The Myth in the Machine
Posted: February 17, 2012 Filed under: Economy, Environment, Environmental Protection | Tags: regulations create jobs 15 Comments
Bostonboomer and I were perusing information on the Issa panel and committee on religious freedom and birth control yesterday. Their expert witness panel appeared to be a mix between the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition. Where were the women on this panel? Is this really our government? What’s going on in Torquemada’s–errr Issa’s–realm of influence these days? BB has already regaled us on the crooked career and life of Issa whose business and career seems built on insurance fraud, car theft, and arson, so I won’t go there. We have a whole tag dedicated to him that’s infinitely googleable. However I will express my utter surprise and contempt that a committee of the US House of Representatives and its web page seem to be more of a propaganda tool of right wing tropes than anything remotely informative or helpful. Issa appears to be the Republican Party’s budding little combination of Goebbels and Himmler.
Go there and you’ll see a youtube with a nice white lady saying her “choice” was taken away by the SEIU. You’ll also see the Orwellian job creators DOT com that wants to know what kind of things are holding up your business. I don’t suppose any answer pointing to a lack of customers with well-paying jobs gets much attention. It also has a link to the Fast and Furious Witch Hunt. (No mention that this program had roots in the previous Republican administration, of course.) I had no idea that so much propaganda had crept into tax payer paid websites of congressional committees. I expect propaganda on their Facebook pages. But congressional committee pages with federal government addresses? Please!!
In honor of Issa’s hunt for “experts” that agree with him, I thought I’d point out a Bloomberg Business article that shows how many jobs new government regulations can create in the economy. The subtitle is “Vilified on the campaign trail, government rules often create as many jobs as they kill”. Nothing like a little truth and empirical research to shine the light on the Issa/Gingrich/Romney propaganda machine. It’s true that regulations on businesses can shift resources away from the regulated business. That includes jobs, profits, capital, and executive perks. However, that’s a one-sided notion. Those resources don’t disappear into thin air. They simply shift away from the business that’s regulated–most likely because it’s creating a social cost–to other businesses that can better use the resources or employ folks cleaning up and measuring the messes in the case of regulation of dirty industries like Coal and Oil.
“This rule is the most extensive intervention into the power market and job market that EPA has ever attempted to implement,” says Scott Segal, a lobbyist at Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents the utility Southern Co. (SO) He argues the regulation will “undermine job creation in the United States.”
Tell that to Cal Lockert, the vice-president of Breen Energy Solutions, a Pittsburgh manufacturer of equipment that absorbs acid gases to keep them from spilling out of smokestacks. Lockert spends his days persuading power companies that he can help them bring some of their oldest, dirtiest plants in line with the federal requirements. There’s been “a frenzy of engineering firms and utilities” calling him for demonstrations of his products, he says. He’s hired a dozen people in the past month and says he’s just getting started.
Nol-Tec Systems in Lino Lakes, Minn., also expects a boom in sales of its equipment, which uses baking soda to pull pollutants out of plant exhaust. Meanwhile, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) in Waltham, Mass., is building emission monitors that power plants will need to measure toxins under the new rules. The regulations “could easily add $50 million to $100 million dollars in revenue in a year or two years,” says Chief Executive Officer Marc Casper, “which is significant for a company like ours.” The Institute of Clean Air Companies, a trade association representing businesses that make products to reduce industrial emissions, forecasts the industry will add 300,000 jobs a year through 2017 as a result of the EPA rules.
This is the side of the story that rarely gets mentioned in Washington or on the campaign trail. In an election year that hinges on the economy, government rules have become politically toxic. President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, the massive Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and EPA clean air and water mandates come under frequent attack from Republicans who say burdensome regulations are stalling the nation’s recovery. In the GOP debates, the R-word is now habitually preceded by “job-killing,” as in Mitt Romney’s promise to put an end to “job-killing regulations.” Newt Gingrich refers to the EPA as a “job-killing regulatory engine.”
