Verizon even made a statement after the work stoppage ended (for the time being), telling the strikers that he hoped the ending of the stoppage would make the union negotiate in good faith after Verizon threatened to withhold benefits for striking workers (after forcing them out on strike) if they didn’t return to work by August 31st.

Are you getting all of that?  That was all in the period of roughly 3 weeks.

So why have I not commented on just about all of that?  Because it doesn’t matter to the average person, that’s why.

There are two schools of thought about this strike.  The right wingers believe Verizon is right and that the “damn unions” need to be stopped.  The left wing believes that evil corporations are always out to destroy the poor downtrodden worker.  In the end, screw both of them.  The truth lies in between.

Verizon handled this very poorly.  They knew for months the union was going to walk out because they prepared managers and such to take up as many slack positions as possible.  They made unreasonable demands of a union working under a conceded contract from (I believe) 2000.  They made numerous threats to intimidate and break up the union.  They did all of this with the full knowledge that everything was being reported in the media, so they weren’t going to get away with it, and they didn’t.  Their bad behavior was evident every time a rep from the company showed up in the media.

The problem Verizon had is that no one believed they needed to cut anything to make money.  Landline business be damned, the company made $27bn last quarter and roughly $26bn the prior quarter.  That’s right.  Last quarter.  I’m not one to hold up profits as a reason to demand more, but it’s hard to make the case that you’re not doing well and need to cut costs when you’re raking in that kind of money in a single quarter.  Feel free to tell me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.  And when you take into account the concessions made in the prior contract as a likely reason that the earnings were where they were, it’s hard to ask the union to give up more.

While I don’t believe you have a right to a job anywhere, I do believe you have a right (for lack of a better term) to succeed when the company succeeds, especially if you’re a direct reason for it not just by your employment, but by taking a hit when the good of the company needs you to.  The workers in this case did that.  Verizon, however, did not.  That’s not to say there’s no room to negotiate here, either.  Verizon wants to make more in profits.  The workers want more in benefits and salary.  It’s the usual give and take of a contract negotiation.

But that’s exactly what it is.  In spite of the drama surrounding the negotiations, it’s not a public issue.  This isn’t tahexpayer money.  It isn’t your money or my money.  It’s Verizon’s money, which they exchange for labor from the CWA, so it’s their problem, not ours.  We don’t owe either side any degree of loyalty, although if I had to choose a side here, I’d take the side of the workers simply because I’ve seen what Verizon has attemped to do and seen the silly fables their telling about the company.  I just don’t buy the act any more, Verizon, and I feel like we’re only getting half the story from you.  I don’t believe you open a round of give and take by simply taking and telling the other side if they don’t like it, tough.  That’s not negotiation.

I also don’t believe that you can make arguments about the struggles of your company when they’re making very good profits and shareholders are reaping a nice return on every dollar.  Finally, I don’t believe that asking employees who made concessions once, and in essence played the “go along to get along” game to do the same again is fair in any sense of the word.  Sorry, Verizon.  Just the way it is.

Negotations have restarted, which is good news.  Verizon has taken a more conciliatory tone and tomorrow the union goes back to work.  It’s going to be an interesting few weeks as the details of the new contract is hammered out, but either way, I’m tired of Verizon demonizing the union.  While I can say it’s been done on both sides, Verizon should be thanking its lucky stars that the CWA made concessions once and should be asking themselves why they should have to do it all over again when the company they’re working for is earning money and returning respectable profits.

That says a lot more about Verizon than it does about the CWA, that’s for sure.

This isn’t a left or right issue.  It isn’t a right or wrong issue.  It isn’t a big labor versus corporation issue.  It’s a contract negotiation with both sides posturing and one side playing fast and loose with the facts while the other gives back and then gets told they didn’t give back enough.  If you think the union is wrong in this case, ask yourself: would you give more when you’ve already given a lot back and the other side gave nothing?  If you’re honest and take the “union versus corporation” angle out of it, you already know that answer.

It’s Verizon’s turn to give back.  Clearly.

Let’s see if they have the stones to actually do it.

