Thursday, November 15, 2012
Political Mayhem Thursday: Eric Garland's letter to Republican Strategists
Yesterday, Tall Tenor sent me a link to a remarkable rant by one Eric Garland, who explained why he failed to vote Republican despite being an affluent, suburban, white, straight businessman. On almost every point, I generaly agree with him (though he does not speak for me-- he's kinda violating some of my rules for civil discourse here). You can (and should) read the whole thing here, but here is the heart of it:
Science - One of the reasons my family is affluent is that my wife and I have a collective fifteen years of university education between us. I have a Masters degree in Science and Technology Policy, and my wife is a physician who holds degrees in medicine as well as cell and molecular biology. We are really quite unimpressed with Congressional representatives such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun who actually serve on the House science committee and who believe, respectively, that rape does not cause pregnancy and that evolution and astrophysics are lies straight from Satan’s butt cheeks. These are, sadly, only two of innumerable assaults that the Republican Party has made against hard science – with nothing to say of logic in general. Please understand the unbearable tension this might create between us and your candidates.
Climate - Within just the past 18 months the following events have come to our attention: a record-breaking drought that sent temperatures over 100 degrees for weeks, killing half the corn in the Midwest and half the TREES on our suburban property – AND – a hurricane that drowned not New Orleans or Tampa or North Carolina but my native state of VERMONT. As an encore, a second hurricane drowned lower Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island. The shouted views of decrepit mental fossil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma that this is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by evil, conspiring climate scientists is belied by such events and is looking irresponsible to even the most skeptical.
Healthcare - My wife and I are quite familiar with America’s healthcare system due to our professions, and having lived abroad extensively, also very aware of comparable systems. Your party’s insistence on declaring the private U.S. healthcare system “the best in the world” fails nearly every factual measure available to any curious mind. We watch our country piss away 60% more expenditures than the next most expensive system (Switzerland) for health outcomes that rival former Soviet bloc nations. On a personal scale, my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits. I have watched countless small businesses unable to attract talented workers because of the outrageous and climbing cost of private insurance. And I watch European and Asian businesses outpace American companies because they can attract that talent without asking people to risk bankruptcy and death. That you think this state of affairs is somehow preferable to “Obamacare,” which you compared ludicrously to Trotskyite Russian communism, is a sign of deficient minds unfit to guide health policy in America.
War - Nations do have to go to war sometimes, but that Iraq thing was pretty bad, to put it mildly. Somebody should have been, I dunno – FIRED for bad performance. Aren’t you the party of good corporate managers or something? This topic could get 10,000 words on its own. Let’s just leave it at: You guys suck at running wars.
Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!
Gay marriage - As the child of Baby Boomers who got divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and for whom 50% of my friends had their homes broken by divorce in the critical years before age 18, I sure am unsympathetic to your caterwauling bullshit that “gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Perhaps if everyone in your generation didn’t take the period of 1978 – 1995 to start surreptitiously banging their neighbors and coworkers, only to abandon their kids because “they just weren’t happy,” I would take your defense of marriage more seriously. The institution of Middle Class suburban marriage was broken by the generation of aging white Baby Boomers who populate what is left of the Republican Party, so your defense is wrongheaded and disingenuous. And moreover, as someone who got called “faggot” about 127 times a day from the years 1985 through 1991 – guess what – I grew up to be pretty good friends with actual homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is usually the least significant thing about them. The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung.
Science - One of the reasons my family is affluent is that my wife and I have a collective fifteen years of university education between us. I have a Masters degree in Science and Technology Policy, and my wife is a physician who holds degrees in medicine as well as cell and molecular biology. We are really quite unimpressed with Congressional representatives such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun who actually serve on the House science committee and who believe, respectively, that rape does not cause pregnancy and that evolution and astrophysics are lies straight from Satan’s butt cheeks. These are, sadly, only two of innumerable assaults that the Republican Party has made against hard science – with nothing to say of logic in general. Please understand the unbearable tension this might create between us and your candidates.
Climate - Within just the past 18 months the following events have come to our attention: a record-breaking drought that sent temperatures over 100 degrees for weeks, killing half the corn in the Midwest and half the TREES on our suburban property – AND – a hurricane that drowned not New Orleans or Tampa or North Carolina but my native state of VERMONT. As an encore, a second hurricane drowned lower Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island. The shouted views of decrepit mental fossil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma that this is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by evil, conspiring climate scientists is belied by such events and is looking irresponsible to even the most skeptical.
