She also argued that rising energy costs, not contraception, was a big women’s issue in 2012 and that Republicans had missed an opportunity in not connecting with women over rising energy costs, even though energy was one plank of presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s five-point plan he touted on the trail this fall.

When prodded by audience questions, the panelists said that contraception was a non-issue. As Hemingway put it, contraception was thought up by Democrats who found it tested well in focus groups despite being a completely settled issue. Her response was to urge Republicans to respond with their own accusations that are “just as crazy,” something like, “they’re stealing your hot dogs!”

— Sabrina Schaeffer, the executive director of the right-wing Independent Women’s Forum
via Talking Points Memo

So I’m not a lady… but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that contraception isn’t a “non-issue”, and that rising energy costs is not what’s going to get more women voting for Republicans. It certainly isn’t something to be liken to “they’re stealing our hot dogs”.

Maybe if the front line republican politicians like Huckabee stopped trying to define and/or excuse rape… maybe that had something to do with it. I think that might have overshadowed Romney’s energy plan no matter how much it might have spoken to women.

Then there are the republicans that fought to have federal funding removed from Planned Parenthood because they help people that would like to have an abortion. That’s the only thing they’re good for, right? They’re customer base is small, right? That probably didn’t bother anyone, especially females that can get a script for ‘the pill’, ‘morning after pill’, get tested, or seek an abortion. Probably aren’t that many women that have used their services.

Then there’s those flyers I got from a right wing Catholic organization that tried to argue that their religious rights were being violated by being required to cover the pill… So clearly it was/is an issue.

That’d be a legitimate claim if organizations that only had Catholic employees were required to cover the pill (they wouldn’t be), but the issue that is on the table is any organization with that has Catholic leadership but hires employees of all backgrounds would be required to cover the pill.

It doesn’t make sense that an employer could opt out of employee rights given by law just because the board has outmoded religious convictions based on tradition.

Side note: it’s interesting to me that the Catholic god’s will can be thwarted by a millimeter of latex or the pill. You’d think the all powerful would be able to work around products with a chance of failure, even if it is around 1 or 2%

 

The government requires children to be vaccinated. Every state has immunization requirements.

soupsoup:

Is this a threat to your personal freedoms?

 
inothernews: How Michele Bachmann Bought the Iowa Straw Poll. I wonder, of the five — FIVE — news organizations that had Bachmann on their Sunday morning talk shows, how many of them asked about this? (via Unelected)

inothernews:

How Michele Bachmann Bought the Iowa Straw Poll.

I wonder, of the five — FIVE — news organizations that had Bachmann on their Sunday morning talk shows, how many of them asked about this?

(via Unelected)

 
jonathan-cunningham: rudikolus: jonathan-cunningham: janedoe225: bluebears: Oh.My.God. I am so fucking sick of this shit. And from noted PHD candidate in political science Joe Rogan no less!  Seriously this is starting to make Democrats look like asshats. He resigned. It’s over move on. There’s a national election coming up. Don’t mire yourself down in this whiny bullshit. Do I wish GWB was tried for war crimes at the Hague? Yes! But I also have no qualms in seeing this pampered and arrogant camera-whore step down from his position. Can’t we all agree to keep shit in perspective? Answer: No.  Additional Answer: are you new here? And seriously, not every message he sent was consensual. There were women who did not want to see his dick. And he some pictures of his penis as a “joke”, that’s straight up harassment. If some guy unsolicited showed you his penis on the street you’d call it incident exposure (and he’d probably serve time) but when a congressman does it over twitter he’s just being human. Fuck that. The point isn’t that what Weiner did was okay or good, the point is that the “Serious People” who are in an uproar over Weiner’s actions (which, as you say, could constitute indecent exposure) are the same people who apologize for the lies and crimes that led to the deaths of hundred of thousands of civilians in foreign countries. Pointing out that those positions are inconsistent and violently hypocritical is not the same as a defense of sending dick photos unsolicited (which I actually haven’t seen evidence of, despite how often it’s repeated, which isn’t to say it didn’t happen, only that I still haven’t seen any evidence that it did). I don’t really see how GWB is responsible for the Iraq War like you’re saying he is. He listened to his intelligence and acted on it. Were he to not listen to his intelligence he’d be an incompentent President. But he listened to his intelligence, as any remotely conscious being would, and acted on it. The intelligence was wrong, so we blame him? No. Blame his intelligence. The CIA, whoever provided the information, because those are people in power. I mean think about how bunched up your panties would be if GWB did not act on his intelligence and something horrible happened. You have to listen to what is provided. GWB manufactured that intelligence, it wasn’t as if it came to him via the CIA independently. He punished CIA officers who produced intelligence that suggested Saddam had no WMDs, and lied about what intelligence he did have. The hypocrisy in Weiner and Clinton getting as much political backlash as they did and Bush not getting near enough should be pointed out. Sexual harrassment and acting like a douche are one thing… But I think everyone should be able to agree that if we go into a war and we find out everyone reason for going in was absolute bunk, we should be asking questions. Just to figure out what went wrong, if nothing else. That should be a no brainer, something went wrong, gross numbers of human lives lost; we should know what went wrong. Now we’re pretty sure Bush, Cheney & Cabinet, warped, lied or misrepresented intelligence against the recommendation of the people giving it? This is after receiving a report saying ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US’ and being warned of it’s imminent threat…* Scooter Libby (Cheney’s lap dog) commits treason by outing a spy soon after her husband comes out against the war? C’mon. But someone show’s their dick or gets a BJ in the oval office and THAT’s what we get unreasonably angry about… STEP DOWN, WHAT A MONSTER, OMG, dong was involved. If you think nothing suspicious happened at the outset, the reconstruction, or the aftermath of the Iraq war and you feel like being vocal… please, please, please do some research. It’s out there, everywhere, and it’s not coming from just one source, or just from the ‘liberal media’ or just ‘pacifists’. The amount of decisions and events that at BEST can be called ‘mishandling’… well, you have to at least raise an eyebrow. * As an interesting aside, Clinton actually wanted to hunt down Bin Laden while he was in office, the Taliban bombed a US Embassy in Africa and killed an awful lot of folks. But you know why he didn’t get much political support for that effort? It was in the middle of the Kenn Starr report coming out and before Clinton owned up to his infidelities. That’s why pointing out this kind of hypocrisy is a really good idea.

