More Pillution News
"Several studies now have found an association between estrogen exposure and prostate cancer," said study researcher Dr. David Margel, a uro-oncology fellow at the University of Toronto. In this case, he said, "We think this is environmental —[estrogen] goes into the water, into our food chain."
At the same time, Margel said, "We can't establish a cause-and-effect relationship. We definitely don't think the take-home message is women should stop taking the pill."
Yeah, why stop taking the pill over this, ladies? After all, you already increase your own chances of breast cancer, liver cancer and cervical cancer by taking birth-control pills.
But seriously, we've seen this knee-jerk disclaimer before from the Iain Murray piece as quoted in the first pillution story.
The cause of intersexuality among fish, scientists speculate, is pollution in the water, particularly hormones. Why don’t we have more outcries about hormones, and campaigns to save the fish populations? Why aren’t environmentalists lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep these chemicals from being dumped into our rivers?
Maybe because the source of these chemicals is not some corporate polluter, but something a little more dear to the Left: human birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills.
The takeaway from these stories for me is this: although they are stating that hormones from oral contraceptives might not be causing prostate cancer they are not denying that there are female hormones are in our water supply.
One more related item. Happy Valentine's Day, and I hope all the married people reading this at least try to make a baby tomorrow. You have the power to change the future.
Calling W.C. Fields . . .
ReplyDeleteBut Pauli, according to your link, a mere ten years after stopping taking the pill your breast cancer risk goes back to normal. So if you take the pill for 20 years, you're only at an elevated risk of breast cancer for THIRTY FREAKIN' YEARS!!!!
ReplyDeleteDespite my opinion of the pill, I think Santorum is a horrid candidate, because of stuff like this:
ReplyDeletehttp://santorumexposed.com/pages/issues/issues-malpractice.php
“ ‘We have to go out and do a lot of public things. She wants to look nice, so it’s really difficult.’ "
yeesh
Watch your sources, kathleen. The Lantern Project is a labor unions' 527. To wit:
ReplyDelete". . . the Lantern Project has received contributions of $250,000 from SEIU, a labor organization, $100,000 from Lewis Cullman, $100,000 from Bob Sillerman, $100,000 from Tim Gill, $100,000 from Peter Lewis, $50,000 from the law firm of Berger and Montague (as well as additional $25,000 contributions each from partners Daniel Berger and H. Laddie Montague Jr.), $35,000 from John Hunting, $25,000 from the Laborers Political League Education Fund, a labor organization, $50,000 (in two contributions) from Local 1776 United Food and Commercial Workers, a labor organization, and an additional $25,000 from United Food and Commercial Workers International Union."
Ok but they are quoting his court testimony, I assume from the record. Are you saying he didn't say those exact words? If he did say them, then I'm afraid the source doesn't matter to me
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll cop to it: the guy gives me the willies. He behaves as if his Catholicism means he has life all figured out and that really runs me the wrong way
ReplyDeleteSantorum doesn't give me the willies, but I think he is in way over his head and I think Romney is a better candidate. Furthermore he is just as conservative as Santorum and not a whack job like both Gingrich and Ron Paul. I wish he'd never lost his senate seat in PA--that's where he really belongs and you can really see the Peters Principle kicking in with some of the stuff he chooses to talk about. "If you want smaller government, have stronger families." Wha?? Which independents will that rhetoric sway? Hello!? This country is freaking mortgaged and bankrupt.... Obama delenda est.
ReplyDeleteThis election ought to be, an election about the big questions: Is the USA going to be a soft socialist welfare state, or is it going to (once again) be a nation based on liberty?
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney is not a big question or big principle candidate. He is running on executive experience (without telling us what that is, BTW). But that is an answer to a question not being asked. This election is not about whether the overwhelmingly massive and intrusive federal government is being managed well. It ought to be (and largely is) about the size and function of the federal government in the first place. Romney's answers on that are unconvincing, at best (read the first 3 paragraphs).
