Earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio made an auspicious debut.
Unlike so many first turns in the upper chamber, Rubio’s stirring remarks, which celebrated American exceptionalism, caught fire. The Florida Republican’s words were cited by Senate colleagues and championed by conservatives. To no one’s surprise, the push to put Rubio on the 2012 ticket only increased, even though the charismatic freshman continues to swat away the chatter.
Look for the Rubio buzz to continue. In an interview with National Review Online, he says that he will take to the Senate floor for his second speech this week — and this time he will have President Obama in his crosshairs.
Rubio tells us that he will respond to Obama’s recent press conference, where the president reveled in class-warfare bluster. “Quite frankly, I am both disappointed for our country and shocked at some of the rhetoric,” he says. “It was rhetoric, I thought, that was more appropriate for some left-wing strong man than for the president of the United States.”
“Talking about corporate jets and oil companies,” Rubio says, missed the point. “Everybody here agrees that our tax code is broken,” he says, and he is open to discussing tax reform. “But don’t go around telling people that the reason you are not doing well is because some rich guy is in a corporate jet or some oil company is making too much money.”
Watching Obama brandish such talking points made Rubio wince. “Three years into his presidency, he is a failed president,” he says. “He just has not done a good job. Life in America today, by every measure, is worse than it was when he took over.”…
I loved this show! While he did of course deal with Michele Bachmann’s gaffes, he also talked about the political history of some of the more important ones. I love the Gerald Ford gaffe that guaranteed Carter winning in 76. i never knew. (See my post on this topic.)
Obviously some are (to answer my own question). Who is perfect? What the press and many following them do is make opinions after viewing skewed or twisted fact. This will be a post I will return to and add to as the election cycle continue. Enjoy.
This has been a fun week for me. It allows me to explain to people I like how their opinions are often mislead by not lining up their thinking with the facts. A unfounded trust of media sometimes misleads these persons, or an underlying bias. I will change the names of the people involved to keep their identity (as many are friends) private and the embarrassment level low.
In conversation with a friend the term kook was used in referencing Michele Bachmann. I footnoted that as I was surprised because she is a self-avowed Republican and must know of all the attacks leveled at Reagan, a person whom she admires. However, when I posted the following video for her and mentioned this demeaning term, she wrote:
Here is her first response:
Yes, and I stand by my opinion. She is a ranter and a raver. Ha I think he has a crush on her ;)…one can be a conservative kook. I am. No one said she is not bright, one can be bright and a kook. The left respects us as much as we respect them, not at all, we demonize them they demonize us, around and around we go. It is tiresome and a waste of time when there is so much real work to do in this country.
Another lovely lady added:
Michelle Bachmann is an embarrassment to me! And ya don’t get ANY MORE conservative than ME!!!!
I politely continue the conversation:
Okay, for both you ladies. You have stated some things (“[s]he is a ranter and a raver,” and, “Michelle Bachmann is an embarrassment”). Please, since I do not know as much about her as you ladies about her, enlighten me. [A generalization is a good one if it points to reality.] A side note. I would respectfully disagree — also — with the point that demonization is of equal value between Left and Right (http://vimeo.com/11913434). Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, and others can walk onto a campus and give a speech and be treated like celebrity’s. Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, have to employ personal body guards and the university has police in large numbers. From gatherings on the Mall in Washington (union/Democratic meetings leave it in shambles — Tea Partiers leave it cleaner than when they found it), to supposed violence/racism at Tea Parties compared to the Left’s gathering [the most recent was the teacher unions joining forces in L.A. with common-and-on (http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2011/06/welcome-to-los-angeles/). The conservative Republican has a different demeanor than that of their compatriot on the Left. Why, because the largely secular left has as their religion, not the Judeo-Christian ethic, but the "Rousseaulian animal" which they are founded on. Or as Ann Coulter points out, the "mob mentality." A great quote I just added to my quotes page from a book I am reading is this (see my notes): http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150220963683193
Then the response:
Here is one for you Sean, I personally think it shameful and not in the spirit of her Christianity that in one old anti-gay speech of hers in '04 she singles Melissa Etheridge out, she expressed the hope that a breast-cancer-stricken Melissa Etheridge would take advantage of her illness to quit being a lesbian. I have more current faux pas' but that one sticks with a person.