Romney and Gingrich aren’t wrong. Government regulations do kill jobs, often by the thousands. Although it’s too early to tell how many layoffs may result from health-care and Wall Street reforms, there is a body of research going back decades detailing what has happened time and time again when Washington handed down sweeping environmental regulations: Costs increased, prices went up, and workers were fired. Supporters and opponents of the EPA’s new power plant rules agree that they will almost certainly result in dozens of coal plants shutting down and hundreds of workers being laid off.
But that’s not the whole picture. Government employment figures also show that those same regulations usually wind up creating about as many jobs as they kill. “We find there is no net impact,” says Richard Morgenstern, the EPA’s director of policy analysis in the Reagan and Clinton Administrations and now a researcher with Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan energy think tank in Washington. “The job creation and the job destruction roughly cancel each other out.”
Businesses targeted for regulation create huge social costs that taxpayers are forced to pick up. There are public health and safety costs, pollution and clean up costs, and many other costs. Dirty industries do these because they can force their costs onto the back of the public. They over produce their products and gobble up scare capital and productive resources because of they don’t realize the full costs of doing business. Regulation pushes these costs back onto their businesses. It also leads to “creative destruction” which is the Schumpeter idea that old, outdated technology must be replaced with better things to improve the long term performance of the economy. Some times the discipline in key industries has to come from the government because of the monopoly power of the industry. The energy industry is a prime example with its oligopoly over resource and product markets and the price inelastic nature of its demand. This enables the industry to via for political power as well as allows it fight to maintain dominance. In most of these cases, only technological developments break the monopoly/oligopoly. When Carter deregulated the telecommunications industry it wasn’t really all that effective. What really broke the back of the AT&T monopoly was the advances in communications technology. Frequently, regulations allow access to the heart of the monopoly’s business so that more facile, advanced businesses can break apart this destructive market type. It transfers resources away from the inefficient market that pushes high social costs on to taxpayers and neighboring communities.
Here’s a study that you never hear coming from the Issa propaganda/witch hunt arm of the US House of Representatives.
In 2002, Morgenstern and his colleagues published a landmark study detailing the effects of regulations on jobs in four polluting industries: paper, plastics, petroleum, and iron and steel. Drawing on more than 10 years’ worth of U.S. Census data, the study found new regulations led to higher production costs that pushed up prices, resulting in lost sales and layoffs. Yet those job losses were offset by new jobs in pollution abatement. “There’s always someone who is helped and someone who is hurt,” says Roger Noll, director of the Program on Regulatory Policy at Stanford University. “Which is why you have to look at the net effect on the economy.”
The loss in the polluting industry is actually a good thing in terms of market economy’s because it’s usually related to market inefficiency and transferred costs of doing business. BTW, this Stanford University think tank is not a hot bed of raging liberalism. This is one of this policy areas where there are trade-offs. This means changes create winners and losers. The deal is that in most cases the job loss is minimal but overall market efficiency improves. The true cost of the product is passed on to consumers which removes the subsidy to the consumers and producers of the product. Again, the resources just go elsewhere and are employed more efficiently in newer businesses. Oddly enough, this is what Romney frequently says he did in his corporate raider days.
The critique of regulations fits into a broader conservative narrative about government overreach. But it also comes after a string of disasters in recent years that were tied to government regulators falling short, including the financial crisis of 2008, the BP oil spill and the West Virginia mining accident last year.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that very few layoffs are caused principally by tougher rules.
Whenever a firm lays off workers, the bureau asks executives the biggest reason for the job cuts.
In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.
I’m really not sure how we can create responses and discussions to one-sided political narratives that are based more on ideological memes than facts. It certainly doesn’t help when that one-sided narrative comes from our own government sites and servants. Obviously, the inefficient, lop-sided markets create monopoly profits for the stakeholders and we see K street filled with lobbyists aimed at protecting the inefficient markets. The stories from younger, inventive, upstart businesses without lobbyists and pet pundits and politicians have worthwhile narratives. Too bad their lost in a fight for ideological purity instead of empirical truth. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we keep fighting the culture wars. Voodoo economics narratives don’t hold up to inspection.