Rick Perry had the best answers ("I want to make Washington as inconsequential as possible in your lives.") but turned out to be a poor vessel for those answers. Newt answers the big questions well, but then keeps going and before long we get the moon as the 51st state. Ron Paul would have us all killed and the rest of the world under the thumb of tyrants.
That leaves Santorum. He is at least a big issue guy, and yes, our culture is in fact sick. Go get 'em Rick.
P.S. kathleen, if that is his testimony, then to the extent I care, I'd want to see the question he was asked and its context. I do not blindly trust the editing integrity of union hit men.
well, click the link--there is more testimony from Rick that is equally cringeworthy. I seriously doubt the union would make up court testimony out of whole cloth, since it's public record.
ReplyDeleteThe culture is sick, but what makes it sicker are mediocre government leaders on both sides of the aisle who think they can fix it all with a stroke of the pen or a heartfelt speech about family values. This country needs more than that, a lot more. Meanwhile, Santorum hasn't shown the kind of charisma and self discipline that would change people's thinking on these huge matters. For goodness' sake, he spent the first 20 debates whining he didn't get as much time as everyone else. Being an obedient catholic doesn't mean one is ready or able to be a good President, but Santorum seems to believe otherwise. That arrogance is his downfall, and proof positive that he really isn't the right man of the job. And sorry, I really REALLY don't want a president who sues his chiropractor.
ReplyDeleteand makes a total dweeb of himself doing it
ReplyDelete‘She has always been intricately involved in my campaigns,’ Santorum said, explaining that he and his wife ‘knocked on 20,000 doors together’ during his previous campaign.
ReplyDelete“Now, he says, she ‘does not have the confidence to do that.’”
I don't know...I'm thinking Rick wasn't too happy with the way she looked either. Heaven forbid the senator should have a puffy wife!
kathleen, back away from the ledge please.
ReplyDeleteOK, I looked at the link. And I gave the story the benefit of the doubt. And my new take is . . . so what?
What exactly is the problem that you have with those events of 13 years ago? That he proposed some tort reform, which didn't pass, and that they then later pursued their remedies under the law as it existed? That Mrs. S liked to exercise (to keep looking fit, even for her husband(!)) but couldn't do so because of back pain allegedly from chiropractor malpractice? Like I said, so what?
If that is your standard, then you'd best not look (objectively) into other candidates, or you'll be sorely disappointed.
P.S. I also continue to question the context of Santorum's response -- not that he didn't say it, but what he was answering with it.
Um, it's eminently clear what the context was -- Santorum was seeking a way to maximize his wife's damages from her chiropractor. The fact that it was 13 years ago absolves him of nothing. This kind of thing from a sitting senator is just trashy and stupid, period.
ReplyDeleteHere's another choice quote: "Roll Call reported on Jan. 10, 2000, that the senator had testified that his wife had "trouble walking, bending and lifting and has suffered humiliation from weight gain associated with her injury." Oh, the humiliation! If Santorum's orthodox catholic wife was humiliated because she gained weight after having X babies, orthodox catholic Santorum should have taken her aside and schooled her in what the catholic church considers really important in life. hint: it's not losing baby weight or looking cute -- yes, even when your husband is a big old senator.
This is cheesy at best.
and the notion that the chiropractor should pay more because Karen Santorum has body issues is offensive. An intelligent conservative would realize this and not get caught in public trying to argue the opposite. Rick Santorum is dumb.
ReplyDeleteand I ran 3.5 miles today, lest you be tempted to suggest that I don't think "keeping fit for one's husband" is important. Spare me that argument, please.
ReplyDelete. . . cheesy at best.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to come up with what this is "at worst". Without picking on you (I'm really not), I'm trying to figure out what it is about this story that is getting under your skin. To me, it is a "so what?" matter.
The only thing I can come up with is that you really really REALLY dislike Santorum. Fair enough (he seemed like kind of a scold to me earlier, and overreached in taking Perry down, but I've warmed to him lately), but I think you are swinging at one way out of the strike zone here.
What is it really that makes him a "horrid candidate" to you? Am curious.