Notice that it’s a big uptick around 2007-2008? We’re not talking about spending in dollars, we’re talking about spending as a percentage of GDP, meaning no matter how you spin the numbers, we’re spending a larger percentage of what we’re taking in than we were before.

Any reasonable person would acknowledge that those numbers are unsustainable.

Second graph.

Notice the revenue numbers? They’re assuming an incredibly generous amount of growth and revenue, aren’t they? In other words, if we continue with our anemic growth and continue to pump money into the system as well as put stimulus money into the economy, guess what? That gap grows as growth will stay flat (as it has) and spending will increase, greatly exacerbating the difference in what we take in versus what we shell out.

Even at the rosiest projections, namely the ones on this chart, we’ll never equalize what we spend versus what we take in.

You can find some interesting analysis of these (and a few other) numbers at the source, which I highly recommend you read if you want to truly understand just how screwed we really are.

Turns out, he’s right. I do think it’s bullshit, but let’s discuss why.

Let’s say you have a store in Manhattan. You pay sales tax and property tax for your business. Why?

If your store is on fire, the fire department puts it out. If you’re robbed, the police come and investigate. You use local roads, sidewalks, and utilities. You are, whether you live in the city or outside of the city, a burden to the resources of the city because you utilize its services.

Now what if you’re an online business who sells to people in New York?

You don’t call the NYPD or NYFD for protection. You don’t use any infrastructure in the city, and your business requires no interaction with city services. In fact, for the most part, your business has no financial impact on the city aside from business that may be lost by locals when people shop at your store instead.

And therein lies the rub.

Taxes are designed to mitigate your presence and pay for the government services which you would need access to, which is why no one is arguing that having a physical presence in a city or state isn’t a valid reason to make sales tax a requirement for those businesses. Amazon has a different problem than most online businesses, however. Since I live in New York, if I do any affiliate sales for Amazon (ie: through a link on this site), the State of New York wants that to be considered a physical presence for Amazon if I’m selling products, something that’s clearly not the case. Other states have such laws and Amazon is currently fighting them as well.

Amazon has an interesting angle in California, however, because in California you can put initiatives on the ballot and that’s where they’re going to get this policy rescinded. Chances are they’ll have a great deal of success, too, because people are starting to get tired of the government sticking their hands in their pockets at every turn.

While the affiliate argument is one that’s open to debate, the sales tax one in general is not. As far as I’m concerned, unless you have a presence in a state, that state has no right to charge you sales tax. You are not, in any way, a burden to that economy, and aside from scoring political points with local donors, the sales tax does nothing but encourage a business to not do any of its business in that state. Just ask Texas, who lost an Amazon warehouse and California who lost its entire affiliate program.

The other interesting angle is that there already are use tax requirements in just about every state. If you buy something and don’t pay tax on it, you’re supposed to report it on your income tax filing and pay the requisite taxes. Since no one does that, and since politicians don’t seem to have the spine to make people lest they be accused of taking from people, they’re targeting companies like Amazon so that they can look like they’re fighting for the little guy instead of fleecing him. It would be hard to argue that you’re fighting for local businesses if you’re taxing local citizens, so they avoid that altogether by going after big evil Amazon.

It’s all a shell game.

So to answer David’s point, yes I think the pressure on Amazon is bullshit, and it’s brought about by spineless twerps in state legislatures who want to squeeze anyone they can for more revenue because they can’t control their desire to spend.

SCOTUS Pulls at Least One Nanny-State Finger Off the Family
by Dr. Dathan A. Paterno

The Supreme Court of the United States today struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion for the 7-2 majority, with Justices Breyer and Thomas dissenting.

One can just see the headline now: “Supreme Court Determines Violent Video Games Are Great for Kids!” Or, “Justice Scalia’s Children Must Be Embarrassed by His Utter Disregard for Parents’ Rights.”

Superficially, this appears to be a failure of government to support parents in their quest to protect children. Shouldn’t we applaud governmental restrictions on games that depict violent rape, dismemberment, and sickeningly graphic murder? Shouldn’t the Supreme Court want to help parents protect their children from this satanic drivel?
Well, not really. Scalia wrote that the gaming industry already does assist parents in this regard by providing useful rating systems for games—a system that experts consider far superior to our current movie rating system. The Court argued that states cannot create laws to deny children access to objectionable material.