Friday Reads
Posted: February 17, 2012 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: universal birth control access NOW 56 Comments
Good Morning!
I’m so disgusted about the politicization of women’s health care at the moment, I really have to take a break on the issue this weekend during Carnival. Nothing frosts my cupcakes more than a bunch of old viagra using religious nitwits sticking their noses in my daughters’ reproductive organs. The fight for abortion rights was something my generation took on certainly. But to re-fight birth control access? AND to hear some old gray haired rich jerk make a joke about holding aspirin between my legs? Outraged! I am Outraged!
Viewers didn’t get the “context of that joke,” Friess told MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell. Back in his day, Friess said, the birth control pill wasn’t available, so the thought of aspirin used as birth control would be pretty “silly” and “funny,” he said.
Friess also used the interview as an opportunity to attack the Obama administration’s birth control rule, saying that forcing insurance plans to cover birth control is like asking Muslim soup kitchens to serve pork.
Even Frothy said it was a bad joke and Friess writes big checks to the Frothmeister. More, continuing explanations aren’t helping him either.
Evidently they’ve confused the issue enough that the polls show mixed support for the insurance birth control mandate. Here’s some interesting analysis of polls on the topic from CNN. We need to loudly commit to universal coverage for birth control and all women’s health issues right now.
According to the survey, 50% of the public disapproves of the Obama administration policy, with 44% saying they approve of the plan. The margin is right at the edge of the poll’s sampling error.
Surveys on this topic tell a mixed story because many Americans know little about the issue. Recent CBS and Fox polls indicate support for the new policy, using questions that describe the new policy in some detail. But in the CNN poll, when asked their opinion of the Obama policy with no details spelled out, support was much less and a large partisan divide emerged. A recent Pew poll also suggests Americans are closely divided, and that poll may hold the key to the differences. Nearly four in ten Americans say they have heard nothing at all about this controversy.
“The CNN poll illustrates the road ahead for the White House,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “If the administration can’t inform more Americans about the details of the policy – details that some other polls show to be popular – the public is likely to split along party lines. Many will dislike the plan simply due to the fact that this is an Obama initiative.”
“It’s a lot like President Obama’s overall health care measure, which most Americans say they oppose even though they approve of many of the specific programs in the new law – opponents can use it against the president as long as they can keep the focus on who made the policy rather than what the policy actually does,” adds Holland.
Sibelius needs to get out front about this too along with some constitutional lawyers. I feel like we’ve been caught up in some kind of time warp that doesn’t just involve birth control, no in fact even the Essure Side Effect Lawsuit has similarities in how it’s dealt with.
Now that I”m finally curling up with ‘Confidence Men’, it seems a companion book is on the way. It’s called ‘The Escape Artist’ and it’s got more insider news on the Obama Economic team. It’s written by Noam Schieber of TNR and is due out next week.
As Scheiber writes, members of the president’s economic team felt that if they were to properly fill the hole caused by the recession, they would need a bill that priced at $1.8 trillion — $600 billion more than was previously believed to be the high-water mark for the White House.
The $1.8 trillion figure was included in a December 2008 memo authored by Christina Romer (the incoming head of the Council of Economic Advisers) and obtained by Scheiber in the course of researching his book.
“When Romer showed [Larry] Summers her $1.8 trillion figure late in the week before the memo was due, he dismissed it as impractical. So Romer spent the next few days coming up with a reasonable compromise: roughly $1.2 trillion,” Scheiber writes.
As has now become the stuff of Obama administration lore, when the final document was ultimately laid out for the president, even the $1.2 trillion figure wasn’t included. Summers thought it was still politically impractical. Moreover, if Obama had proposed $1.2 trillion but only obtained $800 billion, it would have been categorized as a failure.