Well, at worst it is rank hypocrisy. He wants to cap tort awards and then goes all out to sue a chiropractor a few years later. Then ten years after that, after losing his senate seat by 20 points, he thinks he's got it going on so much that he is going to run for president? based on what?! The cat is delusional. I sincerely believe he thinks we should be impressed that he had all these kids and home schooled them, because really, that is the only thing that at all sets him apart on any level.
ReplyDeleteSantorum has a weird sense of grievance and entitlement, it's icky, and the lawsuit just crystallizes that perfectly.
It's also interesting that while Rick is so focused on body image, he could stand to run a few miles himself. The sweater vests aren't hiding as much as he'd like to think.
Maybe Rick should "keep fit for his wife"
ReplyDeleteAnd here's another thing: when I think of someone suing their chiropractor, a senator's wife doesn't really spring to mind. Someone who does manual labor and can't work anymore because a chiropractor screwed up -- that guy asking for $500K strikes me as something slightly more reasonable. But a senator arguing his wife deserves that money because she doesn't feel cute in a dress? GAG ME.
ReplyDeleteOhh--kaaaaayyy. (taking the hint and dropping the topic. . . )
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear your defense of this beyond "I don't care.". It's clear that you don't care, I just can't understand why. Because the dude is catholic? Because that is what makes me care MORE, that he not pull grifter type stuff like the chiropractor lawsuit, or having a contractor of his pay his wife $4k a month for doing essentially nothing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newser.com/story/139857/daily-kos-hatches-scheme-get-dems-to-vote-santorum.html
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't noticed, the left is DYING to have Santorum be the nominee.
I don’t care about this story because it is not relevant to his qualifications for President nor his position on the big issues (or small issues).
ReplyDeleteHere’s how I see the story that has you all worked up:
1. Santorum supports tort reform, particularly on non-economic damages. (A great idea, as we down here in Texas are fully aware after our version was enacted.) It fails.
2. Some years later, his wife’s chiropractor screws up and injures her back. Wife can’t do the things she used to because of the back pain.
3. Santorums file a lawsuit, in which the damages sought exceeded the amount proposed in the tort reform legislation that failed. Testimony is taken, and Santorums win a judgment.
End of story.
I don’t draw any conclusions from this, other than it appears that the chiropractor messed up his wife’s back, they sued under the law as it existed, and got a judgment. There is no indication of any “grifter stuff”, unless you are insinuating that the claim is a fabrication (which not even the union website alleges). Or maybe you think all med-mal plaintiffs are necessarily grifters – in which case I don’t know why we are even having this back-and-forth.
I don’t see any “rank hypocrisy”. Tort reform is indeed good public policy. The reform didn’t pass as he had hoped. Maybe now he sees it different, maybe now he doesn’t. They sought to recover from the injury as the law allowed. I see no hypocrisy there, just like I didn't when John Kerry moved his yacht out of state to avoid state taxes. OK by me.
So, I don’t care. I agree with Santorum on the issues more than I do the other candidates, and I think this is an issues election, so I favor him. He wasn’t my first choice, but he is my first choice now given the field as it is.
Oh, by the way, it is interesting that the unions were attacking Santorum via this story in the Senate re-election race, yet Romney is now bashing Santorum for being “big labor’s favorite senator”. Romney has exhibited a very loose regard for the truth in all of his negative crap, even when he knows better (cf. his accusing Newt of owning FNMA stock via mutual funds – Romney of all people should know better than that). You want phony, I’d start with the former Gov. of Mass.
You completely elide the essential thrust of my argument, which is that Santorum was enough of an idiot to testify that his wife deserved money because she didn't feel cute in a dress, and that that's extra hard for her because she's a senator's wife, poor thing.
ReplyDeleteIf the former Governor of Massachusetts were a phony, it would be a lot more effective for him to phonily disown Romneycare. Frankly I wish he were more of a phony than he is.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/100791/in-the-matter-mrs-santorum
ReplyDeleteHey, Karen Santorum got paid $4000 to be a "professional and stay-at-home mom" at the same time! anyone know where i can get a gig like that? (Pikkumatti, maybe unions run The New Republic, in which case you can discount this story out of hand.)