Healthcare - My wife and I are quite familiar with America’s healthcare system due to our professions, and having lived abroad extensively, also very aware of comparable systems. Your party’s insistence on declaring the private U.S. healthcare system “the best in the world” fails nearly every factual measure available to any curious mind. We watch our country piss away 60% more expenditures than the next most expensive system (Switzerland) for health outcomes that rival former Soviet bloc nations. On a personal scale, my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits. I have watched countless small businesses unable to attract talented workers because of the outrageous and climbing cost of private insurance. And I watch European and Asian businesses outpace American companies because they can attract that talent without asking people to risk bankruptcy and death. That you think this state of affairs is somehow preferable to “Obamacare,” which you compared ludicrously to Trotskyite Russian communism, is a sign of deficient minds unfit to guide health policy in America.
War - Nations do have to go to war sometimes, but that Iraq thing was pretty bad, to put it mildly. Somebody should have been, I dunno – FIRED for bad performance. Aren’t you the party of good corporate managers or something? This topic could get 10,000 words on its own. Let’s just leave it at: You guys suck at running wars.
Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!
Gay marriage - As the child of Baby Boomers who got divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and for whom 50% of my friends had their homes broken by divorce in the critical years before age 18, I sure am unsympathetic to your caterwauling bullshit that “gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Perhaps if everyone in your generation didn’t take the period of 1978 – 1995 to start surreptitiously banging their neighbors and coworkers, only to abandon their kids because “they just weren’t happy,” I would take your defense of marriage more seriously. The institution of Middle Class suburban marriage was broken by the generation of aging white Baby Boomers who populate what is left of the Republican Party, so your defense is wrongheaded and disingenuous. And moreover, as someone who got called “faggot” about 127 times a day from the years 1985 through 1991 – guess what – I grew up to be pretty good friends with actual homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is usually the least significant thing about them. The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung.
Comments:
<< Home
As I said to TallTenor and have expressed here before, until people like this guy start to show up at their local Republican Party meetings, the social conservatives and anti-science zealots will continue to rule. Shouting from the sidelines won't change things.
IPLawguy, In addition to speaking up at the rotary club, folks in Republican districts need to call their Congressman and say the following: I'm a longtime conservative who strongly believes in the principles of low taxes and small government. But I've come to the conclusion that we must raise marginal tax rates to save the country from financial ruin. If the Chamber of Commerce were to get behind such a campaign, we'd have a bipartisan deal by the end of the year. (Obama has already shown that he’ll cut Medicare and Social Security in order to get a deal.)
the GOP doesn't believe in astrophysics? seriously? whatever happened to the party of Copernicus man...
# posted by 
: 10:17 AM
: 10:17 AM
every Republican on the House Science Committee rejects astrophysics? also, isn't the very fact that we have a House Science Committee the problem?
also, what does it mean to "reject science?" if a Republican says that his belief in God means that he believes in the biblical version of creation but at the same time he supports the most advanced energy technology in the coal and natural gas fields, is that anti-science? or do we not count that because that is science liberals don't like or don't agree with?
also, what does it mean to "reject science?" if a Republican says that his belief in God means that he believes in the biblical version of creation but at the same time he supports the most advanced energy technology in the coal and natural gas fields, is that anti-science? or do we not count that because that is science liberals don't like or don't agree with?
# posted by : 10:34 AM
: 10:34 AM
RRL--
First of all, Republicans in Congress have NOT supported " the most advanced energy technology in the coal and natural gas fields" in any tangible way. They have supported the cheapest available technologies, for the most part.
Second, there is a broad denial of global warming in Republican circles, and that is getting less and less credible. That's the core of what this guy is saying, I think.
First of all, Republicans in Congress have NOT supported " the most advanced energy technology in the coal and natural gas fields" in any tangible way. They have supported the cheapest available technologies, for the most part.
Second, there is a broad denial of global warming in Republican circles, and that is getting less and less credible. That's the core of what this guy is saying, I think.
Great article. If John Huntsman or Michael Bloomberg were running against Crazy Occupy Dude, I would probably vote for a Republican. Even if one of them was running against Nancy Pelosi I might vote for them, maybe, but as it is...
Lets talk about warming then (though the astrophysics thing is too precious). He uses this years hurricanes as proof of warming. Yet, 2009-2011 saw the fewest hurricans that we've had since the mid-1970s. Does that mean from 2009-2011 there was no warming, but now there is? Or does it mean that whenever there is a weather disaster liberals will use it as evidence of warming even though it is much more likely just evidence of bad weather?