“He had a view that you don’t ever want to be seen as losing,” a Summers colleague told Scheiber.
In case you’ve forgotten, I really don’t think much of Larry Summers.
One women’s issue that really turns me into a crusader rabbit is child brides. The Guardian has an excellent article on the the problem in Kashmir. It’s heart breaking from so many angles.
Knees pressed against her chest, Sakina huddles near the window of a sparsely furnished house. Her face is lit by a solitary ray of sunlight creeping into the cold room. It creates shadows around the petite woman who is wrapped in a ragged shawl.
Sakina, 22, was a teenager when she was sold by her family for 1,200 rupees (£15) to a stranger over the age of 60. Her sister, who organised the deal, had duped Sakina by presenting a “young good-looking” chap before the marriage ceremony. She was shocked at seeing the elderly man on the wedding night. Rendered helpless by youth and poverty, there was no escape for the bride. “Nobody helped me,” she said.
Uprooted from her home in Kolkata, Sakina was sent to live far away in Pakharpora, a small village in the Budgam district of the Kashmir valley. The journey 1,200 miles from east to north meant getting used to an entirely different culture and climate.
Time has passed but Sakina cannot reconcile herself to a husband who fails to emotionally or sexually satisfy her. “For the last two years he has become totally impotent,” she said.
The young woman still dreams of marrying someone she loves. But the fear of being torn apart from her two children prevents her from leaving.
What is it with all these old men that cannot leave young girls and boys alone? I just do not get it.
Ever been seated near a screaming, crying child on a plane and felt like jumping out the window? I remember sitting in a plane at Heathrow with a screaming child and a mother begging the Brit Air flight attendants to please warm up the baby’s bottle. Lots of us offered to do it since none of them would. Well, some one in Vietnam actually did something close to that.
A mom with a screaming child wanted a quick getaway from a plane on the tarmac in Vietnam and asked for help. The man next to her obliged by opening the emergency exit and triggering the escape slide.
An airport official says the man will be fined up to $950, and it will cost $10,000 to refit the slide.
Nothing in the news article about actually using the slide, however.
I’m getting ready for the Mardi Gras and the usual onslaught of kids and out of town visitors. If you’re interested in checking out some of the parades, try this link! They are all broadcast live from in front of Gallier Hall. There are also some great 
pictures here at Bloomberg with the report that income from Mardi Gras makes up 1.5% of our NOLA annual GDP!! 
Patricia Clarkson rode the Big SHOE for the Muses Krewe last night. Muses is an all women’s krewe that I almost joined right after Katrina. Their favorite throw is handpainted and decorated shoes! Muses is 100o women strong! The parades start at 6:30 pm and Hermes, D’Etat, an Morpheus roll tonight. Check them out if you get a chance!!
So, that should get us started! What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Republican Men Stop Women from Testifying on Birth Control in House Hearing: Their Religion=Slavery
Posted: February 16, 2012 Filed under: religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, right wing hate grouups, War on Women 54 Comments
Well-known Republican thug Darrell Issa has stopped minority witnesses and women in general from testifying before a house committee hearing on contraception stating the hearing is on “religious” liberty.
A Capitol Hill hearing that was supposed to be about religious freedom and a mandate that health insurers cover contraception in the United States began as an argument about whether Democrats could add a woman to the all-male panel.
“Where are the women?” the minority Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asked early in the hearing.
She criticized the Republican committee chairman, Rep. Darrel Issa, for wanting to “roll back the fundamental rights of women to a time when the government thought what happens in the bedroom is their business.”
“We will not be forced back to that primitive era,” she said.
Issa bristled at the charge and said Democrats could not add their witness because she was not a member of the clergy, but a student at Georgetown. He also faulted Democrats for not submitting the name of the witness, Sandra Fluke, in time.
Fluke would have talked about a classmate who lost an ovary because of a syndrome that causes ovarian cysts. Georgetown, which is affiliated with the Catholic Church, does not insure birth control, which is also used to treat the syndrome.