Like I said before, kathleen, there must be something big that you really dislike about Santorum to be dishing like this.
ReplyDeleteBut you win with The New Republic cite. Any political commentary publication that takes the following oh-so-reasonable editorial position :
"Over the past generation, women have gone from being second-class citizens to being full and equal partners in American life. The ability of women to make their own reproductive decisions—on both birth control and abortion—has been a central part of this revolution. Defending and expanding on these gains should not be a side-issue for liberals: It is a core component of our political philosophy."
will of course give Santorum a fair shake. Along with the unions, of course.
Uncle.
I don't know how you could possibly argue that TNR isn't giving Santorum a "fair shake" in this article:the guy who PAID Karen Santorum is on record saying he did so, and he adds that she essentially did jack squat for the money. Res ipsa loquitur! As for TNRs position on abortion and feminism, that shouldn't be news to anyone.
ReplyDeleteThe USGovt is borrowing more money to service its already massive debt, our culture is sick, and the leftists are more aggressive than ever in restricting liberty and destroying traditional institutions. What Rick Santorum said or didn't say in his wife's lawsuit 13 years ago, and whether his wife did or didn't bring new clients to the business who was paying her, is mere distraction.
ReplyDeleteDistracting from the big problems is what the unions, liberal rags, Democrats, and leftists (and Romney, for that matter) will and must do to win. It's working with you. And the decline will continue.
The problems you list are why we need someone with native intelligence to lead the country. Santorum is not smart enough to be president, but he's arrogant enough to believe otherwise. He has precious little charisma. He is not well liked in Washington. And you really have to kind of suck to be booted out from your senate seat after two terms like he was. He's a loser. Literally.
ReplyDeleteSantorum voted against a national right to work law, voted for the largest entitlement in a generation (MediCare Part D), voted for no child left behind, and always voted to increase the debt ceiling...he also loves earmarks ... upon closer examination he just looks better and better, doesn't he?
ReplyDeleteOn those points, this guy 'Puter says it better than I can.
ReplyDeleteThese Gormogons have a fun blog, BTW. I'm especially fond of the Val Kilmer references.
It's not conservative to vote against right to work, by any stretch. Same for No child left behind and medicare part D, which is worse than Romneycare because it's a devastatingly huge *federal* entitlement. It's nice that Santorum has 7 kids and home schools, but he's not a conservative.
ReplyDeletehttp://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/20/santorum-backed-olympics-earmark/#comments
ReplyDeleteSantorum: dumb.
Well, kathleen, I see from your cited news story that the Senate voted 98-1-1 in favor of the bill including the earmark. I guess that means there is only one person in that Senate who you would consider to be not "dumb". You'd better get on that Senator's campaign.
ReplyDeleteThought experiment: Let's say that Mitt Romney actually beat Teddy K. in that Senate election. Which of Santorum's votes that you've been railing against would Romney have not also cast? And how many other "dumb" votes would have Romney cast that Santorum didn't?
Just wondering.
I found out for you who the Senator was who voted against the Olympic earmark, kathleen!
ReplyDeleteThere was at one time some talk about him running for President this time around, but he didn't. Dang.
LOL I'm supposed to imagine what Senator Romney would do? Romney asked for the money. Senator The Pure Conservative Alternative To Romney voted to give it to him, then later was DUMB enough to criticize Romney for asking. Why didn't Senator Pure Conservative Alternative To Romney vote against it? Senator Purity fails his own purity test. DUMB.
ReplyDeleteOf course, part of Romney's appeal is precisely that he was not a legislator, but an executive. Since the president is the leader of the executive branch, it might be good to have someone with executive experience in there, and not Senator Pure Conservative Except When He's Not.