I've been reading about warming since 1994 when I was a high school debater. The climate models were wrong then. They were wrong in the 2000s. And they still aren't accurate in predicting a relationship between human production of CO2 and rising temperatures. Actual temperatures, both of the air and the oceans, have consistently fallen short of even the most modest predictions of climate scientists. Now, scientists that once used climate models to tell us how dire the situation was and how we must act IMMEDIATELY simply say, "well, models are always wrong, but that doesn't mean climate change isn't real."
Mitt Romney said he believed the Earth was getting warmer, and he believed that humans had some role in that. But he also said that the extent of man made warming was an open quesiton, WHICH IS TRUE AND IN LINE WITH THE BEST SCIENCE AVAILABLE. Why is a reasoned, measured approach a bad thing?
By the way, the man made warming theory is nothing more, it is a theory. And I'm no scientist, but I always thought that testing of theories was part of the scientific process. How does the conservative desire to test the climate theory make us anti-science? Why is the liberal desire to accept climate change wholesale to advance a political agenda not anti-science?
I've been reading about warming since 1994 when I was a high school debater. The climate models were wrong then. They were wrong in the 2000s. And they still aren't accurate in predicting a relationship between human production of CO2 and rising temperatures. Actual temperatures, both of the air and the oceans, have consistently fallen short of even the most modest predictions of climate scientists. Now, scientists that once used climate models to tell us how dire the situation was and how we must act IMMEDIATELY simply say, "well, models are always wrong, but that doesn't mean climate change isn't real."
Mitt Romney said he believed the Earth was getting warmer, and he believed that humans had some role in that. But he also said that the extent of man made warming was an open quesiton, WHICH IS TRUE AND IN LINE WITH THE BEST SCIENCE AVAILABLE. Why is a reasoned, measured approach a bad thing?
By the way, the man made warming theory is nothing more, it is a theory. And I'm no scientist, but I always thought that testing of theories was part of the scientific process. How does the conservative desire to test the climate theory make us anti-science? Why is the liberal desire to accept climate change wholesale to advance a political agenda not anti-science?
# posted by : 11:13 AM
: 11:13 AM
RRL--
[This is fun! I feel like I'm the Lane of the 2010's...]
Your Question: "Why is the liberal desire to accept climate change wholesale to advance a political agenda not anti-science?"
The answer: Because nearly every credible scientist in the field "accepts climate change wholesale." It's pro-science to agree with the consensus of scientific experts. It's anti-science to deny that consensus.
[This is fun! I feel like I'm the Lane of the 2010's...]
Your Question: "Why is the liberal desire to accept climate change wholesale to advance a political agenda not anti-science?"
The answer: Because nearly every credible scientist in the field "accepts climate change wholesale." It's pro-science to agree with the consensus of scientific experts. It's anti-science to deny that consensus.
I had a boss on the House Science Committee, and it is a JOKE. No one wants to be on the Science Committee. Most Science Committee meetings were attended by me, the lowly intern. Not the Congressman, not a legislative aide, but the kid who's other job was to give tours and fetch lunch.
# posted by : 11:27 AM
: 11:27 AM
Mark:
[fun indeed]
The consensus was once that world was flat. And by consensus I mean that EVERYONE agreed that the world was flat. So, I assume that the effort to disprove that was not science?
The consensus was once that everything revolved around the Earth. So, again, since EVERYONE agreed about that, science would apparently dictate that we should just accept it as true?
Einstein said nothing moved faster than the speed of light. EVERYONE accepted that THEORY. Last year, scientists claimed to have proven that neutrinos could move faster than the speed of light. But I guess I shouldn't call them "scientists" because what they were really doing was engaging in anti-science blasphemy.
As for the idea that "nearly every credible scientist...accepts climate change wholesale," well, no, they don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
And those are just two examples. I'm sure you don't consider any of those people "credible," but who is making these credibility determinations? One physicist says warming is real. Another one says its not. The first one says that the second one isn't credible. Case solved?
Oh, and the consensus is premised around the IPCC report, whose methodology has been questoined extensively and whose claims to a "consensus" have been questioned as well.
I'm not even saying I don't believe in man made warming, I just think that the most basic tenets of science and the scientific method require more inquiry and questioning than they do accepting the will of the majority.