....Now on to the Ethridge thing which is one of ten listed of her craziest statements floating about the internet. Note that I am not here to defend lists against her, I doubt she will ultimately be the nominee, but this is a prime example of why one should investigate beyond pop-culture things said of Republicans (or for that matter, Democrats) filtered through the Huffington post or the Daily Kos which ends up digested by mainstream audiences.
Here is the Left’s understanding of her statement:
• Michele Bachmann hopes Melissa Etheridge's cancer will teach her to stop being gay
Here is the fuller quote about this 2004 point:
• "Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers. This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian**."
In that same speech she intimated a bit more about her views saying that, "almost all, if not all, individuals who have gone into the lifestyle have been abused at one time in their life, either by a male or by a female." Let me post a statement by a lesbian pro-choice pundit on this topic:
◆ ... and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.... Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values [Roseville: Prima, 2003], 90, 99.
Every lesbian that felt close enough to share their thoughts on this issue with my mom during her hippie days to her trailer park days has been abused, usually by a male family member. And the two homosexual men I have been close enough to talk about their positions on same-sex marriage and their past have intimated a sodomistic experience at a very young age; one by a stranger, and the other by a family member. (They are both against same sex-marriage by-the-by, as are many homosexuals… just not the vocal part of that community.) That is not to say this has been the case in all homosexual experiences, as the last caller intimates via the Michael Medved Show (load and listen at the 15-minute mark: http://vimeo.com/24780028).
I believe Bachmann had this larger thought in mind (as she has most likely read every book by Tammy Bruce) when talking about this topic as well as the hope that one reflects on spiritual things more when sick than when not, “But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (C.S. Lewis).
Mind you she may not be very well spoken on issues that I have written an entire chapter on (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32729365/Roman-Epicurean-ism-Natural-Law-and-Homosexuality?in_collection=2649254), but she certainly didn’t say or mean what the Left accuses her of. Yeah? Can you see the subject/object distinctions? I am sure that if pressed on the issue by a knowledgeable person she would admit the only real sin is rejecting the finished work on the Cross offered by God through His Son. Which is the hope she intimated — not so clearly — in her speech.
** Just to be clear… I do not think cancer is caused necessarily by sin… we ALL are guaranteed with a 1-to-1 stat in regards to life and death. This will NOT change via a lifestyle choice. There are [though] serious health issues that are often ignored from this lifestyle, more is said on this via a post and under the heading, “Homosexuality and the Public Health” ~ http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/08/homosexuality-is-it-good-for-society-for-the-individual/
After some other posts I end with this:
I wanted to wrap this topic of conversation up by showing how many bumper sticker mantras/beliefs enter into what we view as fact and what we base opinions off of. Opinions should always be based on truth, or what we can best understand as truth. The truth of the example given above is ACTUALLY that Bachmann asked her audience to pray for Melissa Etheridge, and tried to encapsulate what any apologist of the faith may try to point out — that God will at times use our toughest trials to evolve our spiritual thinking in leaps and bounds. I would agree that Michele Bachmann may not be able to make the point as eloquent as a “CS Lewis.”
For those who wish to understand how such thinking — as exemplified herein — becomes mainstream understanding, I will recommend a dated book that is one of the best at explaining this phenomenon:
That is a great read for fellow bibliophiles here. Much, Much thought.
After some fun I asked this of another friend who posted info on Bachmann’s “gaffes”:
…. Tell me, what most bugs you about Bachmann besides your ad hominem attacks.
He responded in large, but I will shorten the response:
Bachman’s ideology bugs me. Her extreme “Christian” values. My first impression of her was her HUGE lie aout Obama’s 2 Million dollar a day” trip to India- she lied right to the camera! She’s just a miserale angry bitch to me, and you could only say “Obama Sucks” soooo many times without offering anything of value in return before it gets stale.