Seriously, if Santorum is stupid enough to criticize Romney for doing something Santorum supported with his vote, I shudder to think what this guy would do on the international stage. Honestly, this whole catholic shtick of Santorum's is beginning to feel like some sort of cover for his all too obvious lack of smarts.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe that people are so willing to forget Santorum's many non-conservative moments AND forget that Romney was THE conservative 4 years ago.
ReplyDeletePennsylvanians won't forget Rick's unwavering support of Arlen Specter over Toomey.
But I was in favor Santorum's decision to support Specter and if Toomey had won then some senior liberal democrat (think it was Durbin) would have taken over the senate judiciary committee and we probably wouldn't have gotten Chief Justice Roberts when we did.
So my point is this: whenever you seek after purity in the political realm you always end up with a load of crap. Sometimes it's horse crap and sometimes it's bull crap but it's all crap because it's based on emotions.
I support Romney because he's proven himself to be effective. Not because he has any type of perfection.
What Pauli said. I've been wrassling with kathleen in lo these many recent comments (no doubt boring the readers) b/c she seems to be holding Santorum to an insanely high standard -- i.e., a standard that no one could meet, and a moving-target to boot. First it was statements made in a civil suit 10+ years ago. Then she brings up Senate votes that only the fringe (liberal fringe Russ Feingold, at that) opposed. With her ultimate jumped-to conclusion being, in each case, that Santorum is "dumb", i.e., the Sarah Palin treatment. (And hinting that his Catholicism is not sincere, which I really don't get.)
ReplyDeleteSorry, kathleen, but I still don't know what your problem really is with Santorum.
Anyway, it may well be that none of the field right now (including Obama and his rocket-scientist Biden) could be mistaken for Einstein. Except perhaps for Newt, but his ADD gets out of control when he doesn't take his meds.
So I'm left with figuring out which of these humans I favor the most. I look to the one who I agree with on most issues, who seems to be arguing the things that need to be argued, and who is credible in doing so. For me at this point in time and space, Santorum is the best candidate. But that has changed, and could change again, as things develop.
Romney, to me, lacks credibility. Not because he's a liar, because he is not. But because he seems to be only playing the role of a conservative. Maybe he's solid, maybe he ain't. Either way, he hasn't sold me yet, and I worry that his conservative principles are like Obama's on gay marriage (saying what people want to hear, while those on his side know that he really doesn't mean it.)
Bottom line, I'm done with whack-a-mole for now, kathleen. Cheers.
"What pauli said"? He didn't exactly take your side...It's interesting that if I call someone a dumbass, because I really think he's a dumbass, you tell me that I'm "holding someone to an insanely high standard".
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I hope you are enjoying Santorum's latest unearthed comments regarding his inside info on the activities of Satan and Protestants not being Christian. What a candidate! But hey, at least he's not Romney!
"If you were Satan, who would you attack?" Remember when Reagan said stuff like this?
ReplyDeleteI was just sucking up to Pauli. ;-)
ReplyDeleteActually, it was his comments looking at the Specter support in a tactical way (on which I disagree with Santorum, but I understand the argument), and :
So my point is this: whenever you seek after purity in the political realm you always end up with a load of crap.
with which I agree with Pauli.
I thought it was only liberals to whom disagreement is necessarily due to a defect on the part of the other person. You disagree with Santorum, so he's a "dumb" "dumbass" to you. OK -- I get it.
I don't think Santorum is stupid because I disagree with him: I think Santorum is stupid because he has demonstrated his stupidity repeatedly and continues to do so. Nice try.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of smart people I disagree with, BTW. Santorum is not one of them.
ReplyDeleteYOU are seeking purity, not me! You support Santorum because he's not Romney. Romney is not pure enough for YOU. Santorum only makes sense to anyone because he's the only non-Romney left. He had 1% support 3 months ago! All of a sudden he has magical conservative purity? Hardly: rather, he's the only remaining NOT ROMNEY. That's why you didn't support him when we had 7 candidates.
