Santorum and Romney actually disagree on a number of issues, especially if you compare Romney the Centrist Republican Governor of Taxachussetts with Santroum the Senator Before He Got Tossed Out of Washington. But they do agree on one issue: No more Black Guys in the White House!!! And on that basis, Santorum had endorsed Romney, this very evening:
Santorum on Monday urged his supporters to join him in working with the effective Republican nominee to deny President Barack Obama a second term. In his message, Santorum reminded his supporters of areas where he disagreed with Romney during their slog of a primary.
Yet Santorum says that, in his words, “above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated.”
The following statement is being circulated for signatures and to influence broad public opinion:
“We Say NO MORE”
The killing of Trayvon Martin and 2.4 million in prison make clear that there is a whole generation of Black and Latino youth who have been marked and treated as a “generation of suspects” to be murdered and jailed. This is not an issue for Black people alone but for all who care about justice; it is not a random tragedy. We say NO MORE!
These are the faces of all of the American Terrorists known since 9/11, with Shelly Shannon standing in for the killing of an abortion doctor (who’s killer was not found … but Shelly attacked the same clinic years earlier). Missing are mainly Earth and/or Animal liberation front members who are mostly white guys in their 20s or 30s. How many can you name?
A more sophisticated form of underwear bomb has been developed, but the CIA has thwarted an attempt to deploy it to blow up a US based plane.
The plot involved an upgrade of the underwear bomb that failed to detonate aboard a jetliner over Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009. [it has] a more refined detonation system…
… the device did not contain metal, meaning it probably could have passed through an airport metal detector.
But it was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected it.
The bomber, who was with an al_Qaida affiliate based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target when the FBI wen in and grabbed the underwear. It is not clear if the would-be bomber was wearing, or otherwise near, the underwear at the time it was seized, but that would have been a hella wedgie.
A two year old boy shot his three year old brother in the butt using daddy’s gun, which was left unlocked, with no safety, in the truck while daddy went into the house to get something. For the second time in a few years, a guy shot a bullet through through the walls separating him and his neighbor, didn’t hit anyone but the neighbor was annoyed and the police seem to think it is the shooter’s right to do this. Some guy who got a new gun for his security job was showing off his gun and killed his friend by shooting in her in the face. Another guy who just got a gun shot his brother dead. A mom gave her teenage son a handgun to play with, and he shot her sister with it. A guy at the shooting range shot himself in the gut wiht his assault rifle. He’ll live, maybe. A cop’s daughter shot herself with the officer’s service weapon, which was left loaded and unlocked on his dresser. The 10 year old girl will live, the cop will not be charged.
All these stories and more can be investigated in more detail here.
As you know, Edwina Rogers, a long term Republican strategist, adviser, and spokesperson, was appointed to the position of Executive Director of the Secular Coalition of America. There has been some concern about this appointment because,in the view of many (myself included) most of the organizations associated with the SCA are liberal or progressive leaning.
There are two conversations I want to tell you about regarding this issue. The first is one I had with SCA Chief of Staff Eliza Kashinsky. I only have a brief comment or two to make related to that conversation. First, I do think it is reasonable to assume that the SCA hired Edwina Rogers because they wanted to hire someone who knew what they were doing in the lobbying game. Personally, I’m very glad if indeed that was their strategy, becuase I don’t assume that rising through the ranks of skepticism, humanism, and atheism in and of itself qualified one to be a great lobbyist. So going to the pros is a good idea. Another thing that came out of that conversation was my specific request for two things, and I eagerly hope these happen.
I asked about the SCA’s plans to include climate change in their move to make real science the basis of policy in Washington and elsewhere, but there was not a clear answer. Pursuant to addressing what might be some ambiguity in this area, I asked Eliza if she would in turn ask Edwina Rogers to have a meeting very soon (by phone or not) with Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, in order to discuss that issue. I let Genie know about this so she could expect the call.
The second thing I asked for was to have Edwina include on her list of items to bring to the various members of congress she would be speaking to a serious request to sign the Science Pledge.
The second conversation I wanted to alert you to is the one Greta Christina just posted on her blog. That is here.
There are some concerns. I think it would be much better if Edwina simply acknowledged that Republicans, as a party, have some of the positions Greta asks her about. Edwina claims that the Republicans don’t really have a “party position” on abortion. That is incorrect, and easily checked. For instance, here is the Republican Party position on abortion as printed on their web site, from the 2008 platform:Continue reading Edwina Rogers and the Secular Coalition of America→
From now until November, President Obama and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will emphasize their differences. But the two men’s lives actually coincide in a striking number of ways: Both attended Harvard. Both have been heavily influenced by their respective churches. Each descended from polygamists.
This is the preface for a piece by Ari Shapiro. I’m trying to ask Shapiro what is meant by this. Since it is preface text this is probably from an editor, but I would think it is in the piece somewhere (it is a multipart series).
Are we talking about his Kenyan background, and simply labeling Kenyans as Polygynous? Or are we talking about his generalized African background? Or the fact that he comes from an Abrahamic religion and all those people in the Old Testament were polygynous? Or what?
And if so, then why are we not comparing Romney to, say, Every other person running for office who has at some point in their background a society that does not enforce monogamy … because when you don’t enforce monogamy you get overt polygyny and occassionally polyandry (both forms of polygamy). (When you do enforce the monogamy you get way less, and not overt.)