No comment. No comment at all.
No comment. No comment at all.
Pop quiz, Unmitigates: What is the best way to teach women about the consequences of sexual promiscuity?
Give up? The answer: Let their children contract HIV.
This week, the Colorado State Senate overwhelmingly voted 32-1 on Senate Bill 09-179; legislation which would, in part, require those providing health care services for pregnant women HIV testing. The goal of the bill was to protect unborn fetuses from contracting the virus. Incidentally, the bill also allows for the woman involved to decline such testing.
On the surface, this appeared to be a slam dunk piece of legislation. Who – in their heart of hearts – could oppose legislation that protects children from inheriting HIV? Enter, Sen. Dave Schultheis, the lone voice of dissent. Frankly, it was not his role as the opponent of a pretty reasonable bill that was disturbing. Most unnerving about his opposition was what he had to say about it:
Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences — we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.
We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.
As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can’t vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.
You can hear the full audio transcript here (you’ll need Apple Quicktime).
To put this whole thing a little more bluntly, Sen. Schultheis believes that the best way to punish promiscuous women who contract HIV is through their unborn children. To make matters worse, this wasn’t the end of his diatribe. From the Rocky Mountain News:
“What I’m hoping is that yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that. The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years … begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior. We can’t keep people from being raped. We can’t keep people from shooting each other. We can’t keep people from jumping off bridges. People drink and drive, and they crash and kill people. Poor behavior has its consequences.”
Yes, you read that correctly. And to think: this is all coming from a person who boldly declared that “All life is precious, from conception to natural death.”
As to be expected, Schutheis was on the receiving end of opposition from his colleagues in the Senate.
Now on the one hand, I can actually understand the basis of some of his argument. There are indeed thousand of knuckleheads out there popping out babies with no consideration of the consequences involved. Even in my own family, I have boneheaded cousins, not even out of high school yet who have children (in some cases, MULTIPLE children). To that end, by not choosing to “reward” irresponsible behavior , the Senator was on to something. But suggesting that children should contract a deadly and incurable disease as a lesson to their knuckleheaded parents has to go down as the most insane and vile thing I have ever heard.
I am utterly speechless.
The other day, I was involved with a pretty intense argument with the folks over at Mirror on America and – for that matter – most of my black brothers and sisters regarding the controversial strip in the NY Post; allegedly comparing Obama to a chimp. I maintained that while the strip evoked horrific and racialized imagery, it was at least possible that no racist intent was involved; especially considering how the strip juxtaposed a real story of a chimp that was shot and killed for mauling a woman. While it was indeed racially insensitive, I personally ruled in favor of the Post; offering them the benefit of the doubt.
The mayor of Los Alamitos is coming under fire for an e-mail he sent out that depicts the White House lawn planted with watermelons, under the title “No Easter egg hunt this year.”
Local businesswoman and city volunteer Keyanus Price, who is black, said Tuesday she received the e-mail from Mayor Dean Grose’s personal account on Sunday and wants a public apology.
“I have had plenty of my share of chicken and watermelon and all those kinds of jokes,” Price told The Associated Press. “I honestly don’t even understand where he was coming from, sending this to me. As a black person receiving something like this from the city-freakin’-mayor – come on.”
The Orange County Register first reported the e-mail on its Web site Tuesday night.
Grose confirmed to the AP that he sent the e-mail to Price and said he didn’t mean to offend her. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.
He said he and Price are friends and serve together on a community youth board.
“Bottom line is, we laugh at things and I didn’t see this in the same light that she did,” Grose told the AP. “I’m sorry. It wasn’t sent to offend her personally – or anyone – from the standpoint of the African-American race.”
Grose, who became mayor in December, said he sent an apology e-mail to Price and her boss and also left her a voicemail apology.
Regardless, Price said it will be difficult for the two to work together.
“Now I am like – wow, is this really how he feels?” Price said.
Los Alamitos is a 2¼-square-mile Orange County city of around 12,000 people. The mayor is elected by fellow members of the five-seat City Council.
Since he seems to like watermelons so much, maybe we should treat Mayor Grose like one:
Gallagher, where art thou?
Change has come to Washington, indeed. Now instead of one President being influenced by lobbyists and special interests, it’s another one. Not long after President Obama signed an executive order preventing lobbyists from serving in his administration; the Prez has somehow decided to allow…you guessed it: lobbyists to serve in his administration. I couldn’t make this up if I tried.
Let’s break this down, shall we?
For starters, the EO Obama signed allowed for special provisions – waivers – to be issued to allow former lobbyists to serve. So essentially, he’s saying that new lobbyists can’t serve, but old ones can; as if former lobbyists still don’t represent their former organization’s interests on some level. Here is a breakdown of the lobbyists I know of.:
William J. Lynn: Lynn has been given a waiver by the Obama administration to serve as the Deputy Secretary of Defense; basically to be second in charge in the Pentagon. But Lynn was also a major lobbyist for Raytheon; a company specializing in defense. Conflict of interest, much?
Jocelyn Frye: Before getting her waiver to serve as the Director of Policy and Projects in the Office of the First Lady, Frye was a lobbyist for the National Partnership for Women and Families for seven years. This isn’t exactly a corrupt organization, but that’s not the point.
Cecilia Munoz: After getting her waiver, Munoz was appointed to serve as the director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President. In this capacity, she is responsible for acting as a liason between the White House and the Latino community. She lobbied for the National Council of La Raza, a civil rights organization.
To the credit of the Obama administration, transparency isn’t the issue here. I mean, I found waivers right on the White House website…while with Bush, these records would’ve been as easy to find as Jimmy Hoffa’s remains. But if this is the kind of clearcut deception is what we’re to expect, I’m not very excited about this “change.”
$787 billion, be damned.
While economists and talking heads are wasting our time pontificating with numbers and charts, bears and bulls, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman provides a pretty simple and straight forward way to end a recession: By being patient. Says Dr. Krugman:
Consider housing starts, which have fallen to their lowest level in 50 years. That’s bad news for the near term. It means that spending on construction will fall even more. But it also means that the supply of houses is lagging behind population growth, which will eventually prompt a housing revival.
Or consider the plunge in auto sales. Again, that’s bad news for the near term. But at current sales rates, as the finance blog Calculated Risk points out, it would take about 27 years to replace the existing stock of vehicles. Most cars will be junked long before that, either because they’ve worn out or because they’ve become obsolete, so we’re building up a pent-up demand for cars.
The same story can be told for durable goods and assets throughout the economy: given time, the current slump will end itself, the way slumps did in the 19th century. As I said, this may be your great-great-grandfather’s recession. But recovery may be a long time coming.
The closest 19th-century parallel I can find to the current slump is the recession that followed the Panic of 1873. That recession did eventually end without any government intervention, but it lasted more than five years, and another prolonged recession followed just three years later.
I suppose this makes about as much sense as anything I’ve heard up to this point.
After WWII, Europe found itself in shambles. But it was through the European Recovery Program, coupled with strategic policies with the U.S. that Europe was able to rebound fiscally. Job creation and idle resource development were key to restoring the economic stability of the continent when war nearly pulverized any hopes of recovery. The parable of the broken window – it would appear – has some credence. In certain circumstances, the road to recovery starts with simply fixing stuff that is broken.
Had President Bush not jumped the gun, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been perfect economic recovery tools (though some would argue that irresponsible spending like this is a part of what goe us in this economic turmoil in the first place). Not that I would want to see profiteering at the expense of lives, but WWII provided a succinct model of how the war machine (and the eventual rebuilding efforts) can indeed boast an economy.
On the far less sadistic side, I think President Obama is on to something with his increased interest in public works projects, green technologies, and education. While we can still boast international leadership in many respects, there are certain other areas where we are falling well behind what has been achieved by other contemporary societies. Investing in the people is a good start.