It's All That Guy Obama's Fault



Irresponsible remarks by the three leading GOP presidential candidates at last night's debate in Arizona did not stop at the water's edge.

Rick Santorum curiously contended President Obama "did reach out immediately to Syria and established an embassy there."         Only Barack Obama did not establish or re-establish the embassy in Damascus.      Our ambassador to Syria was recalled in 2005 following the assassination, to which the Syrian government may have been connected, of the former Lebanese prime minister in Beirut.      But our embassy was not closed (and hence Obama did not re-open it) but rather, as Wikipedia notes, "A series of chargés d’affaires represented the U.S. until the appointment of Robert Stephen Ford in January 2011."

An aerial strike against Iran might, at some point, be unavoidable.     But Romney, who vigorously asserted Obama "does not want Israel to take action- that he opposes military action," ignores the obstacles Tel Aviv would face.     The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller recently wrote

Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes.
     
That is the assessment of American defense officials and military analysts close to the Pentagon, who say that an Israeli attack meant to set back Iran’s nuclear program would be a huge and highly complex operation. They describe it as far different from Israel’s “surgical” strikes on a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007 and Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.

“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.

The GOP front-runner maintained also the President "opposes military action. This is a president who should have instead communicated to Iran that we are prepared, that we are considering military options. They're not just on the table."

President Obama, timid peacenik that he is, has said that launching a war- or, as Romney put it, "military action"- is not ideal.     In the same statement, however, the President added "But we are keeping all our options on the table,”  which sounds a lot different than "they're not just on the table."     Obama's assessment, unlike Romney's charge, is consistent with the Israeli spokesman in Washington whom Bumiller explained

said the country continued to push for tougher sanctions on Iran and reiterated that Israel, like the United States,  "is keeping all options on the table."

Leaving the issue of Iran, host John King asked Newt Gingrich "on the question of a more prominent role for women, good idea or bad idea?"

It would seem a simple question- good idea or bad idea, yes or no.      But not for Gingrich, who responded

Well, look, I think it's a misleading question in the modern era. You live in a world of total warfare. Anybody serving our country in uniform virtually anywhere in the world could be in danger at virtually any minute. A truck driver can get blown up by a bomb as readily as the infantrymen.

So I would say that you ought to ask the combat leaders what they think is an appropriate step, as opposed to the social engineers of the Obama administration.  

Hand it to Newt:     he knows the lingo.     Referring to foreign policy and military advisors as "social engineers"  is pretty heady stuff for a guy who advocates replacing school janitors with schoolchildren.        King neglected to ask Gingrich his interpretation of Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which specifies "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."       Although in the spirit of "monkey see, monkey do," Santorum also invoked "social engineering" he cautioned "I would defer to at least hearing the recommendations of those involved. But I think we have civilian control of the military, and these are things that should be decided not just by the generals."

In regard to the Armed Forces, the President of the United States, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or other military figure, is commander-in-chief.      When action can be taken against Muammar Ghaddafi, Osama bin Laden, or Somali pirates, the decision is that of the President.     It is his/responsibility, and he who will be held accountable, to the nation, the world,  and history





Share |

Encouraging Abortion


Rick Santorum's controversial remarks are coming fast and furious.   Late to the game, but a couple of hours before tonight's Repub presidential debate, it's still not too late for me to criticize one of Rick Santorum's comments from a campaign stop Saturday in Columbus, Ohio.     CBS News noted he

lambasted the president's health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, "because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."

Prenatal testing provides more information to the woman and encourages some to have abortions.     And, for those who are relieved to find no birth defects in the fetus, it deters some women from terminating their pregnancy.       A Republican politician who is right even less than Santorum, Sarah Palin, suggested another advantage of pre-natal testing.     During her 2008 campaign for the presidency, before giving birth to Trig, Palin stated:    "I was grateful to have all those months to prepare. I can't imagine the moms that are surprised at the end. I think they have it a lot harder."