jonathan-cunningham:

rudikolus:

jonathan-cunningham:

janedoe225:

bluebears:

Oh.My.God. I am so fucking sick of this shit. And from noted PHD candidate in political science Joe Rogan no less! 

Seriously this is starting to make Democrats look like asshats. He resigned. It’s over move on. There’s a national election coming up. Don’t mire yourself down in this whiny bullshit. Do I wish GWB was tried for war crimes at the Hague? Yes! But I also have no qualms in seeing this pampered and arrogant camera-whore step down from his position. Can’t we all agree to keep shit in perspective?

Answer: No. 

Additional Answer: are you new here?

And seriously, not every message he sent was consensual. There were women who did not want to see his dick. And he some pictures of his penis as a “joke”, that’s straight up harassment. If some guy unsolicited showed you his penis on the street you’d call it incident exposure (and he’d probably serve time) but when a congressman does it over twitter he’s just being human.

Fuck that.

The point isn’t that what Weiner did was okay or good, the point is that the “Serious People” who are in an uproar over Weiner’s actions (which, as you say, could constitute indecent exposure) are the same people who apologize for the lies and crimes that led to the deaths of hundred of thousands of civilians in foreign countries. Pointing out that those positions are inconsistent and violently hypocritical is not the same as a defense of sending dick photos unsolicited (which I actually haven’t seen evidence of, despite how often it’s repeated, which isn’t to say it didn’t happen, only that I still haven’t seen any evidence that it did).

I don’t really see how GWB is responsible for the Iraq War like you’re saying he is. He listened to his intelligence and acted on it. Were he to not listen to his intelligence he’d be an incompentent President. But he listened to his intelligence, as any remotely conscious being would, and acted on it. The intelligence was wrong, so we blame him? No. Blame his intelligence. The CIA, whoever provided the information, because those are people in power.

I mean think about how bunched up your panties would be if GWB did not act on his intelligence and something horrible happened. You have to listen to what is provided.

GWB manufactured that intelligence, it wasn’t as if it came to him via the CIA independently. He punished CIA officers who produced intelligence that suggested Saddam had no WMDs, and lied about what intelligence he did have.

The hypocrisy in Weiner and Clinton getting as much political backlash as they did and Bush not getting near enough should be pointed out. Sexual harrassment and acting like a douche are one thing…

But I think everyone should be able to agree that if we go into a war and we find out everyone reason for going in was absolute bunk, we should be asking questions.

Just to figure out what went wrong, if nothing else.

That should be a no brainer, something went wrong, gross numbers of human lives lost; we should know what went wrong.

Now we’re pretty sure Bush, Cheney & Cabinet, warped, lied or misrepresented intelligence against the recommendation of the people giving it? This is after receiving a report saying ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US’ and being warned of it’s imminent threat…*

Scooter Libby (Cheney’s lap dog) commits treason by outing a spy soon after her husband comes out against the war?

