deliciouskaek

A week after losing the election to President Obama, Mitt Romney blamed his overwhelming electoral loss on what he said were big “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.

“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he added, was also a useful tool in mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers — 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics voted to re-elect Mr. Obama.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

The New York Times, “Romney Blames Loss On Obama’s ‘Gifts’ to Minorities and Young Voters.”

Mitt Romney, a fucking piece of shit asshole.  Fuck you, you privileged dicksmack.  Fuck you.

(via inothernews)

A gift…y’all. See when someone is this disconnected from everything then you just can’t try to bring logic to their life. It’s tilting at a windmill with a toothpick.

notesonascandal

Right-wing logic.

inothernews:

  • Jobless rate falls below 8%.  “This is not a real recovery.”
  • Obama gives order to kill bin Laden.  “He’s dead thanks to George Bush.”
  • Obama begins pullout of troops from Afghanistan and ends active combat role in Iraq — both wars started under George W. Bush.  “Why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
  • Obama is a U.S. citizen.  “Show us your birth certificate.”
  • Obama wants Consumer Protection Bureau to help shield Americans from insidious banking industry.  “This is government overreach!”
  • Majority of Americans want universal healthcare.  “Repeal Obamacare!”
  • Majority of Americans for marriage equality.  “God doesn’t want that!”
  • Women have constitutionally-protected reproductive rights.  ”Taxpayer money should not be spent on abortions, period, end of sentence, we’ll have states write laws prohibiting abortions if we have to!”
  • Women from low-income households and areas with limited access to quality care need access to healthcare.  ”Destroy Planned Parenthood!”
  • Mitt Romney ends record 47 straight days without a major gaffe, exceeds expectations at first presidential debate by misleading and outright lying.  “At first I wasn’t sure but he’s sure got my vote now!”
  • Romney says he doesn’t need to court 47 percent of Americans.  “Yes that’s actually true.”
notesonascandal

Here’s the thing about Rick Santorum’s “What a snob!” jab at the president.

inothernews:

Look at the video again and you can see, hear, and feel the contempt in Santorum’s voice.  He hates the president.  To his core.  It was unfettered, unabashed, unfiltered and utter, the utterest hatred for Obama I’ve ever heard.  There was no uncomfortable laughter to mask it with, as Romney might employ; there was no soundbite of manufactured outrage, as personified by the hollow shell of a man known as Newt Gingrich.  No, this was sincere disgust with the man who currently serves as commander-in-chief.  Over what?  Obama’s wanting our nation’s youth to pursue a college degree, or to enroll in a technical or vocational school?  Over espousing higher education?  Seriously?

Now Santorum’s advisers may have told him to tone it down, Rick, in the hours since that infamous ad hominem attack.  But there’s no use hiding such deep-seated abhorrence.  Rick Santorum embodies the worst trait of the Tea Party at its nadir: irrational hostility toward one’s political opponents.  Thankfully, there were TV cameras there to capture the nuance of “What a snob!”  Because reading that very quote from Rick Santorum probably elicits a “Oh, there goes Rick again, asking to be Googled!” 

But seeing and hearing him say it makes it crystal clear: when it comes to Obama, Santorum is sleeping with the enmity.

deliciouskaek

Arizona Republican Introduces Bill That Would Make The Lives Of Teachers A Living Hell

nonplussedbyreligion:

Five GOP Senators in Arizona have introduced a bill in Arizona that would make the lives of teachers and professors a living hell inside and outside of school. Senator Al Melvin, Senator Andy Biggs, Senator Don Shooter, Senator Lori Klein, and Senator Steve Smith are the sponsors of SB 1467, which would prohibit teachers from engaging in “speech or conduct that would violate the standards adopted by the federal communications commission concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity if that speech or conduct were broadcast on television or radio.” In other words, teachers can’t do things that aren’t allowed on television.

Here is the full text of the bill:

“Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

A.  If a person who provides classroom instruction in a public school engages in speech or conduct that would violate the standards adopted by the federal communications commission concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity if that speech or conduct were broadcast on television or radio:

1.  For the first occurrence, the school shall suspend the person, at a minimum, for one week of employment, and the person shall not receive any compensation for the duration of the suspension. This paragraph does not prohibit a school after the first occurrence from suspending the person for a longer duration or terminating the employment of that person.

2.  For the second occurrence, the school shall suspend the person, at a minimum, for two weeks of employment, and the person shall not receive any compensation for the duration of the suspension. This paragraph does not prohibit a school after the second occurrence from suspending the person for a longer duration or terminating the employment of that person.