Of course, neither Palin nor Santorum would acknowledge one of the best strategies to reduce the incidence of abortion.       In October, 2009 a usnews.com blog noted the non-profit, pro-choice Guttmacher Institute released a report which found  

... that total abortions occurred at "roughly equal rates" in countries where they are legal and where they are highly restricted, which means that laws outlawing abortion are serving only to drive women to have the procedure in riskier places and with riskier methods. But at a news conference in London, Guttmacher president Sharon Camp cited the Netherlands as an example for all other countries to follow. It has the lowest abortion rate in the world: about 1 percent of women have had an abortion in the past year compared with a worldwide average of about 3 percent.

The Dutch? With their legalized prostitution and ultraliberal abortion laws? How can that be? I did a little research and found out that the Netherlands has not only the lowest abortion rate but the lowest rate of teen pregnancy. In fact, the country has held this distinction for decades. Researchers credit strategies like sex education in schools, discussion of sexuality in the mass media, and easy access to contraception. One study pointed out that "acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion" and that Dutch citizens accept "abortion only as a last resort."

Unless you have an (R) after your name and are an elected official or running for president, you are not surprised that widespread access to birth control decreases the frequency of abortion.     Still, it's startling that abortions occur approximately as often in countries in which termination of pregnancy is forbidden as in countries in which it is permitted.       Which, ironically, makes the generally pro-choice Barack Obama an anti-abortion, and Rick Santorum an aggressively pro-abortion, public official.



Share |

Miserable Lives



If only.    If only Rush Limbaugh were accurate, we'd have a president demanding a fair share for the 90% of the American people who aren't ultra-wealthy.

Rush wants his followers to believe that President Obama is a racist Socialist rather than the pragmatic centrist he has governed as.      Tuesday, he played a clip of Obama promising

In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we're gonna take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.  Because we've got a choice right now.  We can either settle for a country where a few people are doing very well and everybody else is having to just struggle to get by, or we can build an economy where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody's doing their fair share, and everybody is taking responsibility.  And everybody's playing by the same set of rules.  And that's the economy that I want.

Rush, who hears what he wants to hear, responded

Yeah, in a few months, pal, what you want isn't gonna matter.  That's the economy you want?  Who are you?  That's the economy you want?  Where everybody's equal?  And you get to define equal?  Don't forget what I told you yesterday, quoting Tocqueville.  Americans in the early 1800s fought the perils of equality, not the perils of inequality.  They fought the perils of equality. 

Everybody gets a fair shot, everybody does his/her fair share, everybody takes responsibility, and everybody plays by the same set of rules.      That sounds like equal opportunity, no matter the outcome, fair or unfair; and a summary of a center/right, free-market perspective.

But we are dealing with a bloviator from the far-right who is offended- offended- by the idea that everyone should get a fair chance, play by the same rules, and take responsibility.

Media Matters for America calls Limbaugh out for arguing that medical costs play virtually no role in bankruptcies.     In the video (way below) from the Media Matters website, Limbaugh plays a clip from Obama, then comments    

What a cloudy, gray, raw, overcast October day this guy presents us. "You're willing to put in the work. The idea is you ought to be able to raise a family and own a home, not go bankrupt 'cause you get sick." And I ask again: Who the hell does? How often does it happen that people go bankrupt from getting sick in this country? I'm sorry, this offends me. We have the best health care system the world has ever seen. It does not drive everybody into bankruptcy. No, but he wants you to think it will! He wants you so afraid of getting sick, so afraid of having to go to the hospital!

In a study published in 2007 in The American Journal of Medicine, researchers observed "Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income."       Limbaugh, though no doubt unaware of this study, couldn't possibly believe "This constant portrayal of health care as something that can cause you financial meltdown.  To how many people does that actually happen?  The percentage is so small you couldn't calculate it."    

A day without a flat-out lie from Rush Limbaugh, like a day without time, is impossible to imagine.     But it isn't every day (only most days) that Limbaugh demonstrates his utter contempt for average Americans, as he did yesterday:    

Obama will save you. And you'll have your little 1800-square-foot house, your 2.8 kids, a white picket fence, a dog, a couple of electric cars -- 48,000 hour charge the damn thing so it's able to drive 40 miles. They really want you on a mass transit, stupid little bus going to your mass job where you're nothing but a number.