C’mon.

But someone show’s their dick or gets a BJ in the oval office and THAT’s what we get unreasonably angry about… STEP DOWN, WHAT A MONSTER, OMG, dong was involved.

If you think nothing suspicious happened at the outset, the reconstruction, or the aftermath of the Iraq war and you feel like being vocal… please, please, please do some research. It’s out there, everywhere, and it’s not coming from just one source, or just from the ‘liberal media’ or just ‘pacifists’.

The amount of decisions and events that at BEST can be called ‘mishandling’… well, you have to at least raise an eyebrow.

* As an interesting aside, Clinton actually wanted to hunt down Bin Laden while he was in office, the Taliban bombed a US Embassy in Africa and killed an awful lot of folks. But you know why he didn’t get much political support for that effort? It was in the middle of the Kenn Starr report coming out and before Clinton owned up to his infidelities. That’s why pointing out this kind of hypocrisy is a really good idea.

(Source: zombietwain)

 

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults
Highlights
  • Political liberalism and conservatism were correlated with brain structure
  • Liberalism was associated with the gray matter volume of anterior cingulate cortex
  • Conservatism was associated with increased right amygdala size
  • Results offer possible accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives

So after 5 minutes of research on Wikipedia (I know, I know, but I’m at work…) I see the amygdala is responsible for emotional learning.

In complex vertebrates, including humans, the amygdalae perform primary roles in the formation and storage of memories associated with emotional events. Research indicates that, during fear conditioning, sensory stimuli reach the basolateral complexes of the amygdalae, particularly the lateral nuclei, where they form associations with memories of the stimuli.

And according to this other site… grey matter can be “tightly linked” to intelligence:

“The quantity of frontal gray matter, in particular, was most similar in individuals who were genetically alike,” the researchers write. “Intriguingly, these individual differences in brain structure were tightly linked with individual differences in IQ.” Gray matter refers to the areas of the brain that mainly contain nerve cells, whereas white matter forms a layer between the areas of gray matter and encloses the column of gray matter in the spinal cord.

What can be discerned from this?

There’s the humorous (and flawed) point that conservatives are idiots, but what I really take from this is that the popular republican platform is powered by emotional appeal (logical fallicy), not good ideas (which isn’t to say there are no good ideas, just that they are not the driving force).

Liberalism has it’s flaws, and conservatism has some great ideas, but that’s not how party lines are drawn at.

It’s a cultural line, it’s defined by income, lifestyle and culture. The relationship of grey matter and conservatives doesn’t make liberalism right, I think it speaks more to how base and wrong the conservative platform is about basic human issues (love, personal freedom and human rights).

I would say, the more intelligence in a crowd the higher the chance for a ‘more objective’ opinion. The more objective opinions, the less successful (and more irritating) emotional appeals become.

But seriously, both sides are full of assholes. It’d be nice if we could all talk honestly and intelligently instead of the posturing or zealot type of communication political discourse usually turns into.

 
But all of the rich would leave us and move to… places where the taxes are similar… or third world… O WAIT that’s another line of horse shit some rich person fed to everyone via ‘news’. jonathan-cunningham: Increased taxes on the rich could balance the budget and end the showdown over how many billions to slash from social spending. Consider, for instance, the Fairness in Taxation Act introduced by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, which would increase the top federal marginal income tax rate to 45 percent for married couples earning more than one million dollars a year and to 49 percent for billionaires, from the current rate of 35 percent. Historically unprecedented? Hardly. The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows). Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the current Republican budget-cut goal. Even if it fell far short it would avert proposed cuts for many valuable programs, including Head Start, which provides early childhood education, and Pell Grants, which help low-income families send their children to college… Opponents of such a policy argue, variously, that it would be unfair, inefficient or politically impossible. Would higher rates be unfair? The top 1 percent has increased its share of total income to more than 20 percent today from about 10 percent in the 1960s. Those who believe that income can be generated only by brilliant innovation, bold risk-taking and hard work may conclude that this group has simply grown more productive over time. It seems more likely that changes in the structure of the global economy have delivered rich windfalls to those at the top. Would higher rates be inefficient? Many argue that lower tax rates on the rich encourage more effort and more investment. If true, much depends on where this effort and investment goes. The development of new credit derivatives didn’t help most American taxpayers. It forced them to lend money to bail out big banks. The historical record does not support the claim that high marginal tax rates dampen the economy. Average annual rates of growth in gross domestic product in the high-tax era between 1950 and 1980 exceeded those of the last 30 years. Increases in the top tax rate under President Clinton were followed by robust economic expansion. Nancy Folbre does a great job of breaking down why we should raise taxes on the wealthy.