3.  For the third occurrence, the school shall terminate the employment of the person. This paragraph does not prohibit a school after the first or second occurrence from terminating the employment of that person.

B.  For the purposes of this section, “public school” means a public preschool program, a public elementary school, a public junior high school, a public middle school, a public high school, a public vocational education program, a public community college or a public university in this state.”

The bill would require schools to fire public school teachers and college professors who use books or films in the classroom that contain any profanity. Greg Lukianoffof the Foundation for Individual Rights In Education says,

“The law not only hobbles the ability to teach about sexuality and other non-Victorian topics, but it also puts teachers in jeopardy for teaching such mainstays as The Canterbury Tales, The Catcher in the Rye, certainly Ulysses, and probably every work by an obscure English writer named William Shakespeare. These days, such a law could certainly make any professor or teacher think twice about teaching Mark Twain or Kurt Vonnegut. And how on earth could you possibly teach a class about cinema studies without showing movies like The Godfather, The Graduate, Annie Hall, or for that matter, Pulp Fiction?”

Teachers would even have difficulty educating students about free speech cases that went before the Supreme Court, and would require educators to teach certain historical material in a G rated manner. So basically you can forget about showing students a documentary about the cruelty of the Nazis during the Holocaust. In fact, the teachers may not even be able to watch it in their own homes. War photos may also be restricted. Teaching in such a manner would deprive students of fully learning about these topics and would hurt their understanding of history. Arizona lawmakers have already banned ethnic studies courses in schools and now they want to control everything that teachers do both on and off campus. It’s unconscionable.

But the bill goes further than that. Because the language in the bill doesn’t distinguish between public speech or conduct and just plain old speech or conduct, the law could even require schools to fire teachers who use profanity and have sex in their private lives away from school. This bill is a violation of privacy and free speech and is one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen. This proves that the GOP war against teachers is alive and well.

fuckyeahethnicwomen

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

fuckyeahethnicwomen:

esprit-follet:

There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be “dumb,” according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

“They’ve pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics,” said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. “When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it’s bound to upset somebody.”

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

“The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this,” Nosek said, referring to the new study. “It’s not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists.”

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life’s Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as “Family life suffers if mum is working full-time,” and “Schools should teach children to obey authority.” Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people from other races.” (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson’s work can’t speak to this “underground” racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

“This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice,” said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence andsocial conservatism, the researchers aren’t implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

“There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals,” Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

“We can say definitively men are taller than women on average,” he said. “But you can’t say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There’s plenty of overlap.”

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

“Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order,” Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. “Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice.”

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri’s explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn’t conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you’d have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren’t possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like “every kid is a genius in his or her own way,” might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

“My speculation is that it’s not as simple as their model presents it,” Nosek said. “I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where ‘People I don’t know are threats’ and ‘The world is a dangerous place’. … Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful.”

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programsencourage participants to see things from another group’s point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

“There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners,” Hodson said. “Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups,” rather than thoughts.

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappasFollow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and onFacebook.

Thoughts?

deliciouskaek
Newt Gingrich is an idiot of great renown. …There is something so hopelessly gross and vile about him that it’s hard to take him seriously. So let’s not take him seriously.

Some small-time children’s book author named MAURICE SENDAK, to Stephen Colbert, on The Colbert Report.

Where the accurate things are.

(via inothernews)
deliciouskaek

deliciouskaek:

“…to the very core of their being.”

That’s a lot of hate right there. The core of your being? I mean, that’s pretty deep hate for someone you don’t even know, and have never met a day in your life. What is it about politics that drives this kind of rage?

thelaceserpent
blogvader:

Someone photoshopped a response to this nifty baby photo floating around the interwebs.
 And it’s true. Republicans this year decided that preserving tax cuts for unpatriotic rich fucks (and NASCAR) was more important than WIC, early childhood, education, and other programs that help kids stay healthy and succeed in low income communities. Seriously.  These fucks voted against cutting tax benefits for NASCAR and for taking food out of kids’ mouths.

blogvader:

Someone photoshopped a response to this nifty baby photo floating around the interwebs.

And it’s true. Republicans this year decided that preserving tax cuts for unpatriotic rich fucks (and NASCAR) was more important than WIC, early childhood, education, and other programs that help kids stay healthy and succeed in low income communities. Seriously.  These fucks voted against cutting tax benefits for NASCAR and for taking food out of kids’ mouths.