[fun indeed]
The consensus was once that world was flat. And by consensus I mean that EVERYONE agreed that the world was flat. So, I assume that the effort to disprove that was not science?
The consensus was once that everything revolved around the Earth. So, again, since EVERYONE agreed about that, science would apparently dictate that we should just accept it as true?
Einstein said nothing moved faster than the speed of light. EVERYONE accepted that THEORY. Last year, scientists claimed to have proven that neutrinos could move faster than the speed of light. But I guess I shouldn't call them "scientists" because what they were really doing was engaging in anti-science blasphemy.
As for the idea that "nearly every credible scientist...accepts climate change wholesale," well, no, they don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
And those are just two examples. I'm sure you don't consider any of those people "credible," but who is making these credibility determinations? One physicist says warming is real. Another one says its not. The first one says that the second one isn't credible. Case solved?
Oh, and the consensus is premised around the IPCC report, whose methodology has been questoined extensively and whose claims to a "consensus" have been questioned as well.
I'm not even saying I don't believe in man made warming, I just think that the most basic tenets of science and the scientific method require more inquiry and questioning than they do accepting the will of the majority.
# posted by : 11:52 AM
: 11:52 AM
If the overwhelming majority of scientists are right, the consequences could be really bad.
So, if some guy comes into your house with a gun, pushes you in the corner, and says he is not going to do anything bad, would you just wait and do nothing until your "theory" that he had bad intent was realized?
Oh, and congrats on making partner!
So, if some guy comes into your house with a gun, pushes you in the corner, and says he is not going to do anything bad, would you just wait and do nothing until your "theory" that he had bad intent was realized?
Oh, and congrats on making partner!
Why would Republicans listen to someone from Vermont about how to improve the party...where they actually have a self-described socialist senator?
Re: global warming, the article posted Tuesday about the "plateau" is revealing.
Re: global warming, the article posted Tuesday about the "plateau" is revealing.
Ah, but he MOVED from Vermont... he can't help having been born there.
[Vermont, by the way, is a beautiful place that features a wooden nuclear reactor]
[Vermont, by the way, is a beautiful place that features a wooden nuclear reactor]
Very true...he can't help having been indoctrinated in the Sanders camps.
So yes, white, liberal businessmen do exist (many on Wall Street). I'm not sure what else this advances. Turnout is a more interesting question for Republican strategists.
So yes, white, liberal businessmen do exist (many on Wall Street). I'm not sure what else this advances. Turnout is a more interesting question for Republican strategists.
They don't reject science when a family member is in need of life-saving ~ very expensive, experimental or cutting edge medical care. It's the other science they don't like.
Kendall - you mean the article that says global warming stopped 16 years ago and has levelled off? That article? SCIENCE DENIER! YOU MUST BE STOPPED!
In regards to the gun, no I would not wait to determine his intent. I know what guns can do. It would be silly to wait. We don't, at this point, know what CO2 can do to the temperature of the Earth, and generally the predicitions based on your holy "science" have been wrong. So, the more accurate example would be, what would I do if a guy came into my home and threatened me with a twizzler. One red twizzler. All floppy. But he said, "hey, this twizzler will kill you, I promise, unless you give me all your money." Then he handed me a list of 10,000 people that agreed the twizzler could kill me.
I think I would wait and see, or at least try to determine the otherwordly nature of this particular twizzler, before giving the man all my credit cards.
In regards to the gun, no I would not wait to determine his intent. I know what guns can do. It would be silly to wait. We don't, at this point, know what CO2 can do to the temperature of the Earth, and generally the predicitions based on your holy "science" have been wrong. So, the more accurate example would be, what would I do if a guy came into my home and threatened me with a twizzler. One red twizzler. All floppy. But he said, "hey, this twizzler will kill you, I promise, unless you give me all your money." Then he handed me a list of 10,000 people that agreed the twizzler could kill me.
I think I would wait and see, or at least try to determine the otherwordly nature of this particular twizzler, before giving the man all my credit cards.
# posted by : 3:31 PM
: 3:31 PM
To further RRL's analogy, the other thing to do in that situation would be to immediately support an anti-"deadly" twizzler tax that would have scores of unintended consequences as the ONLY possible solution to the allegedly deadly red twizzlers.
# posted by : 3:38 PM
: 3:38 PM
@RRL ...Killer candy! Really? I guess the analogy is meant proportional to how you feel about (proven or dis-proven) climate change threat. A plastic gun would have made more sense, even though come to think of it a twizzler, a limp twizzler at that, may just lodge in one's throat and kill them before anyone came around to issue a proven warning that candy can be deadly if not taken seriously...hmmm.