I don’t think that was a lie Greg? I think people may have said some things based on bad information, this is different than a lie. For example, liberals tend to say Bush lied about WMDs. If he “lied,” then so did the French, German, Russian, Israeli Saudi Arabia, and Jordanian intelligence as well as the CIA. This would also make Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John F. Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, and others liars (for more info, see my PAGE on WMDs: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/wmd/). This is one word that is thrown around by libs almost as much as the race card. It would be like me saying Obama lied when he said there were 57 states. There has to be some leeway here on both side, yeah?
So before going further, let’s get this straight, if Michele Bachmann got her info from a source of good standing and repeated it, she would be wrong, and not a liar, right?
========QUOTE A top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit has reckoned that a whopping $200 million (Rs 900 crore approx) per day would be spent by various teams coming from the US in connection with Obama’s two-day stay in the city. “A huge amount of around USD 200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit,” the official said in Mumbai. ========unQUOTE
Michele Bachmann then picked this up (maybe a staff member?) and ran with it. She didn’t lie Greg. Stop it. She was mistaken and took some bad information that the Indian press ran with. Right? This is your first main point and we need to reach agreement on this so that I [we] may know this conversation is one that maturely takes facts into consideration and changes our thoughts on the matter to fit the facts. Again, the main issue here is media bias… why would the press run with this and blame Bachmann as they did? Yes she said it, but she was not the author of this info. One of the most recent examples is this thanking by Michelle Obama to the press for leaving her kids alone and mediaites telling Michele Bachmann to her face all of her 23 foster children will be investigated (http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2011/06/media-ethics-are-this-democrat-children-off-limits-republican-children-open-season/).
So she didn’t lie, right Greg?
He then retorts:
“a half truth is a while lie”. The false claim is in the same vein as John Kyl’s “over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is aortions” – selective information meant as slander, and not for any other purpose other than to spread lies, and just now on the news Michele wouldn’t address her “misstatements” other than she’s a “serious candidate”. You’re just trying to polish a turd with me on the Obama India trip, I’m not buying it.
I stay on topic after he rambles on on a myriad of topics:
(Stay focused.) We are still talking about one of your first points (outside of your use of “extremist” in describing a conservative woman of faith [http://vimeo.com/25142030]) and haven’t even made it to a second yet. Back up what you say, or, when what you believe doesn’t fit the facts – lay your pride aside and say, “you know, I may have jumped the gun with that.”
Okay, Bachmann didn’t even use a “white lie” when she passed on that information. She sisn’t twist any of it, she didn’t know it was false… she or her handlers ran with it based on the fact that it came from typically reliable sources:
He never answered my direct and clear questions or answered the evidence that challenged his embedded bias. Instead he used a tactic that 16-years of discussions on the www. have taught me… change the subject and bombard the person with many questions or topics… all at once. However, in his posting a “top-ten” list from online, I chose this one and then posted:
7. “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006
Okay, since you are dodging my question/statement, I will give an example from your list. I guarantee that more than half of those can be explained away using the same common sense I did in the position above that you seem to not want to engage in, the example I gave of Melissa Ethridge near the beginning, and this one.
Bachmann said…. this: “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.”
Okay, Nobel Laureates who believe in I.D. or some form of it:
1) Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor; 2) Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics); 3) I would argue that Einstein accepted a form of I.D.; 4) Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program; 5) Max Plank, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 6) Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 7) Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 8) Robert Millikan, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 9) Arthur Schawlow, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 10) William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 11) Sir William H. Bragg, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 12) Guglielmo Marconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 13) Arthur Compton, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 14) Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 15) Alexis Carrel, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 16) Sir John Eccles, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 17) Joseph Murray, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 18) Sir Ernst Chain, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 19) George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 20) Sir Derek Barton, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 21) Christian Anfinsen, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 22) Walter Kohn, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 23) T. S. Eliot, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 24) Rudyard Kipling, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 25) Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 26) François Mauriac, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 27) Hermann Hesse, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 28) Sir Winston Churchill, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 29) Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 30) Sigrid Undset, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 31) Isaac B. Singer, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 32) Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 33) Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 34) Woodrow Wilson, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 35) Nelson Mandela, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 36) Kim Dae-Jung, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 37) Dag Hammarskjöld, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 38) Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Laureate for Peace; 39) John R. Mott, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 40) Nathan Söderblom, Nobel Laureate for Peace.