Issa said the hearing is meant to be more broadly about religious freedom and not specifically about the contraception mandate in the Health Reform law.
Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Norton left the room in protest.
Ranking committee member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”
And so Cummings, along with the Democratic women on the panel, took their request to the hearing room, demanding that Issa consider the testimony of a female college student. But the California congressman insisted that the hearing should focus on the rules’ alleged infringement on “religious liberty,” not contraception coverage, and denied the request. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) walked out of the hearing in protest of his decision, citing frustration over the fact that the first panel of witnesses consisted only of male religious leaders against the rule. Holmes Norton said she will not return, calling Issa’s chairmanship an “autocratic regime.”
Maddow Blog reminds us that both Catholics and self-identified GOP voters agree with the HHS mandate that provides universal birth control coverage to women with insurance, medicare, and medicaid. Republicans and the Catholic Bishops continue to make this about religious freedom after numerous Constitutional lawyers have stated that the policy will not conflict with the first amendment right of “free exercise”.
The ostensible point of a congressional hearing is to provide lawmakers with information they need to shape public policy. In this case, Issa has invited nine “expert” witnesses to discuss contraception coverage — and all nine are men who represent religious institutions.
How many of the witnesses will offer testimony in support of the administration’s position? According to Democrats, zero. How many can speak to issues regarding contraception and/or preventive health care? Again, zero. Issa invited nine people to testify, and each of them will tell Issa exactly what he wants to hear.
Dems were initially offered a chance to have one witness testify, but when they selected a female law student at Georgetown, Republican committee staffers rejected the choice, arguing that she would only be able to speak to issues regarding contraception access — and this was a hearing about religious liberty.
ECHIDNE of the snakes provides this photo showing the stacked deck.
Notice the number of old boys on the panel who are supposed to not be involved in politics and are given tax exemptions as a religious institution. I guess starting a war on women isn’t considered political.
Of Anger-filled Lies and Magical Thinking
Posted: February 15, 2012 Filed under: 2012 elections 15 CommentsI’ve never seen an election where the fight between a few candidates is basically boiling down to who can pass off the most lies, be the most outraged and outrageous, and which Super Pac can out-anger and 
out-mean one another. Has our country gotten to some point where magical thinking and lies hold more sway than well-reasoned arguments? Have parts of the populace become so bitter, ignorant and angry that mean is the new black?
It looks like the Santorum and Romney campaigns and their super PAC proxies are going to treat our eyes and ears to a new low in civility for this country. Is there some double dog dare out there on who can run the nastiest, most lie-filled campaign? Obviously, voters are rewarding this so is it the candidates or the base that have conjured up the wicked? Or, perhaps, this is just the natural outcropping of years and years and years of subjecting the Republican hypothalamus to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and all that insanity, anger and lies. Maybe this is the new status quo.
A brutal, two-front attack from the campaign and the SuperPAC. “The expectation is that Santorum, just given his personality, is going to whine like crazy,” said a Romney advisor.
Mitt Romney’s campaign — and its slashing Super PAC — are locking their sights on Rick Santorum for a campaign that may make previous attacks on Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich look like mere love taps.
In an interview with BuzzFeed, a Romney advisor offered details of the campaign’s coming two-front attack, which the campaign expects will be echoed by the Super PAC, which cannot legally coordinate its message, but which has already bought hundreds of thousands of dollars of airtime in key states.
“Santorum’s a blank slate, so everyone’s projecting on to him what they want because he’s the last anti-Romney,” said the advisor. “Santorum is going to get introduced to people that don’t know him.”