Sheesh not, Prof! I know I often show labyrinthine reasoning but if you followed closely...the innocuous limp candy can kill after all, in spite of it not being generally accepted to be deadly.
Seriously, I'm not a hardcore conservative....really...I'm not. and to prove I'm not, i actually listen to other opinions and allow myself to believe certain things, despite facts, to fall in line with "happy thoughts."
I won't go into the argument about climate change too much other than to say that I think people probably have had some negative effects on the air we breathe and MIGHT just have sped up any increase in heat. However, given all of the latest scientific data points to the last few decades actually being cooler, I'm not jumping on the the "earth will burn" bandwagon just yet. Call me kooky, but i'm not buying this idea that all of the top scientists believe we are the CAUSE of warming. Do people influence the environment... absolutely!...should we build more nuclear reactors rather than new coal plants? probably, I hear the energy they produce is pretty cheap.
Being that I am Polish, I am however, obligated to believe in astrophysics because Copernicus was, in fact, a Polak like me.
As for the War in Iraq, it was actually quite successful. In terms of numbers of casualties, speed, and even later, the subduing of a hostile population were done, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, extremely well. This idea that "we suck at running wars" is actually unfounded in fact and is also based on propoganda. Check the facts on previous American wars and you will see that this was a very successful campaign.
I'm tired of people trying to compare our healthcare system to everywhere else. It is no doubt cheaper to have a universal healthcare system when you have a 90-95% homogeneous population with a few outliers in terms of "traditional disease." You think it's a coincidence that the French hardly spend any money on heart disease prevention and treatment?
Point is, it would be far more expensive here to accomplish those goals because we are a melting-pot of a nation that will not allow us to provide cheap care to our population. It will cost more to take care of ALL the issues that are spread throughout the population.
Do we have the best doctors and hospitals and treatments? Absolutely. does that mean it's the best "system"?? maybe not, but you are arguing over semantics at this point. The reason why we have them (for the time being) is because they can be here to make money. I see us getting surpassed in the near future with specialists and the best doctors coming being found all over the world. that will occur not because of healthcare provider systems but rather investments in education and research by governments and corporations.
I won't go into the argument about climate change too much other than to say that I think people probably have had some negative effects on the air we breathe and MIGHT just have sped up any increase in heat. However, given all of the latest scientific data points to the last few decades actually being cooler, I'm not jumping on the the "earth will burn" bandwagon just yet. Call me kooky, but i'm not buying this idea that all of the top scientists believe we are the CAUSE of warming. Do people influence the environment... absolutely!...should we build more nuclear reactors rather than new coal plants? probably, I hear the energy they produce is pretty cheap.
Being that I am Polish, I am however, obligated to believe in astrophysics because Copernicus was, in fact, a Polak like me.
As for the War in Iraq, it was actually quite successful. In terms of numbers of casualties, speed, and even later, the subduing of a hostile population were done, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, extremely well. This idea that "we suck at running wars" is actually unfounded in fact and is also based on propoganda. Check the facts on previous American wars and you will see that this was a very successful campaign.
I'm tired of people trying to compare our healthcare system to everywhere else. It is no doubt cheaper to have a universal healthcare system when you have a 90-95% homogeneous population with a few outliers in terms of "traditional disease." You think it's a coincidence that the French hardly spend any money on heart disease prevention and treatment?
Point is, it would be far more expensive here to accomplish those goals because we are a melting-pot of a nation that will not allow us to provide cheap care to our population. It will cost more to take care of ALL the issues that are spread throughout the population.
Do we have the best doctors and hospitals and treatments? Absolutely. does that mean it's the best "system"?? maybe not, but you are arguing over semantics at this point. The reason why we have them (for the time being) is because they can be here to make money. I see us getting surpassed in the near future with specialists and the best doctors coming being found all over the world. that will occur not because of healthcare provider systems but rather investments in education and research by governments and corporations.
# posted by : 6:31 PM
: 6:31 PM
Yes, the republicans in the past have sucked at stopping deficits. So I guess we won't believe Democrats on civil rights issues because they were once in favor of slavery and jim crow?
I'm tired of people saying they won't vote for the man because of the sins of the father. I'm not GWBush and I don't think we should spend more than we take in! That automatically disqualifies me from being a good candidate? Because I call myself a Republican?