A moment later- perhaps concerned that his sycophants haven't gotten his message- Limbaugh stated

So "hope" equals a nine-to-five job. You get home on some form of mass transit. When you have to go to the grocery store, you get in your little electric car or whatever. Your house looks like everybody else's house. It's where everybody else's house happens to be.

So now we know.    If you own a little bit of the American dream- a house of modest size, raise children, own a dog, work hard 40 hours a week providing for your family- you are worthless in Rush's world.      You're not someone who lives in a 24,000 square feet mansion, with five other buildings for guests, on your private estate (Limbaugh compound, below).     You may not be as lucky as individuals like Rush, able to separate yourself from the rest of the middle-class and (horrors!) have to live "where everybody else's house happens to be."      

The elitism characterizing this guy may be unparalleled in American society.

                      






Share |

Educational Malfunction


It's easy to get caught up in Rick Santorum's intolerant views toward birth control, abortion, and religious views different than his own and neglect to notice his other reactionary opinions.         Richard A. Oppel of The New York Times reports Santorum in Columbus, Ohio

said the idea of schools run by the federal government or by state governments was “anachronistic.” Mr. Santorum did not say public schools were a bad idea, and he said that there was a role for government help in education.


But it was the latest in a series of comments by the former Pennsylvania senator — who is tied in polls in the critical Ohio and Michigan primary contests — suggesting that he takes a dim view of public schooling. He and his wife home-schooled their children.


For the first 150 years, most presidents home-schooled their children at the White House, he said. “Where did they come up that public education and bigger education bureaucracies was the rule in America? Parents educated their children, because it’s their responsibility to educate their children.”


“Yes the government can help,” Mr. Santorum added. “But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home-school or have the little neighborhood school, and into these big factories, so we built equal factories called public schools. And while those factories as we all know in Ohio and Pennsylvania have fundamentally changed, the factory school has not.”

Inconveniently, the idea of public schools goes back a little further than that  (H/T to Blue Texan of Crooks and Liars) to the Founding Fathers, whom conservatives adore citing when convenient.      It seems

For Thomas Jefferson, public education was the key to preserving republican government. To secure the broadest level of popular education Jefferson prepared his "Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" as part of the revision of Virginia's laws. As chair of the committee, Jefferson proposed a three level system in 1779, (never adopted): three years of primary education for all girls and boys; advanced studies for a select number of boys; a state scholarship to the College of William and Mary for one boy from each district every two years.

Jefferson advocated public education not only because it lifted individuals out of ignorance, but also as an institution fundamental to America's republican system of government.     He noted in his State of the Union address in 1806

Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers.

It appears that Santorum would not end subsidies for public education but would eradicate the influence of taxpayers, as expressed through their elected representatives.    The Times continues

While he said he did not oppose government financing of schools, Santorum said that "public education should be a dynamic process that's locally run."


"I think the parent should be in charge," he added, "working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential."

From the party of small government, we have a proposal for a school system with, say, 10,000 students:     10,000-20,000 parents working with thousands of school employees to develop 10,000 curricula.      At best, Santorum simply hasn't given any thought to this.    More likely, it's a conservative's wet dream:      taxpayers funding private schools with no standards and guidelines, chaos abounding.

And while he's at it, educational expert Rick Santorum, who urges "an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential," might consider that each child instead should optimize his or her potential.     Just saying.





Share |

Reverend Santorum


On Friday, CNN reports, Rick Santorum "sought to bring some clarity to his birth control position" by stating in Columbus, Ohio "My position is birth control can and should be available."         Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman at Politico write "while the ex-senator doesn't favor outlawing birth control...."   

So, the ex-Pennsylvania Senator from Virginia doesn't want to ban artificial contraception.      Case closed.

Or not.      In Mckinney, Texas Santorum on Wednesday had maintained  “It’s not because I want to be the pastor of the United States.         I have no intention and no desire to be the pastor of this country."