The justices admitted that some of these games aren’t just objectionable, but horrific. Scalia hinted at the utter depravity of many of the current games (Justice Alito endured the task of researching just how bad these games are; our nation owes him a collective floral arrangement and “Thank You” card). No one needs to convince us of the abased nature of these games. We think they are shameful at best and neither of us would allow these games in our homes.
The majority ruled, however, that the evidence that violent video games cause future violence is weak and merely correlational. No direct cause has ever been established. Furthermore, any causal relationship was admittedly slim at best—having about the same effect as comic books and Saturday morning cartoons (remember Tom and Jerry?). If the government can’t restrict those, how could it restrict video games?

Government, in the end, has no compelling interest in forcing limits on children’s access to violent video games. This is, and always has been, the sole responsibility of parents. Government has no right to infringe on parents’ ability to monitor or achieve reasonable control over their children. If the government took that responsibility from parents, one could see how the family structure would be degraded.

In fact, the majority entertained the slippery slope of restricting minors’ access to certain material. If the government can restrict one type of objectionable material, it can object to other types of objectionable material based on non-compelling interests and evidence. For example, imagine the government restricting the dissemination of religious tracts because some pseudoscientific study suggests the activity tends to breed contentiousness and even violent behavior.

The question is, will parents take the bait and exercise the control that was rightly theirs all along? Government has parented all of us for so long that many parents might think, “if it isn’t illegal, it must be okay for my kids, or the government would have banned it.” This is the problem with the encroaching nanny state. We have gradually become accustomed to government deciding our safety for us–from helmets to seat belts. We want to believe that if it is dangerous, big daddy government will protect us.

This decision effectively slows down the reach of the nanny state. For this, we are thankful. It also reinforces our united belief that parents are the ultimate arbiters of what is best for their children and are the final human authority in a child’s life. This awesome responsibility rests on our shoulders, which should force us to redouble our own efforts and help equip all parents to take up that mantle of authority for their good and for the good of their children.

Co-authored with BigGovernment contributor Dr. Gina Loudon.

Incidentally, the author of this piece is Dr. Dathan A. Paterno, a psychologist.

You’re welcome.

Anyway, here’s the Senate breakdown of the votes for the abortion funders. I think it’s safe to say that Rand Paul and Jim DeMint voted against the bill as a procedural move knowing the bill wouldn’t pass anyway. If I remember correctly, a No vote will allow the people making said No vote to reintroduce the bill at a later time.

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —44
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs —56
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Paul (R-KY)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The most common reason you’ll hear is that women get pregnant because they don’t have access to contraception. Even the Guttmacher Institute debunks that lie.

A January 2011 fact sheet by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute listed all the reasons that women who have had an abortion give for their unexpected pregnancy, and not one of them is lack of access to contraception. In fact, 54 percent of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method, if incorrectly, in the month they got pregnant. For the 46 percent who had not used contraception, 33 percent had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy; 32 percent had had concerns about contraceptive methods; 26 percent had had unexpected sex, and 1 percent had been forced to have sex. Not one fraction of 1 percent said they got pregnant because they lacked access to contraception. Some described having unexpected sex, but all that can be said about them is that they are irresponsible, not that they felt they lacked access to contraception.

Lack of knowledge of contraception also isn’t a reason that American women get abortions. Guttmacher reported that only 8 percent of women who undergo abortions have never used a method of birth control. 

So in other words, the women having abortions aren’t having them because they couldn’t lay out a few bucks for a condom (or because their man couldn’t, for that matter), nor are they having them because they were unaware of contraception. They’re having them because they screwed up.

Even more disturbing, though, is Planned Parenthood’s actual mission statement. While they tout their support for “choice” and “education” and “women’s health,” their mission statement provides a very good insight into what they’re really about when it all comes down to it.

