Another Quote for the Campaign Season

"If Gingrich is nominated, it won’t be because of his ideological clarity – he’s Flip to Mitt Romney’s Flop. It will be because he’s seen as the most likely to bully and humiliate Barack Obama. And that’s what GOP politics has come down to today." --Joan Walsh, "When Obama Underestimated Newt," posted in Salon, 11 December 2011.

Stupid, Mean and Condescending Stuff

First up, Rick Santorum, former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and presently a Republican presidential candidate, has this to say about food stamps and obesity: "'If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?' Santorum asked." Joann Glamm, "Santorum: 'Town crowds are getting a little bigger," LeMars Daily Sentinel, posted 6 December 2011. 

Here are some answers, Rick Santorum, to your question, from study done by Prof. Patricia Smith, professor of economics at University of Michigan-Dearborn:

• "..[F]ood stamps’ contribution to obesity among the poor is minor, accounting for only about 5 percent of the cases of obesity among poor Americans."
• “'Food stamps may enable women to buy more calories or the once-a-month distribution schedule may lead to disordered eating patterns, tempting women to feast on calorie-dense comfort foods when benefits arrive at the beginning of the month and then fasting at the end of the month when benefits have run out,' Smith explains."
• "Smith also finds compelling evidence that poverty contributes to weight gain by limiting the poor to neighborhoods with reduced access to nutritious lower calorie foods, fewer facilities for physical activity and greater exposure to stressors such as crime and pollution."
• "In addition, childhood abuse, family violence and disability can increase both the risks of poverty and obesity, according to Smith."

And, evidently, obesity is increasing in upper-income groups, too: "Obesity Rising Among the Rich", CBS News Healthwatch, 2 May 2005.

So get your facts straight and your heart in a better place, Rick Santorum.

Next up, Concerned Women of America opposed Senator Jeanne Shaheen's amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow military women access to government-funded insurance for abortions. Since 1981, women who serve in our military have been denied government-funded insurance for any abortion that didn't "endanger" the health of the mother. In other words, women who serve our country are refused insurance in their medical plans for abortions caused by rape, when pregnancies caused by rapes are a big problem in the U.S. military.

"Women already have access to abortions at a military facility in instances of rape or incest. However, American taxpayers have not been forced to pay for those abortions," Concerned Women of America gripe in a letter signed by their CEO and president, Peggy Nance.

Oh, please....our taxes provide medical insurance for civilians who work for the federal government and for rape victims in federal prisons, medical insurance that pays for abortions caused by rape or incest. Why provide less for women who serve in the military?

But the most grievous sentences in Nance's letter are these:

"Pregnancies under such circumstances need an extra measure of compassion and support. We need to remember that these women are victims of a heinous crime. But our priorities should be placed on preventing these crimes, punishing the perpetrators, and not covering up a crime by merely dealing with the physical consequences. Women deserve better than simply being given abortion as a 'cure-all."

So condescending to women who find themselves in "such circumstances"!

Women who find themselves in "such circumstances" should be the ones to decide what course of action they should take--and they should have the means to do it, the insurance to cover the abortion if they so choose.

Oh, and a vote on the amendment was blocked in the Senate.

What gets me is that the same people who would refuse abortions to women under ANY circumstance are often the same people who fight against providing sex education and access to birth control. bleh!

Kids Can't Pray in School? Give Me a break!

So Texas governor Rick Perry has a new ad out in which he makes these assertions:

“I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

“As President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion, and I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again. I’m Rick Perry and I approve this message.”

My children attended Texas schools for almost four years, from 2003-2007, and I also attended Texas public schools in the 1970s, so I know something about Texas schools. Not much seemed to have changed from when I was a kid in public school and when my kids attended Texas public schools thirty years or so later. Someone still prayed in public, over the loud speaker, before the football game, and school events were often preceded with a prayer. I particularly remember one event for students and parents in which the speaker went into a long description of her personal conversion to Christianity and credited Jesus Christ for overcoming an illness. Her whole presentation was an example of proselytizing, if there ever was one, and it ended in "in Jesus' name, amen."

Not every school is as egregious in its flouting separation of church and state, but Rick Perry is lying when he says that children can't pray in schools. Children can pray anywhere. Does he really think that people's mouths have to move for God to hear their prayers? As Jesus himself said,

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6: 5&6)

So I guess Christians are the ones who should be in closets.

As for the comment about gays? Well, that's just prejudice and hatefulness. And there's nothing new about that, either.

I'm so tired of the lie that President Obama is waging a war on religion and that liberals are attacking "our religious heritage." Examples, please? 

Last year I attended a Christmas party--with Christmas tree and presents--at a U. S. GOVERNMENT facility, attended by U.S. government employees. Guess how the event began? With a public prayer from an employee who is also a Christian preacher. And, yeah, that prayer ended "in Jesus' name, amen."

So I'm standing there, thinking that this is no place for a sectarian prayer, but I'm also thinking that some of the people there with their heads bowed and eyes closed think the U. S. government is waging a war on--oh, not just any religion, but--the Christian religion.

Give me a break.

Update
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a few words to say about Rick Perry's ad: "Rick Perry and the Politics of Resentment," posted at The Atlantic, 8 Dec. 2011.

Some Quotes from Phil Nugent (on the Republican party)

"For Republicans, at this stage of the game, picking a candidate is all about the personalities involved, and what they most want is somebody whose personality is calculated to piss off or appall the people they hate."

"...[I]t is wrong to classify the contemporary Republican party as "conservative". because true conservatism, whatever its lapses, is a reality-based school of thought that respects learning, scorns flattering appeals to the stupid, and seeks to actually conserve some things besides low tax rates for millionaires and the right to call anyone who doesn't agree with you a "class warrior" if your opponent is wearing a tie and a "smelly hippie" if he is not."

"In the meantime, the man seen as the most rational and in-touch of the Republican presidential candidates, Jon Huntsman, is seen as unelectable within his own party because he's not stupid, while the other one who has been known to claim to believe sensible things is regarded as a contender because he's now willing to claim to have repudiated all those sensible beliefs. Mitt Romney is supposed to be the responsible Republican front-runner, because he says enough crazy, stupid things to be acceptable to voters within his party, and also because the media and the party professionals believe he's actually a smart guy who's just pretending to be stupid until he has his hand on the Bible and is reciting the oath of office. They're openly signaling to people on the fence that it's okay to vote for Romney, because everything he says between now and Election Day is a bald-faced lie: he really knows better! This can't be good for the children." 

All three quotes above from Phil Nugent's post, "O, Stuporman," on The Phil Nugent Experience, posted 19 November 2011

Of course, now that Jon Huntsman smells blood in the water (Mitt Romney being overtaken by Newt Gingrich in polls), he's backing off his previous smart and educated pronouncements, too.

Unlimited Detention of American Citizens

I am not an admirer of Rand Paul, but I think he has done the right thing in voting against the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows  "the U.S. military to pick up and detain, without charges or trial, anyone suspected of terrorism, including American citizens, and to restrict transfers of prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay." Unfortunately, the amendment didn't pass. Read Dahlia Lithwick's article for a fuller discussion of possible consequences.


Once again, I am reminded of the importance of diversity and independence of thought in our governing leaders. Just because one disagrees with others on one issue doesn't mean there is no room for agreement on other issues. I think this is important to keep in mind when we are tempted to demonize those who don't agree with us. Our world views intersect in more ways than we might imagine.


Here is the roll call of the votes: U. S. Senate Roll Call Votes, 112th Congress, 1st session; on Amdt. # 1107  to S. 1867


h/t to Dahlia  Lithwick and to Steve Benen.