Same goes for gay marriage. Just because the generation before me didn't stay faithful and didn't respect marriage then, is not a reason to say they have no standing to believe that it should be between a man and a woman NOW. People can change apparently. Maybe some people actually realized the harm all of those divorces were causing and decided to focus on fixing families as a way to make us better?
I actually think the government should have no role in marriage whatsoever.
But it's nice of you to say I'm wrong and want to exclude me from government because I also have a RELIGIOUS problem with gay behavior. If you are gay, that doesn't mean I can't be your friend, nor am I someone who is out to get you. I just happen to believe you live as a sinner. Which puts you in some pretty amazing company. In fact, everyone I know is a sinner in some way and they are lucky to hang out with someone like me...who never sins.
All that being said, I think this guy is vocalizing what most of America thinks. It's the Entertainment Tonight version of the news. Just deep enough to sound involved and educated, but not deep enough to get your hands dirty.
smoke 'em if you got 'em......ribs that is.
I'm tired of people saying they won't vote for the man because of the sins of the father. I'm not GWBush and I don't think we should spend more than we take in! That automatically disqualifies me from being a good candidate? Because I call myself a Republican?
Same goes for gay marriage. Just because the generation before me didn't stay faithful and didn't respect marriage then, is not a reason to say they have no standing to believe that it should be between a man and a woman NOW. People can change apparently. Maybe some people actually realized the harm all of those divorces were causing and decided to focus on fixing families as a way to make us better?
I actually think the government should have no role in marriage whatsoever.
But it's nice of you to say I'm wrong and want to exclude me from government because I also have a RELIGIOUS problem with gay behavior. If you are gay, that doesn't mean I can't be your friend, nor am I someone who is out to get you. I just happen to believe you live as a sinner. Which puts you in some pretty amazing company. In fact, everyone I know is a sinner in some way and they are lucky to hang out with someone like me...who never sins.
All that being said, I think this guy is vocalizing what most of America thinks. It's the Entertainment Tonight version of the news. Just deep enough to sound involved and educated, but not deep enough to get your hands dirty.
smoke 'em if you got 'em......ribs that is.
# posted by : 6:31 PM
: 6:31 PM
DDA--
I see your points, for the most part, but CLINTON wasn't for slavery-- with Republicans and deficit spending, we are talking about recent history-- just five years ago, not 150. I've lived through five Republican administrations, and not one of them made a serious effort, even when in control of both houses of Congress, to control spending or the deficit. That's why they lack credibility... how many times do they get to say one thing and do another and have us believe them again and again?
I see your points, for the most part, but CLINTON wasn't for slavery-- with Republicans and deficit spending, we are talking about recent history-- just five years ago, not 150. I've lived through five Republican administrations, and not one of them made a serious effort, even when in control of both houses of Congress, to control spending or the deficit. That's why they lack credibility... how many times do they get to say one thing and do another and have us believe them again and again?
"The War in Iraq...quite successful...in terms of numbers of casualties"
Let me guess: you have never lost a loved one, precious and irreplaceable, to sudden, violent, senseless death.
Let me guess: you have never lost a loved one, precious and irreplaceable, to sudden, violent, senseless death.
# posted by : 12:38 AM
: 12:38 AM
Here we go:
"Let me guess: you have never lost a loved one, precious and irreplaceable, to sudden, violent, senseless death."
Actually, if you must know, in your feeble attempt to denigrate me:
I'm a reservist in the Air Force, currently on active duty, my family in Poland survived the Holocaust and my grandfather was a hero of the war. so yeah, I know a bit about war and it's effects.
But really, nice way to respond to my arguments and take things out of context to suit your needs. If you read what i said again, I wasn't responding to YOUR total and unrealistic objection to war, but rather the comments contained in the article.
I appreciate you adding to the discussion by attacking me personally and trying to marginalize my thoughts by making me seem like the unreasonable one for having beliefs that don't comport to yours!
"Let me guess: you have never lost a loved one, precious and irreplaceable, to sudden, violent, senseless death."
Actually, if you must know, in your feeble attempt to denigrate me:
I'm a reservist in the Air Force, currently on active duty, my family in Poland survived the Holocaust and my grandfather was a hero of the war. so yeah, I know a bit about war and it's effects.
But really, nice way to respond to my arguments and take things out of context to suit your needs. If you read what i said again, I wasn't responding to YOUR total and unrealistic objection to war, but rather the comments contained in the article.