The assumption by the Republican establishment and the beltway punditry is that Romney is still the most “electable” candidate in the Republican Primary. Jonathan Chait wonders if this might actually be a bad assumption. Frankly, I wonder if all this combined Romney vitriol could back fire. Can Santorum start collecting a sympathy vote? After all, taking down the original Mean Boy of the Republican Party–Newt Gingrich–isn’t just a snicker worthy feat. It’s a study in what big money Super Pacs and a cut throat, win at any cost candidate will do to grab the prize. Romney’s campaign seems like a hostile takeover of the Republican base. The base wants a white knight. Are Romney’s tactics making that an impossible dream? Are we seeing some new level of scorched earth tactics where they damage everything to the point of uselessness?
Santorum has attracted a terrible reputation among the overclass. He is defined by his crude, bigoted social conservatism, which colors the broader perception of him as an extremist. This in turn leeches out into a sense, often reflected in news coverage, which likewise reflects the social biases of the overclass, that Santorum is a fringe candidate who would repel swing voters.
In fact, there are, very roughly speaking, two kinds of swing voters. One kind is economically conservative, socially liberal swing voters. This is the kind of voter you usually read about, because it’s the kind most familiar to political reporters – affluent and college educated. But there’s a second kind of voter at least as numerous – economically populist and socially conservative. Think of disaffected blue-collar workers, downscale white men who love guns, hate welfare, oppose free trade, and want higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Romney appeals to the former, but Santorum more to the latter.
As hard a time as Santorum would have closing the sale among certain moderate quarters, I don’t think it’s sunk in quite how poisoned Romney’s image has become among downscale voters. Coverage of Romney’s wealth, corporate history, and partially released tax situation coincided with, and almost certainly caused, a collapse in his support with white voters with income under $50,000. Republicans have enjoyed great success attracting downscale whites in recent years, but that success has hinged in part on things like not nominating standard-bearers who epitomize everything blue-collar whites distrust about their party.
An interesting poll by CNN shows that the class warfare–as well as the war on women–is impacting internal metrics in the Republican party. Is Santorum appealing to Republican bitter knitters who aren’t being characterized as “clinging to guns and bibles” but in some other equally insulting way? Can Republicans handle this group that tends to a more populist right wing outrage in a productive way? In 2008, Obama democrats had to orchestrate a convention to remove their problem. What’s going to happen to the “not Romney” crowd when they hit the Florida convention if this gets any nastier?
A CNN/ORC International poll also indicates that Santo rum supporters are much more highly motivated than those backing Romney.”The new numbers indicate a split in the Republican party that goes deeper than ideology, with signs of a gender gap and class warfare breaking out in the GOP ranks,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. According to the survey, released Tuesday afternoon, Santorum and Romney are basically all tied up for the lead in the race for the GOP nomination. Thirty four percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they back Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, with 32% backing Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has been at or near the top of national polling over the past year. Santorum’s two point margin over Romney is well within the survey’s sampling error.
Can whiny Rick Santorum turn this into a David v. Goliath thing that will further fragment Republican interests? There’s an op ed in the WSJ that suggest Santorum might be more electable because he can also pick up disgruntled blue collar dems. The op ed was penned by James Freeman so take a deep breath before you read it and/or go over there.
But how to explain recent polling from Rasmussen Reports? In a nationwide survey released this morning, President Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney in a potential head-to-head contest has swelled to 10 points, with the president capturing 50% support to Mr. Romney’s 40%. Meanwhile, Rasmussen finds that Mr. Obama leads Mr. Santorum by just four points, 46% to 42%. Another recent Rasmussen poll, focused on the key battleground state of Ohio, finds a dead heat in a potential Obama-Santorum contest. But the president leads Mr. Romney by four points among Buckeye voters. The evidence from Rasmussen clearly suggests that, at least for the moment, Mr. Santorum is the most electable Republican.
So, is just more of the base displaying their any one but Romney behavior? Will surging Rick go the way of Herman, Michelle, Newt, and Goodhair? Really good question. This makes Super Tuesday an acid test for Super Pacs and money, the strength of the Republican establishment and pundit pets, and the depth of the outrage from Tea Party and Religious fanatics. Will Willard be forced into taking the petulant Rickster as a VP or will it result in a brokered convention with some unforeseeable result? I’m not certain if there’s a good enough crystal ball out there at this point to form a good hypothesis. The conventional wisdom keeps coming up wrong this year.