According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”

So it is, in reality, a population-control organization. Funny, this was never mentioned in the gauzy $200,000 advertising campaign launched last week. It also doesn’t make it into the “About Us” section of the group’s website, which repeatedly claims its mission is to protect women’s health, when in fact the real mission is to keep the birth rate at whatever level the leaders believe it should be.

To hear Planned Parenthood and their supporters, they exist only to provide Pap smears or breast exams or prenatal services. In fact, President Cecile Richards has gone so far as to erroneously imply that they provide mammograms. (A spokesperson for the group confirmed to me that this is untrue.)

The interesting part of that is that anyone who knows anything beyond the name of the organization knows who the founder was and what she was about. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. She firmly believed that abortion services and “family planning” had to be made available to keep the negro population from expanding in the United States. She saw black people as a drain on society and a burden on the country because of their poverty and their high birthrates.

I’m not making that up. Look it up yourself.

When you take into account that “population control” is still part of their mission statement, it’s pretty obvious that Planned Parenthood hasn’t strayed far from its eugenicist roots and that the organization’s goal is to continue in the footsteps of its racist bigot founder.

Where does this leave us? Well, I’m not sure, but it would be nice if the pro-abortion crowd were at least honest about Planned Parenthood and didn’t lie to the country pointing out how many women won’t get a mammogram if they don’t get taxpayer funding.

Source

Album of the Year: Arcade Fire – ‘The Suburbs’
Record of the Year: Lady Antebellum – ‘Need You Now’
Best New Artist: Esperanza Spalding
Song of the Year: Lady Antebellum – ‘Need You Now’
Best Female Pop Vocal Performance: Bad Romance’ – Lady Gaga
Best Male Pop Vocal Performance: ‘Just The Way You Are’ – Bruno Mars
Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group With Vocals: Train – ‘Hey, Soul Sister’ (Live)
Best Pop Vocal Album: ‘The Fame Monster’ – Lady Gaga
Best Hard Rock Performance: Them Crooked Vultures – ‘New Fang’
Best Rock Song: Neil Young – ‘Angry World’
Best Rock Album: ‘The Resistance’ – Muse
Best Alternative Music Album: The Black Keys – ‘Brothers’
Best R&B Album: ‘Wake Up!’ – John Legend and the Roots
Best Contemporary R&B Album: Usher – ‘Raymond v. Raymond’
Best Rap/Sung Collaboration: Jay-Z and Alicia Keys – ‘Empire State of Mind’
Best Rap Song: Jay-Z and Alicia Keys – ‘Empire State of Mind’
Best Rap Album: Eminem – ‘Recovery’
Best Country Song: Lady Antebellum – ‘Need You Now’
Best Country Album: Lady Antebellum – ‘Need You Now’
Best Female Country Vocal Performance: ‘The House That Built Me’ – Miranda Lambert
Best Male Country Vocal Performance: ‘Til Summer Comes Around’ – Keith Urban

Not too bad. Arcade Fire, though? Really? How many hipsters helped make that decision?

And who the hell is Esperanza Spalding?

Some of these were really obvious. Eminem, Alica Keys and Jay-Z, and Gaga were obvious. Surprising, at least to me, was the ass-kicking done by Lady Antebellum. The album is amazing beyond the one “popular” song and if you haven’t heard it, you need to, but I never expected to see them get so much recognition.

Overall, I could say this might be the most accurate list of talent the Grammys have been awarded to in a long time.

Source

That, my friends, is a debt-reduction plan, not this “freezing of growth” crap we keep talking about.

This is the solution. Anything less is crap.

Ladies and gentlemen, the state of the union can be defined in one word: broken. That’s the only word you need to know, because no matter how it’s sugarcoated by people who will try and seek election and reelection in 2012, it’s broken and getting closer and closer to non-fixable.

We’re mired in two wars which our President promised us would be his first priority in extricating us from. While I didn’t object to either war at the time, and as time goes on, I’ve become more impatient waiting for us to make some kind of move to either win them or leave them behind, I’ve seen the “I’m going to end these wars and bring our boys home” President send more and more and more troops with nary an objection from those in Congress who so stridently ran against the wars to get elected. And despite growing evidence that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seem willing to take their own affairs into their own hands, and even more evidence that if those countries are ever going to fight their own battles, we keep our boots on their soil as they pay lip service to being partners in the fight. Two Presidents, years of fighting, and we still have countries not willing to defend themselves as we send our men and women to die for them.