ReplyDeleteYo, Pauli. kathleen and I badly need a post about Dreher.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify and strengthen my points, Pikkumatti, I agree with Kathleen that Santorum has been very stupid because he has not thought things out tactically. Michael Barone pointed this out on Bill Bennett's show yesterday morning when he mentioned that Santorum was speaking at a university in NH before the NH primary and the topic he chose was same-sex marriage. I would argue that this itself is straying from the strongest arguments available but, okay, fair enough, he's trying to win social conservatives. BUT then he goes on to make remarks which can easily be construed to be comparing homosexuality to bestiality and polygamy. That is the kind of pointless preaching to the choir that can tip the independents toward "the other candidate" in the general election.
ReplyDeleteI really wish Santorum had held on to his senate seat. We would agree with what he did there, mostly. And if he's the nominee I'll vote for him in a minute and support him wholeheartedly.
ReplyDeleteI have to take issue with what I'll call the Rush Limbaugh narrative of events in the GOP primary. He has pretty much a conspiracy theory going on that the RNC let a bunch of candidates in to the priimary solely to defuse the anti-Romney sentiment in the conservative base. And now that most of them have dropped out they are scared to death WRT Santorum's surge, like he was just another patsy that the RNC actually recruited. This is from the guy who wholeheartedly supported Romney 4 years ago.
I think Mitt Romney is running a much better campaign this time and I'm hoping he can go all the way. I'm terrified of Newt Gingrich because of his wackiness, not just on the moon thing. His big argument against Romney? "Why support the guy who lost to the guy who lost last time?" Uhhhh... like Ronald Reagan did in '76?
It also makes catholicism seem like a bastardized version of Westboro Baptist church. Santorum seems to have issues about his life path. Maybe he should have gone to seminary. In any case, his ego and insatiable ambition are making catholicism look bad, and frankly I resent it. He needs to shut up and leave the theology to people who can string a sentence together using the correct prepositions.
ReplyDeleteWhat puzzles me about this primary is people cannot articulate what their problem is with Romney. He sounds perfectly conservative to me, and I'm picky. And if conservatives have such a problem with state insurance mandates, then why haven't they been marching in the street about auto insurance? I've never heard objections to it before. What is the problem with Romney *specifically*, other than "he seems phony"? Is it envy of a successful man? Prejudice against Mormonism? Because I'm not hearing real reasons for why Romney is unacceptable to so many conservatives.
ReplyDelete"What puzzles me about this primary is people cannot articulate what their problem is with Romney."
ReplyDeleteYes.
The problem is that they think they are articulating when they assert that Mitt Romney is a moderate, a insider (lol), a RINO and -- my personal favorite the "ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE" (cue scary violins).
OK, no Dreher post, I see.
ReplyDeleteI'll restate my Romney "problem", to the extent that I have one. I'm probably repeating myself here, but oh well.
This is a big issues election. We have big problems. And we have fundamental questions facing the nation: are we going to become a Euro-style socialist statist nation, or are we going to return to the concepts of individual liberty?
This is not an election about competent management of the executive. Unfortunately, Romney's pitch all along is that he is the competent CEO, and the others lack executive experience. But we do not need more competent management of the federal government as it exists today (this is not 1988). We instead need dismantling and declawing of current federal government functions. Leadership of the legislative branch and massive cutting of the executive are required. Newt and Santorum have better skills there, I think.
When Romney does discuss fundamental conservative principles, it is as though he is playing the movie role of a conservative -- and doing so badly. And when he goes off teleprompter, things leak out, like "the Massachusetts people like Romneycare", and the minimum wage should be indexed with inflation, and making the tax code even more progressive (while talking about people in their respective "classes").
He's so safe to the ruling class that Bob Dole and John McCain have joined the bandwagon. Yoo hoo.
Both he and Santorum have behaved badly during the campaign, particularly in scoring cheap political points against others with stretched and obfuscated "facts". I wish they hadn't, and I wish they'd stop.
Bottom line is that I generally agree with Santorum on the big issues, and when he goes off-the-cuff I still tend to agree with what he is saying. (The media will keep baiting him with social issues -- he needs to improve his tone, even though he is generally right.)