Of course there are many scientists who were or are leaders in technology/science, literature and the like that are believers in some form of Intelligent Design. The example I give (and have given to you in past discussions is….
◆ 1) The guy most credited in getting us to the moon, Werner von Braun: von Braun began work at the US Army Ordinance Corps testing grounds at White Sands, New Mexico. In 1952 he became technical director of the army’s ballistic-missile program. It was in the 1950’s that he produced rockets for US satellites (the first, Explorer 1, was launched early 1958) and early space flights by astronauts. He held an administrative post at NASA from 1970-1972 as well. We would have never made it to the moon if it were not for von Braun.
◆ 2) Dr Raymond V. Damadian is one that’s invention was key in diagnosing me with Multiple Sclerosis. He invented the MRI and his first working model is forever in the Smithsonian Institution‘s Hall of Medical Sciences
◆ 3) Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age. A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.” Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”
These three men are young earth creationists (YEC) and support their claims by evidence and faith. One last point here are lists found on my blog
Hydraulic fracturing – or “fracking” – is a fast-growing source of natural gas used to create electricity, heat homes, and more. It involves forcing water, sand, and chemicals into super-deep wells and then recovering the gas released during the process.
Fracking is also highly controversial, with viral video hits such as “The Fracking Song” and the 2010 documentary Gasland contending that the process leads to polluted drinking water, home explosions, and worse.
Fracking has been around for more than 60 years and over 100,000 gas wells are dug per year, most of them in sparsely populated areas in the western U.S. With the discovery of the Marcellus Shale in the eastern part of the country, fracking is increasingly common in populated parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York, leading to heightened tensions between drillers and environmentalists. Indeed, the attorney general of New York has called for a moratorium on the practice in the Empire State.
Is fracking safe? And what are the potential benefits that will be forfeited if the practice is ended? Reason’s Nick Gillespie sat down with science correspondent Ronald Bailey to learn the truth about fracking. Bailey reports that the cases of contaminated water supplies were the result of poorly designed wells that had nothing to do with fracking itself. As important, he notes that the gas generated by fracking would not only massively increase American energy supply, it would do so with a relatively clean and cheap fuel
Pervious concrete, a type of concrete without sand, can drain hundreds of inches of rain per hour, allowing water to filter into groundwater stores below, rather than run off into storm drains.
Paved surfaces are so ubiquitous in urban areas today that most of us give little thought to the impact they have on water quality and the health of the environment. But here’s the sobering reality: As more available land area in the country gets paved over, a larger amount of rainwater ends up falling on impervious surfaces such as parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and streets rather than soaking into the soil. This creates an imbalance in the natural ecosystem and leads to a host of problems including erosion, flash floods, water table depletion, and pollution of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters as rainwater rushing across pavement surfaces picks up everything from oil and grease spills to deicing salts and chemical fertilizers.
A simple solution to avoiding these problems is to stop installing the impervious surfaces that block natural water infiltration into the soil. But few of us are ready to give up our paved roads, driveways, and parking lots. Rather than building them with conventional concrete or asphalt, more and more communities, municipalities, and businesses are switching to pervious concrete or porous pavement, a material that offers the inherent durability and low life-cycle costs of a typical concrete pavement while retaining stormwater runoff and replenishing local watershed systems.
Instead of preventing infiltration of water into the soil, pervious pavement assists the process by capturing rainwater in a network of voids and allowing it to percolate into the underlying soil. In many cases, pervious concrete roadways and parking lots can double as water retention structures, reducing or eliminating the need for traditional stormwater management systems such as retention ponds and sewer tie-ins.