Iraq and Afghanistan are broken.

Our economy is going nowhere fast. After cutting off people from unemployment benefits, the reduction in the overall unemployment rolls was a cause for celebration, yet most of the decline could be attributed to people being newly classified as permanently unemployed. The small bump we did see was in the month of December when seasonal hiring is at its highest, yet we’re meant to believe that economic policy is the cause for the decline. When people stop looking for work, that’s not a sign the economy is recovering; it’s a sign that it’s hopelessly broken and has been for years. Some people dropped off the rolls after 99 weeks.

Unemployment is broken.

We have a federal government who thinks that it’s perfectly fine to force you to pay for health insurance you don’t want and make you buy it from a private company or you’ll be penalized. That same federal government also thinks it’s fine that people with pre-existing conditions can jump in at any time. The system, based on simple economics and common sense, will fall apart, and creates a system where government will swoop in and create yet another entitlement in the name of “helping” the poor and the uninsured.

Health insurance is broken.

We have a 2 year moratorium on tax hikes for corporations under the guise that they will be able to make investments and grow their businesses. These claims are made by people in Washington who have no idea how to run a business and don’t understand that a two-year moratorium won’t spur large amounts of investment. Any degree of common sense will tell you that uncertainty won’t breed confidence or investment.

Business investment is broken.

The United States has billions in unfunded obligations related to federal, state, and municipal pensions. After investing your pension contribution and expecting an 8% (for example) return, some investments got a 1-2% return, and some lost money, but since most federal, state, and municipal pensions are guaranteed, they’re going to have to be paid anyway. Newt Gingrich, in his infinite wisdom, has called for states to be allowed to declare bankruptcy to get out from under these obligations. Smarter people have called for pensions to be changed for new workers, but government unions are hearing none of it. They’d rather risk all pensions for all workers than save the pensions of some and ask new workers to contribute more. Don’t believe me? Ask California or New York, both of whom have pension funds that are depleted to near insolvency and will probably require a bailout of some kind if things don’t change, and I have little doubt that the White House will pass on bailing out government unions who largely endorse Democrat candidates.

The pension system is broken.

For every dollar the federal government spends, they borrow $0.40.

The economy is broken.

Social Security will run deficits until 2037 starting now, and will be broke after that.

Social Security is broken.

Need I go on?

The State of the Union is broken. Simply put, no amount of high speed rails, health care reform, or broadband internet is going to fix that. It’s time for serious solutions, Mr. President. Your State of The Union address, quite frankly, was full of blather, drivel, and crap, and lacked actual solutions.

You referred to us having a “Sputnik moment.” Most people aren’t educated enough to realize what that means. I am. You’re not. When we had our Sputnik moment, it was because the Russians put a man-made satellite in space before we did. It was a threat. A danger to the country. Something we feared could lead to the end of our country. Our response? We walked on the moon. We launched satellites. We did whatever we could to get that dominant edge back. That, Mr. President, was our “Sputnik moment.”

Now it’s time for you to have yours. The economy is broken. Close to 10% of the country is on unemployment insurance, and way more than that have given up searching for employment entirely. Social Security will be defunct in 5-6 years. Medicare and Medicaid are practically bankrupt. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are broke, borderline insolvent, and will need a bailout in the next year to continue to function. To top it off, we’re $1.5 trillion in debt and none of your “cuts” will even put a dent in that.

When President Eisenhower had his “Sputnik moment,” he reacted. Strongly. Decisively. Like a leader.

Here’s your Sputnik moment, Mr. President.

Act.

RT @davidfrum: The talk did not cause the crime. But the crime should lead to reflection on the talk. http://bit.ly/hteRqm

January 9, 2011 11:12 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@brianstelter

Brian Stelter

And mind you, David Frum isn’t the only one saying this today, and I don’t really know exactly who said what and when, but what I can tell you is that the tone of the discussion around Loughner sure had changed from where it was yesterday when he was, before he was named, a disciple of right wing ideology.