But in his Friday speech in Columbus the candidate went on to say

The president’s agenda is not about you.    It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job.    It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology.        Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.   

Santorum was not suggesting President Obama is not a Christian, National Communications Director Hogan Gidley comforted us, but rather “Rick was talking about the President’s belief in the secular theology of government — and how believing that theology is dangerous...."

Whether a non-theology, such as secularism, can be (or should be) elevated to a theology is debatable.    But Santorum is positing that Obama subscribes to a secular theology, one which " teaches that it’s perfectly fine (to) take away our individual God-given rights and freedoms," according to Gidley.        Conveniently, his candidate divides the nation into two religions:     real Christians (and Jews, perhaps), who are noble or virtuous; and secularists, who are ignoble or wicked.       And then he says:      "I have no intention and no desire to be the pastor of this country."

Unless Rick Santorum holds to an idiosyncratic definition of "pastor," he is being dishonest or, as the media likes to picture him, refreshingly candid.

When Santorum says "my position is birth control can and should be available," he is being similarly mendacious.      This is no libertarian, who might hold to a reactionary point of view but is fundamentally, philosophically opposed to government action.        This is Rick Santorum, who has asserted "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

Santorum is not a libertarian, and in some ways that's reassuring.       But when it comes to your most personal beliefs and values, including sexual mores, Rick Santorum is an authoritarian, and that is not reassuring.
      

Share |

A Pleasing Outcome


Now they've gone and done it.

The Virginia Senate, and now its House of Delegates, has passed a bill which "would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to the procedure."     The doctor would be required to show the woman the resulting image; if she refuses to watch, it is to go on her permanent record.

Early in the pregnancy, an abdominal sonogram would be insufficient to provide the information mandated by the legislation, hence requiring, as Democratic Delegate David Englin put it, "many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions."  

The resultant charge among many on the left that the procedure constitutes legalized rape would strike many as hyperbolic.      But it's only barely so:      in an interview with RH Reality Check, Englin cited


 § 18.2-67.2. Object sexual penetration; penalty.
A. An accused shall be guilty of inanimate or animate object sexual penetration if he or she penetrates the labia majora or anus of a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, other than for a bona fide medical purpose, or causes such complaining witness to so penetrate his or her own body with an object or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in such acts with any other person or to penetrate, or to be penetrated by, an animal, and

1. The complaining witness is less than 13 years of age, or

2. The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person, or through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness.



It doesn't meet the dictionary definition of rape, but it is coercive, violent, and subjects the offender to a penalty of five years to life.The bill's sponsor (a woman), responding to the obvious charge that a forced sonogram is invasive, responded “If we want to talk about invasiveness, there’s nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have.”        
Seriously, she did.         An abortion may be medically necessary, is voluntary, and is safer (on average) to the patient  than is childbirth.    But the main purpose of the legislation isn't to end, or even to deter, abortions.      Libertarian Megan McArdle remarks   

I think that abortion should be legal, but I also think that it should be a last resort, and I’m all for the government using any non-coercive methods it can to encourage women to carry their pregnancy to term, including things that will make them feel bad about aborting. I think, for example, that sonograms should be mandatory before termination, I’m in favor of waiting periods and parental notification laws, and I’m agnostic on spousal notification.

Keep it legal, but make them feel bad about the life she thinks they're ending.     Similarly, a Red State blogger pleads "abortion proponents are being disingenuous when they argue that this is a restriction on a 'woman’s right to choose.'  In no way will a mother be forced to pay for this test, nor will any result make her abortion more difficult to procure."

Oh, yes.     The legislation is not intended to decrease abortions but to harass women.      And "abortion proponents" are the ones who are disingenuous.         Assessing an abortion restriction intended not to reduce the incidence of "murder" but instead to shame women, Digby comments

I'd also point out a little known fact about Virginia's state rape law: they are to be used even for women who are having chemically induced abortions. They must be probed as well --- in order that the government "make them feel bad" for what they are legally entitled to do. (And, by the way, if they refuse to look at the ultrasound, that's supposed to be noted in their medical record --- I'm assuming for some sort of future reference, the purpose of which is obscure.)