I do know that I have never seen an election season like this one. The lies are bigger than all the wonders of the world put together. I’ve also never seen so much ignorance and anger driving so many people. No one candidate seems to be able to harness it for very long no matter how hard they try. This can only get more interesting. Perhaps it’s going to take a few sociologists and physiologists to explain this season where lies, hate, and magical thinking seem to carry more weight than anything else.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
jjlo
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Monday Reads: Lots of Outrage to Pass Around
Posted: February 13, 2012 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: New Hampshire removes labor laws, pedophila priesthood, racist Fox comments, Santorum and voodoo economics, Scott Walk steals mortgage settlement money | 56 CommentsI had thought about writing about all the incredibly outrageous things happening at the CPAC hatefest this weekend but figured it would take me more time than I wanted to spend in crazy land. No matter what they say, they do not want to conserve anything and they really seem to hate the constitution. Maybe I will work on something later this week. Besides, searching the usual news sources brought me enough outrage to fill the morning reads. Take a sip of coffee and prepare to be drop your jaw a few times.
Just when you think the Red Beanie set can’t ignore our laws and constitution any more than they already have, you find this one. A rapist priest told his victim that sexual assault is basically how god’s love feels. Watch the story from an NBC affiliate in Los Angeles and feel heartsick and mad simultaneously. Yes folks, these are the zygote zealots who are so concerned about the sanctity of sperm and egg as to hope the US government will outlaw birth control. It seems that little boys are just priestly love receptacles the way women are sperm storage units.
Evidently the KKK and white supremacists freely blog on Fox News. You would think that the death of pop singer Whitney Houston would give us a chance to think about drug abuse and the pressures of fame, but not loyal Fox Watchers. LGF has documented some of the most insidiously racist remarks I’ve ever seen. Fox obviously doesn’t screen for threats to the President or Haters. I won’t reprint them here but let me tell you, they are JAW Dropping.
We’ve learned that hatred of women and racial and religious minorities seems to be rampant in this country. What on earth is wrong with people?
If you live in New Hampshire, I hope you don’t work and need to eat. Think all those labor laws giving you time to eat and go to the bathroom are reasonable and unlikely to disappear? Think again. Just hold it in and starve if these Republicans get their law passed.
Yes, job creators should only give you the right to lunch and potty breaks if they want to. And, if you happen to get taken by the bank in mortgage fraud, Scott Walker wants your part of the settlement to help those hapless, persecuted job creators. So, you think the dribs and drabs of that big mortgage settlement are supposed to go to give homeowners some justice right? Not in Wisconsin where Scott Walker intends to put the settlement to other uses. Have they recalled him yet? Yes, it’s from Charles Pierce, so all you New Hampshire folks will just have to cross your legs harder.
Think Progress has the less glib explanation.
A post by your friendly economist just wouldn’t be complete with the la la land, voodoo explanation of what caused the last recession by your favorite idiot Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum thinks the recession was caused by Gas Prices. A mind is a terrible thing to waste unless you never had one to begin with …
I would say that the man just says what ever dribbles from the top of his mind if I thought he had one. So enough of serious economic issues. What exactly does Rick Santorum think of masturbation? Does he make certain that every sacred sperm winds up in the Santorum approved location?
My question of the day is how far back in time do these guys want to travel? What on earth is next? As far as I can see, all these things wouldn’t stand up in court. Something tells me however, that’s exactly what these guys want because rather than see their obvious problems passing constitutional muster, they can scream “Judicial OVERRREAAACHHHH”. What a bunch of maroons …. too bad we can’t ship them up there to the moon colony with Newt and Calista. Meanwhile, as they say in the Star War Series, May diVorce be with you!!!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends: