Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Inter-term resignations aren't necessarily out of the ordinary, but the volume of resignations this time around is heavier than usual.

And speaking of appointments, a guest-poster at Kos analyzes W's recent selection of Carlos Gutierrez, head of Kellogg, Inc., for the post of commerce secretary. Bush said of him, "He knows exactly what it takes to make American businesses grow and create jobs." Click on the link to see what, in fact, Gutierrez is actually good at.

Bush makes TOTPDs less fun.

_________________

Isn't Gutierrez that evil guy from Freakazoid (played by Ricardo Montelban)?

Usually, I only believe about a quarter of what the KOS ever says, but I looked it up, and they're right. Gutierrez specializes in Eliminating Jobs, NOT creating them.

_________________

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1738/

We must not allow soc sec to be privatized. Bush is looking out for the large companies and that large companies only.


--socetew

_________________
Hot!

Hmm, Bush's second term begins Jan 20th, 2005. You'd think someone writing an article like this would know that.

Yeah, so I'm pretty set on knowing that I'm not going to get everything I'm putting into Social Security.

The term "attack" is extremely deceptive. I'm sure others prefer the term "reform." The way this is stated, it sounds like Bush is going to kick all the elderly out of retirement homes into the streets, and this is not the case. The article states that Bush is "Cutting Our Benefits," but it doesn't address exactly which benefits they say he's cutting. The article addresses disagreements with Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, but it does so in a way that makes him out to be Snidely Whiplash.

Right now, you and I have no choice but to participate in this program called Social Security, which depends entirely upon government administration to operate. This costs money. OUR money. And we're given no say-so whatsoever in whether they take it from us. Just check your paycheck stub sometime, and just look how much of your hard-earned money goes to Social Security.

Now if Bush were planning on taking the Social Security fund and bet it all at this race track we call a Stock Exchange, then most certainly I wouldn't trust it. But my understanding is that Bush wants American citizens to have the right to choose a private retirement fund over a government operated one, an option we do not currently have.

But the conservative concern is a valid one. The original Social Security retirement age was based on the assumption that the majority of adults would die by the time they are 70 (and many of them much sooner). These days, because of advancements in medicine, people are living to much older ages (believe me, I know. The average age of the residents I care for at LSS is about 90). This has put a huge strain on the available funds. Furthermore, as the Baby Boom generation approaches retirement age, these funds are going to be much further strained, perhaps even depleated, unless the government requires younger people (you and me) to pay higher Social Security taxes. Furthermore, if you try to rely on SS, you'll be majorly disappointed. You MIGHT have enough income to pay rent in a low-income housing environment, but never enough to live comfortably. To do that, you need some sort of other retirement fund to supplement SS. But then, if you do that, then what's the point of SS? Aren't you then just paying large sums of money to a program that won't be able to serve as adequate retirement income? You might as well just do without it.

Now, I personally believe that we the younger generation should just suck it up and pay for it. Elderly adults need to be cared for, and if SS is their only means of paying, then we ought to be willing to help them. It is our sacred duty. But I also want some assurance that someone will be able to do the same for me when I reach retirement age.

So, then, while it accuses conservatives of using scare tactics, the article itself uses those scare tactics to make it look as though conservatives are trying to destroy retirement income for millions of Americans, and this simply is not true. This is yellow journalism. To be accurate, they should have titled it, "The Dangers of Privatization," not "Cutting Our Benefits: Bush begins second term by attacking Social Security."

_________________

Gah.

The Washington Post is reporting that 11 of the 13 most commonly-used curricula for abstinence-only sex education programs endorsed and funded by the Bush Administration (and your tax dollars) "contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins."

I knew that abstinence-only sex ed was stupid and descriminatory, but take a look at the article. This is insanity.

And check out some of these laughable (and overtly sexist) "course materials":



And by way of addendum, here's an interesting blog post (since apparently it needs to be said from time to time: I do not endorse any blogger's point of view) about teen pregnancy rates in the red and blue states. The poster has color-coded a list of rates from a 2002 CDC report, and though I'm sure you can guess how it comes out, the chart is worth looking at. (I'm proud to note that my home state, which sadly flip-flopped its way into red territory last month, has the 12th lowest number on the list, and the second lowest among red states.) As the poster notes, one cannot readily draw a cause-and-effect relationship from this sort of analysis (though it would be interesting to see a list based instead on the "purple map"), take a look at where Texas sits on the list. Then take a look at where Massachusetts stands.