Conversely, when Romney goes off-the-cuff, he sounds like a good solid NE country club moderate Republican ("I say old boy, we should indeed pay the gardener a bit more"). And I disagree with the points he is making.
IMO, these off-the-cuff moments are reflective of the candidate's underlying principles. While Santorum stays solid, Mitt wavers. I fear that Santorum is right when he says "when push comes to shove, Mitt will be shoved".
So I favor Santorum right now. If Romney is the nominee, I'll vote for him of course. And I won't be holding my nose like I did when voting for McCain (but for Sarah P., I'd have stayed home). It will be with fear and worry, tho.
Still with the "sounds phony" and "country club". I see there's nothing there.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to go all khmer rouge on america's ass (i.e. start from zero), you should be touting ron paul, because Santorum CLEARLY ain't your guy. You think that because Santorum homeschools and is pro life that he wants to get rid of the progressive tax code? You are very confused.
And regarding your Sarah Palin jibe: i have never heard her say anything remotely as stupid as Santorum has said. I'm trying to imagine the ridicule and disparagement if she gave a speech about Satan, let alone sued a chiropractor because she didn't feel cute in a dress.
"I disagree with the points he's making" WHICH ONES??!
ReplyDeletekathleen asks: "'I disagree with the points he's making' WHICH ONES??!"
ReplyDeleteI had written these: "And when he goes off teleprompter, things leak out, like "the Massachusetts people like Romneycare", and the minimum wage should be indexed with inflation, and making the tax code even more progressive (while talking about people in their respective "classes")."
There's three for starters. If you want the Cliff Notes version of that sentence, I'll restate: 1) I disagree with the premise of Romneycare, 2) I think the minimum wage should be abolished, and disagree that it should be inflation-indexed, 3) I think that capital gain tax rates should not be progressive at all and disagree that they become progressive.
P.S. kathleen, dial back the insults just a bit. It is getting hard to be charitable.
It might be getting hard for you, but it was already hard for me to be charitable when you told me to back away from the ledge. Dude.
ReplyDeleteAs to your points: people in MA like romneycare? Do you like your auto insurance? Because your state forces you to buy it. If MA people like their health insurance bully for them!
The minimum wage is a tiny tiny problem compared to what is at stake fiscally. And when santorum tried to slam Romney for inflation indexing, he said he (santorum) has "supported increasing it back up" when it drops below a certain level. You explain to me how that's materially different from inflation indexing. (yet another incredibly stupid santorum moment)
Romney wants to make the tax code even more progressive? Yeah, probably because he is acquainted with the reality that we're bankrupt and wants to actually do something about it instead of talk about contraception.. It's going to become more progressive no matter what happens, obviously. Unless we chuck the entire tax code. Has santorum suggested doing that? No he hasn't.
“I”m not against the minimum wage,” Santorum remarked. “When the minimum wage drops below a certain level, it’s usually a floor of about 7 percent of wages at minimum wage, I’ve supported increasing it back it up to make sure it stays above that level so there is in fact a minimum wage.” Rick Santorum, Feb 12
ReplyDeleteWell, kathleen, you haven't convinced me of much, other than that I must suffer from some sort of Santorum-like defect of coherence or native intelligence for favoring him over Romney. I'll have to work on that.
ReplyDeleteBut you have convinced me that there is at least one rabid ("RABID?!!! DID YOU SAY RABID!?!?") Romney supporter out there. I didn't know there were any prior to this thread.
I rabidly want to defeat Obama, yes. And I'm rabidly angry at purity chasers who mistake religious posturing for political purity. They did it with Huckabbe and they are doing it with Santorum.
ReplyDeleteI see. Just like no one can legitimately oppose Obama for any reason other than racism, no one can legitimately favor Santorum over Romney unless they are a "purity chaser[] who mistake[s] religious posturing for political purity".
ReplyDeleteWhat. Ever.
You had every chance to persuade me, Pikkumatti. The best you could do was minimum wage, and it didn't take long for me to shoot that down entirely. You are using Santorum's religiosity as a proxy for political excellence. that's just lazy.