So patients will be required to obtain and view an ultrasound, presumably to convince them that the fetus is a living, breathing human being who should not be killed.      No doubt it will deter some women, the ones whom the anti-choice contingent believe are worthwhile- those who, presented with undeniable evidence, will conclude that saving a life is paramount to all other considerations.     The women who (in the right's view) refuse to be swayed by evidence and are selfish will press on with the abortion.

Presto; mission accomplished.    Women are successfully intimidated- but only those whom, ironically, the pro-life people would approve of.        Odd thing is, they probably find that very satisfying.




Share |

Celebrity Culture



Rule of thumb:    if Rush Limbaugh is against it, be in favor of it; if Rush Limbaugh is for it, be against it.

That applies even in the rare- very rare- instances in which Limbaugh can be credited with being (euphemistically speaking) tolerant.

And so it is with the kerfluffle in New Jersey.     Not the important one- gay marriage- but the unimportant one, Whitney Houston.     On Thursday Limbaugh argued

This Whitney Houston in New Jersey and the flag at half staff. I have a question. If she did not have in her life a problem with drug abuse and alcohol -- take a little out of it -- and she died prematurely...? We don't yet know what the cause of death was, but let's assume that alcohol and drugs had nothing to do with it. Take that out of it. How many of you would be upset that the flag was lowered to half staff? How many of you are upset about it simply because, in your mind, "She was just an entertainer. Come on! We lower the flag for statesmen, for heroes. What is this entertainer business?

(Insert cheap Oxycontin joke here.)

Rush backed the decision by Republican Governor Chris Christie, who would be ordering flags in New Jersey to be flown at half-staff today, the day of singer Whitney Houston's funeral in Newark, largest city in the state and  city of Ms. Houston's birth.        Limbaugh added

keep in mind: New Jersey lowered the flag for Frank Sinatra and Clarence Clemons of the E Street Band with Bruce Springsteen. So it's not that uncommon. It really isn't.

No, it's not uncommon, and the life of Whitney Houston should not be celebrated any less than that of Clarence Clemons or the mob-related figure.    

Here "is this entertainer business":        flags should not have been lowered to half-staff for those individuals, either, because they were entertainers.         Celebrities are mere celebrities, deserving in death no special consideration on the basis of their popularity in life. Honor is- or, rather, should be- bestowed upon "statesmen" and "heroes," such as members of the armed forces and selected political leaders, because they served the community, whether local, state, or national.      Their professional lives stand as a commitment to the public interest, in which they strive less for economic advancement than for the public good. Whitney Houston should not be penalized for being extremely talented and successful, but neither should either be a basis for honoring her memory, any more than it is for your extremely talented and successful (but less applauded) neighbor.    

Rush noted, approvingly, that Christie stated

I'm disturbed by people who believe that because of her history of substance abuse, that somehow she's forfeited the good things that she did in her life.  I just reject that on a human level.  What she is is a cultural icon in the history of this state....

All of us should learn to be a little more understanding of that, and understand that this is a disease and that we need to help these folks to try to conquer this disease and not ridicule them for it, because it's a struggle for everybody.

But it is roughly as misguided to honor Houston because of her record of substance abuse as it is to withhold the honor because of her checkered past.       Its significance is lessened further because we know not what role (if any) illegal drug use- or prescription drug use, alcohol use, bad choice in romantic relationships, or anything else- had in her death.       (And thanks for the lecture, Governor.)

Defending his decision, Governor Christie could have kept it simple by referring to the examples of Sinatra, Clemons, or others and left it at that.       But he decided instead to wax empathetic about Whitney Houston's drug involvement.    He did it, moreover, not because of a sense of compassion but as a weapon in the continuing controversy over drug use in his state.      In so doing, he missed an opportunity to remind us that great statesmen and ordinary soldiers are not entertainers and are deserving of honors that mere mortals, including the likes of singers, saxophone players, and actors, are not.





Share |