I appreciate you adding to the discussion by attacking me personally and trying to marginalize my thoughts by making me seem like the unreasonable one for having beliefs that don't comport to yours!
# posted by : 7:37 AM
: 7:37 AM
Prof,
You state that Republicans lack credibility and use words like "they have" and "not one of them" as though it applies to ALL republicans running for office.
I'm not saying you can't vote against a senator who was there during the bush years and went along with the increases if your concern is taxes and deficits. In fact, you are encouraged to vote against him, or atleast, not vote for him.
My point is that it's illogical to make past Republican sins the basis of voting against someone who is running as a Republican now.
It also makes no sense to me, to vote for Obama, (since the presidential race is really what we are talking about here)who has run up 4 years of deficits in the last 4 years despite promises to do the opposite, rather than someone who promises to reign in spending and had no involvement in the previous administrations or Congressional decisions. If you don't believe Romney because of your knowledge of his past, then say you don't BELIEVE HIM, but to state that you can't vote "republican" because GWBush wasn't good at cutting taxes is really not a good reason in my mind.
To hold me or another "new" candidate responsible for those previous errors doesn't make sense if you have a legitimate concern about the issue. Maybe if you got involved and met the person you'd have a better understanding. Again, by not bothering to find out if you BELIEVE me, you have taken the Entertainment Tonight approach..."I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but have no facts to back it up other than what I heard on Extra last night."
In fact, the most recent TEA party folks have, for the most part, stayed true to their promises to cut spending, but have been outvoted by the old guard.
You state that Republicans lack credibility and use words like "they have" and "not one of them" as though it applies to ALL republicans running for office.
I'm not saying you can't vote against a senator who was there during the bush years and went along with the increases if your concern is taxes and deficits. In fact, you are encouraged to vote against him, or atleast, not vote for him.
My point is that it's illogical to make past Republican sins the basis of voting against someone who is running as a Republican now.
It also makes no sense to me, to vote for Obama, (since the presidential race is really what we are talking about here)who has run up 4 years of deficits in the last 4 years despite promises to do the opposite, rather than someone who promises to reign in spending and had no involvement in the previous administrations or Congressional decisions. If you don't believe Romney because of your knowledge of his past, then say you don't BELIEVE HIM, but to state that you can't vote "republican" because GWBush wasn't good at cutting taxes is really not a good reason in my mind.
To hold me or another "new" candidate responsible for those previous errors doesn't make sense if you have a legitimate concern about the issue. Maybe if you got involved and met the person you'd have a better understanding. Again, by not bothering to find out if you BELIEVE me, you have taken the Entertainment Tonight approach..."I sound like I know what I'm talking about, but have no facts to back it up other than what I heard on Extra last night."
In fact, the most recent TEA party folks have, for the most part, stayed true to their promises to cut spending, but have been outvoted by the old guard.
# posted by : 1:47 PM
: 1:47 PM
Now that I have pulled my skirt up from around my ankles, a more heartfelt response to Eric Garland’s Rant seems appropriate. . .
I should have received similar disdain as Representative Akin for my comments yesterday morning aimed at the progressive’s base.
Though, it still amazes me as to the number of conservatives that disregard scientific evidence or contort evidence to appease. Is it leaning into the gales of evidence, for voice or video recognition, which has more conservatives than progressives so inflexible and often unwilling to listen and (gasp) even consider compromise? Is it not greater hypocrisy to rail against congressional gridlock while sucking-up to gerrymandered constituents at home?
Does anyone believe that in our children’s lifetime sea levels will begin to recede? With at or near the majority of our population living along our coasts, what are we waiting for? Calling ‘Job Creators.’ Part with some idle billions of cash sitting on the ‘sidelines’ and begin by investing in and encouraging men and women to enroll in STEM programs. There is a whole new energy economy to create and promote. Marketing video is mostly in place – all one needs do is add the sales pitch ‘hook’ to a CNN video of Sandy. If we hold our breath waiting for Mother Nature to improve the quality of air we breath, increased asthma and respiratory disease will be the least of our worries.
Growing up during the legacy of JFK – “Ask not. . .” and reflecting upon the Hippocratic oath, I believe freeing businesses from including health care costs as a business expense and establishing a ‘basic care’ wellness health care system that enrolls (includes) everyone (the healthy young and the revered elderly) – with options for those more affluent to upgrade individual and family plans – would benefit both our citizenry and the healthcare system. Is such a system possible? Yes. Would it be efficient? If we make it so! A daunting task? Our nation has faced many more daunting tasks in its short history. Do we have the will???