But all of the rich would leave us and move to… places where the taxes are similar… or third world… O WAIT that’s another line of horse shit some rich person fed to everyone via ‘news’.

jonathan-cunningham:

Increased taxes on the rich could balance the budget and end the showdown over how many billions to slash from social spending.

Consider, for instance, the Fairness in Taxation Act introduced by Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, which would increase the top federal marginal income tax rate to 45 percent for married couples earning more than one million dollars a year and to 49 percent for billionaires, from the current rate of 35 percent.

Historically unprecedented? Hardly. The top marginal tax rate was 50 percent in the mid-1980s and even higher in the 1950s (as the chart shows).

Such a boost could raise an estimated $78 billion, more than the current Republican budget-cut goal. Even if it fell far short it would avert proposed cuts for many valuable programs, including Head Start, which provides early childhood education, and Pell Grants, which help low-income families send their children to college…

Opponents of such a policy argue, variously, that it would be unfair, inefficient or politically impossible.

Would higher rates be unfair? The top 1 percent has increased its share of total income to more than 20 percent today from about 10 percent in the 1960s.

Those who believe that income can be generated only by brilliant innovation, bold risk-taking and hard work may conclude that this group has simply grown more productive over time. It seems more likely that changes in the structure of the global economy have delivered rich windfalls to those at the top.

Would higher rates be inefficient? Many argue that lower tax rates on the rich encourage more effort and more investment. If true, much depends on where this effort and investment goes. The development of new credit derivatives didn’t help most American taxpayers. It forced them to lend money to bail out big banks.

The historical record does not support the claim that high marginal tax rates dampen the economy. Average annual rates of growth in gross domestic product in the high-tax era between 1950 and 1980 exceeded those of the last 30 years. Increases in the top tax rate under President Clinton were followed by robust economic expansion.

Nancy Folbre does a great job of breaking down why we should raise taxes on the wealthy.

 

America is Giving Up: Why Geithner and GE CEO Must Go

wilwheaton:

General Electric earned more than $14 billion in profits last year. They paid ZERO federal taxes. In fact, the government GAVE GE more than $3 billion in tax credits. So General Electric is basically a corporate welfare king.

But it gets worse. Not only did they pay zero taxes. Not only did they get $3 billion back from you and me. GE has slashed nearly 20% of its American workforce. So for all the tax breaks and all the tax incentives and all the pandering—we LOST JOBS.

But for some reason, President Obama went ahead and appointed GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Imelt, to head up his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Even after the story broke about GE’s welfare king job cutter status, Obama has kept Immelt in his position.

I would love to hear what Candidate Obama would say about President Obama, or if he would even recognize him. I don’t know WTF President Obama is thinking, but I do know that this isn’t the guy I voted for.

 
columbusdispatch: Jeff Stahler, Columbus Dispatch

columbusdispatch:

Jeff Stahler, Columbus Dispatch

(via political-cartoons)

 
A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

 
A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

 
A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

 
A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

 
A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

A Bunch of Crock (via Design Work Life)

 
jonathan-cunningham: Pete King stated that “not one terror-related case in the last two years involved neo-Nazis” literally one day after a neo-Nazi tried to bomb a Martin Luther King, Jr. day celebration.  Meanwhile (in the real world), investigators are learning that less and less terrorism is related to Islamic extremists: The FBI has reported that roughly two-thirds of terrorism in the United States was conducted by non-Islamic American extremists from 1980 to 2001; and from 2002 to 2005, it went up to 95 percent.

jonathan-cunningham:

Pete King stated that “not one terror-related case in the last two years involved neo-Nazis” literally one day after a neo-Nazi tried to bomb a Martin Luther King, Jr. day celebration.  Meanwhile (in the real world), investigators are learning that less and less terrorism is related to Islamic extremists:

The FBI has reported that roughly two-thirds of terrorism in the United States was conducted by non-Islamic American extremists from 1980 to 2001; and from 2002 to 2005, it went up to 95 percent.

(Source: )

 
wilwheaton: Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts: This makes me sick. Original graphic with sources is at the Center for American Progress. I also linked this in a diary I wrote at The Great Orange Satan, if you feel like recommending it.

wilwheaton:

Tax Breaks vs. Budget Cuts:

This makes me sick. Original graphic with sources is at the Center for American Progress.

I also linked this in a diary I wrote at The Great Orange Satan, if you feel like recommending it.