_________________

As one of the replies to that article points out, those numbers need to be supplemented with Teen Pregnancy data. The numbers might just indicate that red states have more births, whereas teen pregnancy data would be able to tell us how many teen pregnancies result in abortions. Furthermore, I suspect that per capita income of a state has some bearing on the results as well.

Click here for pregnancy statistics. Upon inspection, it appears that these stats confirm the general trend shown in the article, though. But then again, consider this: states where teen pregnancy is a bigger problem are understandably more concerned about it.

As for the Post article, I question the validity of their sources. I find their claims about what abstinence programs teach ridiculous and unfounded. Unless the Post is willing to cite their sources (as good journalism would do), then I find their allegations difficult to believe.

_________________

Come now, Didymus..



That (emphasis mine) looks like a citation to me.

And a half-hearted Googling reveals Rep. Waxman's web site, wherein the very first news item has a link to the full report in PDF format, 26 pages including 109 footnotes.

_________________

I've never heard any of these claims. They sound ridiculous to me. If I can see them in print somewhere, I would be convinced. To me, it sounds like, "All republicans believe in the tooth faerie."

Furthermore, I would be interested to know how medically accurate other sex ed programs are. As the Waxman report itself points out in numerous places, many of the inaccurate claims made by those curricula are based on data from studies done between 1970 and 1990. In other words, new information has been made available within the past decade. It would be interesting to see if other sex ed programs are as accurate and up-to-date in the information they present. In the sex ed program in my high school taught those same things found in these abstinence programs, and no one complained about it.

Furthermore, Waxman is biased against pro-life programs. In his report, he challenges several ideas which he claims are distinctly religious claims, for example, that life begins at conception. I do not believe he is at all qualified to say otherwise, and therefore unqualified to label that claim a medical mistake. At the very least, if he is at all truthful, he must allow for the possibility of the truth of these claims.

I also noticed that his report seemed to focus primarily on about three of the curricula in question (Why kNOw and Choosing the Best, particularly). Very little was said about the two programs in which no inaccuracies were found. It seemed to me that the report addresses these blatant errors, then characterizes all abstinence programs as teaching these errors.

So, after reading the report, what is my conclusion? That funds ought to be directed away from those abstinence programs that are blatantly erroneous and directed toward those that are accurate. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that we ought to abandon abstinence altogether, and if this is the case, I disagree.

So, here, in a nut shell, is my problem with the report:

1. Does not compare accuracy of abstinence programs to other sex ed programs.
2. Decidedly pro-choice biased.
3. Focuses its attention on a small number of the available programs, then characterizes all abstinence programs as teaching the same errors.
4. Concerned with doing away with abstinence programs rather than supporting those that present accurate information.

_________________

It's been awhile since I've posted anything, so here's a link I came across today:

Ten Things President Bush Doesn't Want You To Know About Scalia and Thomas

These guys are the wickedest of the wicked, and they're the sorts of guys Bush will appoint more of given half the chance.

_________________

Man, those guys are evil. I can't believe that they actually believe in that. There are crazy's, then there are those guys.

_________________

While this is my first post on this here Homestar message board, I've run over and over these issues with the anti-Bush crowd in other places.

The question I have for Interruptor is... do you honestly think that being against Bush is the 100% intelligent thing to do? The attitude I get from you and others like you is one that everyone who voted for Bush (and supports him most of the time) is either ignorant, less intelligent, or a right-wing, religious nut job.

True?

I won't deign to letting you put words in my mouth, but suffice it to say that in order to support Bush one would have to be either ignorant of Bush's actual policies (550k PDF) and the state of the world around them or have personal priorities that are inherently harmful to this country and humanity.

_________________

Must suck to live in a country where 51% of the people are either lazy, stupid, or bent on the destruction of humanity.

Yeah, it would suck.

I wouldn't know because I live in America.

Go Air Force.