ReplyDeleteIf Santorum shows up at the debate tonight with a big old ash splotch in his forehead, this conservative catholic is going to hurl.
George Will:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12054/1212004-109.stm
"Mr. Santorum has the right forebodings but may have the wrong profession. Presidential candidates do not thrive as apostles of social regeneration; they are expected to be as sunny as Ronald Reagan was as he assured voters that they were as virtuous as their government was tedious.
Today's Republican contest has become a binary choice between two similarly miscast candidates. Mr. Romney cannot convince voters he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president.
To bring economic rationality to an underperforming economic entity requires understanding a market segment. To bring confidence to a discouraged nation requires celebrating its history and sketching an inspiring destiny this history has presaged.
Mr. Romney is right about the futility of many current policies, but being offended by irrationality is insufficient. Mr. Santorum is right to be alarmed by many cultural trends, but implies that religion must be the nexus between politics and cultural reform.
Mr. Romney is not attracting people who want rationality leavened by romance. Mr. Santorum is repelling people who want politics unmediated by theology. Neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Santorum looks like a formidable candidate for November."
.
.
.
This week's emetic dose of Ignatius Reilly:
Eating a whole, phthalate-free Whole Foods King cake
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/02/21/a-whole-foods-mardi-gras/
before giving up Facebook for Lent
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/02/21/giving-up-facebook-for-lent/
Shorter Dreher, any time: a bloggy P.T. Barnum with ADHD
"This way to the Culture Wars Egre...look, CAKE!"
New Anon
That's a nice sentence, George Will, but the guy who rescued the Olympics (among other things) isn't merely offended by irrationality, he has in fact done something about it. George Will apparently has spent too many years writing alone in his study, and wouldn't know an effective executive if he hit him upside the head. Now I'm going to enjoy the image of Romney hitting George Will upside the head.
ReplyDeleteNew Anon: The Doctrine of Crunchy King Cake has now reached its pinnacle: Dreher touting a "landmark speech" by Prince Charles on "sustainable food". And Wendell Berry was there, too!!!
ReplyDeleteJust gave $250.00 to the guy who can't tell the difference between business and politics, or whatever.
ReplyDeleteGood point on Geo. will confusing sitting around being offended and doing something about it, Kathleen.
I will say that I don't think a comparison between mandatory car insurance and a health insurance mandate like is in Obamacare stands up. Here's why:
1) The kind of car insurance that you have to carry in most states is collision insurance that pays for the OTHER person's damages if you cause an accident. You don't have to insure your damages and I never did until I had enough money to drive something with value.
2) Automobile coverage is only mandatory for that part of the populace which wishes to drive. I realize that most people between 20 and, say, 65 or so actually need to drive. There are plenty of people who are too young or too old or impaired, not to mention people who are too poor. But drivers also need to pay for a driver's license and vehicle registration, and a stupid environmental check in some states. So there are other mandatory costs involved which sort of diffuse the whole cost of collision insurance.
This is why I disliked the Obamacare supporters comparison of mandatory health care for EVERYBODY who owns a human body (i.e., everybody) and mandatory auto-insurance for drivers. It's not a strong comparison.
Warning: don't try to say the word "phthalate-free" with cake in your mouth or you will spray little bits of it all over your imitation Amish dining-room table.
ReplyDeleteIn Texas, one can show "proof of financial responsibility" instead of having auto liability insurance. Such proof can be in the form of a surety bond, deposit with the comptroller or a county judge, or a certificate of self-insurance if you have enough vehicles.
ReplyDeleteYou lose the use of the money in the meanwhile, but at 0.000+% interest rates these days, that is not such a big deal if you have the cash to begin with, and don't mind assuming the risk.
I have not heard of such an option for an individual to forego coverage under Obomneycare.
I think we've exhausted this post. I'm closing the comments.
ReplyDeleteI will post a new blog entry about Prince Charles's eating preferences and we can argue about Santorum on that one.