Funny how once Palin stopped being a root cause, the story got less interesting for people.

Game. Set. Match.

And I’d be willing to bet that the same people applauding being forced to deal with LGBT clients would be protesting and picketing if a man in a white hood and sheets showed up for some cookies, and don’t bullshit me because you know it’s true.

The economic nails slowly have been hammered into that coffin all summer and fall. A spate of subpar economic statistics has shown the failure of the fiscal-stimulus spending program. And myriad tax and regulatory threats produced by new government policies have created a massive uncertainty overhang and a dismal jobs outlook. American businesses have gone on an investment-capital and hiring strike.

Plenty more, at the link, and while he predicts a huge Tea Party win for the election (something that didn’t really happen), his citation of numbers is pretty staggering.

Source

Now documenting GOPers ducking specific cutsthey would make to the budget, after months/years of bawling about budget cuts. You guys have control now, what will you cut?

I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Oliver Willis on anything, but this is a damn good question and one I’d like to see an answer to.  If you think about it, the Pledge to America, the GOP’s outline for how they’ll do things in the House, had nothing about cutting spending, just not increasing spending (ie: we won’t scale it back, but we won’t grow it).

Now that the GOP has control, it’ll be interesting to see how and where the cuts we’ve heard about will be made and how many of these folks who now have power will resist the power of the trough.

My guess?  Not many if any.

Conservatives are looking to show the Phelps family a good old fashioned ass whoopin’ in the Supreme Court. Many are desperately hoping that the Justices will declare that there is no inherent right for the Westboro Baptist Church to protest funerals with signs that say such charming things as “God Hates Fags” and “Fags Burn in Hell.” Many otherwise smart conservatives are jumping on this bandwagon and declaring that the funerals of soldiers should be off-limits and protest free.

The intentions are good. A parent burying their child is the saddest thing in the world. Parents aren’t supposed to outlive their kids, but in the context of soldier funerals that happens far too often. The stress of that and the tragedy it represents have caused well-intentioned people to argue that those parents shouldn’t have to deal with the nastiness that the Westboro Baptist Church represents. As good as their intentions are, however, they’re the exact last thing that needs to happen.

For the Supremes to argue that funerals are no longer a free-speech zone, they would have to essentially state that speech is only free when it doesn’t offend the recipient of that speech. In other words, the Westboro Baptist Church can’t have the right to have a God Hates Fags sign at a funeral because it would offend the parents and family of that soldier. Most people aren’t thinking about that, and in fact they’re more concerned with the end result, which would be the end of protests at funerals.

But now take that a step further.

How long before someone else is offended, and based on precedent, they take it to court. How about all those Prop 8 protests? Or more interestingly, how about the anti-Ground Zero Mosque protests? Anyone offended by those protests could, in theory, bring suit to stop them, and they would have precedent on their side. While that’s not a perfect analog, it’s a realistic application, and that same precedent can be applied over and over any time the targets of a protest don’t like the fact that they are, in fact, being protested.

Which is why conservatives need to shut up and support the Westboro Baptist Church.

There’s been a lot of outrage from the right in the past few days, particularly over the organizations that are filing Amicus Curiae briefs on the case. The implication is that if you file a brief, you’re in favor of the message that the WBC is spewing. That couldn’t be further from the truth, and in fact it’s a laughable charge particularly from partisans that believe in the Tea Party philosophy of Constitutional literalism. In its most literal form, the First Amendment should be applied in a way that’s content-neutral, and people arguing for the rejection of this lawsuit are not necessarily doing so because they support the hateful message coming from the church, which is obviously not the case. In fact, organizations that have historically leaned very far left including the ACLU and the New York Times who would hardly condone the message, have defended the rights of the church from the beginning.

The reality is an uncomfortable one, but it’s an important one. Conservatives need to get behind the Westboro Baptist Church in this case not because they agree with the message, but because the stakes are entirely too high not to. The First Amendment is the basis on which everything in this country functions. Take that away for convenience and you may be happy with the results today, but it will undoubtedly have devastating effects down the road.