The Scandal Sheet
The 34 scandals of Bush's first four years, every one of them rivaling or far surpassing Watergate. Remember when we impeached presidents for things like this?

Free day pass required.

_________________

Please tell me that you were as critical of Clinton for scandals that existed during his 8 years as president and that you're not just an exclusive Bush hater.

_________________

Why do Republicans always bring up Clinton, always, always, as though he's somehow the Democrats' Bush analogue? If you'll recall, Clinton did get impeached, for lying under oath about his personal life. You can be proud of that if you want. But how many scandals can you think of in his White House? I've got two, how about you?

Clearly, two is a smaller number than 34.

_________________

Clearly and unarguably.

I'm not here to argue the numer of "scandals" for either president. I'm just honestly inquiring if you proclaim to be unbiased enough to have comdemned Clinton for the mistakes he made... no matter how small or how large.

Because I have problems with some things Bush has done\does... he's not perfect by any means. And I don't think we're doing to find a perfect presidental candidate any time soon.

_________________

IIRC, on several occasions I have emphatically identified myself as completely biased. Anyone who claims to be unbiased is either a liar or a fool.

And to suggest that any two people should be equally condemned when the degrees of their respective misdeeds are so vastly unequal is absurd. Allow me to risk invoking Godwin's law via hyperbole by asking you whether you think that Bush and Adolph Hitler should be equally condemned, as well?

Further to the point, if you wish to dicuss Clinton, please start your own thread. His incumbency has been over for four years.

_________________

Reading Comprehension 101....

I won't deign to letting you put words in my mouth...

I did not say that Clinton and Bush should be "equally condemned".

Honestly, you have a problem with perceiving stupidity everywhere. Maybe you should see a therapist.

But to stay on topic... okay, I just wanted to make sure that you realized your bias. I run across a lot of Bush haters who claim to be entirely unbiased in their opinions. Pure crap.

_________________

For the record, I didn't like Clinton either.

Apart from calling people who believe they're unbiased fools, I don't recall having called anybody stupid. Apparently you will deign to putting words in others' mouths. Personally, I don't believe insults are conducive to intelligent dicussion, but your "reading comprehension" jab indicates that such is not the case for you. Regardless, my hyperbole was unveiled and intentional, and I'm disappointed that you mistakenly took it as grounds to impugn my character and, apparently, mental stability.

_________________

You somehow placed the word "equally" inbetween "have" and "condemned" when it was never there. That's what I'm referring to. I made it perfectly clear that the number of Clinton "scandals" was far less than the ones Bush faces, and never once insinuated the amount of condemnation that Clinton should face. You dredge up insult and ignorance when none exists.

That's all.

Try eating a Twinkie.

_________________

Yes, I understood what you were referring to when you said "Reading Comprehension 101". Imagine if you had made a grammatical mistake and I said "Speaking English 101". It's a charming way to conduct a conversation, for sure.

And now the trolling and person quibbles end and this thread gets back on topic.

_________________

What about Clinton offering secrets to China? Or executing a mentally retarded inmate in his home state? Or the fact that he's been accused of sexual harrassment SEVERAL HUNDRED times, and used the Arkansas State Troopers to cover them up?

_________________

Didymus, I'm sure people would love to discuss Former President Clinton, and your point is very valid, but please take it to another thread.

_________________

What I Heard about Iraq

We all watched it happen, but Eliot Weinberger was actually paying attention. Wow.

_________________

Bush isn't much better. here is a guy that was busted once for cocaine possession, has a DUI (both of whicch daddy's money cleared up). As governor of texas he executed more people than any other governor in Texas history, he specalized in executing minorities. When he was owner of the Texas Rangers he condoned the use of steroids. He also squandered a 30 billion dollar surplus that Clinton left behind. He ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qeida attack. on bush's first inaguration Clinton left a note on the desk of the oval office saying watch Osama. He alienated and ignored Colin Powell. Powell insisted that we wait to go to war with Iraq until January 2005 after the re-election. when the WMD's were not found in Iraq. The white house made powell the scapegoat. so in closing bush is far worse than what Clinton ever was.

_________________

Just so everybody's clear on this: the next post about Clinton gets baleeted. Start your own thread.

_________________