War – We’re idiots for squandering our children’s future allowing the military complex to continue ‘puffing out their chests’ proudly showing-off Kevlar vests adorned by World’s Protector badges. It is time we grow up and ask the nations we protect to more representatively stand along side, not under our umbrella. And if they are incapable to train their own armed forces properly, we currently have twelve years of practice. We need only require they begin paying for our expertise – It could become a deficit reduction program. . .
The deficits and debt? Professor Osler’s remarks said it all! Though I will give the Reagan Republicans credit for beginning to leave much of the deficit / debt problems Mark spoke of to the Democratic administrations that followed – then circling overhead as Clinton and now Obama are introduced to triage and the CPA often required to breath life back into the economy – while the more severe the diagnosis and longer the cure, shouts from the OR’s observation room are repetitious, “Give control back to us…”
If we were to remove “marriage’ from all things governmental, hand out ‘pocket copies of the constitution” conservatives wave during photo-ops and focus on equal rights for all, we would begin to separate compassionate conservatives from those fostering closeted discrimination when benefits to same sex couples began to be paid out. Then we could all celebrate the faith communities that embrace and willing perform gay marriages and begin, with dignity and respect, the process of affirming Christ’s love and compassion in Catholic (and other) faith communities, like my own, that seem intent to assume God’s role of discerning who is worthy of his love and sacraments. . .
Post a Comment
I should have received similar disdain as Representative Akin for my comments yesterday morning aimed at the progressive’s base.
Though, it still amazes me as to the number of conservatives that disregard scientific evidence or contort evidence to appease. Is it leaning into the gales of evidence, for voice or video recognition, which has more conservatives than progressives so inflexible and often unwilling to listen and (gasp) even consider compromise? Is it not greater hypocrisy to rail against congressional gridlock while sucking-up to gerrymandered constituents at home?
Does anyone believe that in our children’s lifetime sea levels will begin to recede? With at or near the majority of our population living along our coasts, what are we waiting for? Calling ‘Job Creators.’ Part with some idle billions of cash sitting on the ‘sidelines’ and begin by investing in and encouraging men and women to enroll in STEM programs. There is a whole new energy economy to create and promote. Marketing video is mostly in place – all one needs do is add the sales pitch ‘hook’ to a CNN video of Sandy. If we hold our breath waiting for Mother Nature to improve the quality of air we breath, increased asthma and respiratory disease will be the least of our worries.
Growing up during the legacy of JFK – “Ask not. . .” and reflecting upon the Hippocratic oath, I believe freeing businesses from including health care costs as a business expense and establishing a ‘basic care’ wellness health care system that enrolls (includes) everyone (the healthy young and the revered elderly) – with options for those more affluent to upgrade individual and family plans – would benefit both our citizenry and the healthcare system. Is such a system possible? Yes. Would it be efficient? If we make it so! A daunting task? Our nation has faced many more daunting tasks in its short history. Do we have the will???
War – We’re idiots for squandering our children’s future allowing the military complex to continue ‘puffing out their chests’ proudly showing-off Kevlar vests adorned by World’s Protector badges. It is time we grow up and ask the nations we protect to more representatively stand along side, not under our umbrella. And if they are incapable to train their own armed forces properly, we currently have twelve years of practice. We need only require they begin paying for our expertise – It could become a deficit reduction program. . .
The deficits and debt? Professor Osler’s remarks said it all! Though I will give the Reagan Republicans credit for beginning to leave much of the deficit / debt problems Mark spoke of to the Democratic administrations that followed – then circling overhead as Clinton and now Obama are introduced to triage and the CPA often required to breath life back into the economy – while the more severe the diagnosis and longer the cure, shouts from the OR’s observation room are repetitious, “Give control back to us…”
If we were to remove “marriage’ from all things governmental, hand out ‘pocket copies of the constitution” conservatives wave during photo-ops and focus on equal rights for all, we would begin to separate compassionate conservatives from those fostering closeted discrimination when benefits to same sex couples began to be paid out. Then we could all celebrate the faith communities that embrace and willing perform gay marriages and begin, with dignity and respect, the process of affirming Christ’s love and compassion in Catholic (and other) faith communities, like my own, that seem intent to assume God’s role of discerning who is worthy of his love and sacraments. . .
# posted by : 3:48 PM
: 3:48 PM << Home
