Romney: “I’m not concerned about the very poor…”
Candidate now claims he misspoke -- but what did he mean?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
What he said: “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it… I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
What he meant to say: “Well you had to finish the sentence… I said ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.’ The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans.”
(See story here.)
What this means: Romney doesn’t care about the poor, and he doesn’t know what to do about the poor.
Truly, what’s alarming about Romney’s statement/clarification is his attitude that the “safety net” is the solution to poverty. It is not the solution; it’s a stopgap — welfare keeps people afloat while they get back on their feet. At least, in theory, this is how it should work.
Conservatives have long decried welfare policies that stymie radical change among the impoverished. The only “fix” to the safety net is to address why people are poor.
That a conservative candidate champions welfare as a solution — he doesn’t even know if it’s broke (“…if it has holes in it, I will repair them…”) — is most concerning.
Also, Romney is angry that he’s being misquoted (cue to the 2:18 mark)?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
© 2012, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
ACLU argues that taxpayers should pay for porn
Communities purposes should not be thwarted by personal liberties
“We are a publicly funded institution. It is crazy to think that we should be required to use tax dollars to allow open access to Internet pornography or to become illegal casinos.” — Director Dean Marney, of the North Central Regional Library (Washington state)
My right to express myself — as in publishing this blog — does not mean the rest of America has to pay for it. Nor does my right to practice religion mean the taxpayer has to build a church for me. I can do those things on my own, and to the best of my ability.
Neither must libraries offer access to porn.
The ACLU is suing the North Central Regional Library for blocking access to porn sites through its filtering system (see story). Essentially, the ACLU contends that communities have no right to function as communities, that libraries have no right to set priorities.
I have always believed the right to be a citizen among a group, a self-willed body, is constitutional. The ACLU argues otherwise.
“Public libraries are a valuable resource for all people in their community. Unlike with books and other printed materials, finances do not limit libraries from providing the vast array of useful information available on the Internet. Libraries should not limit the opportunity of adults to view research articles and other lawful materials,” said ACLU of Washington legal director Sarah Dunne (source).
Forcing libraries to offer porn (or gambling, etc.), however, is a limitation. Libraries have only so many computers, only so much physical space. Somehow, libraries — guided by their communities — have to decide what appears on shelves and on computer screens. Or, is the ACLU saying libraries must offer EVERYTHING? If so, we will have to build libraries the size of stadiums.
No, communities have the right to set goals and priorities — and the process is democratic. It should be honored, not subverted by the ACLU and its overwrought ideas of personal liberty.
© 2012, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
“Protect IP/SOPA” will damage citizens’ freedoms
PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.
The groundswell against “Protect IP/SOPA” is enormous, and with good cause. My particular objection regards how the legislation would affect Internet searches. Google describes the situation this way: “The U.S. government could order the blocking of sites using methods similar to those employed by China. Among other things, search engines could be forced to delete entire websites from their search results. That’s why 41 human rights organizations and 110 prominent law professors have expressed grave concerns about the bills” (source).
That companies and artists should be able to protect their work is unquestionable. Piracy is ruinous, and it stifles competition and creativity (one has only to look at China, where movie producers cannot thrive because nearly everyone there is buying pirated, American movies). But giving corporations and courts broad powers to censor the web is unacceptable.
It has also been noted that “Protect IP/SOPA” won’t actually stop piracy. Ironic. Still more ironic is that the industry is capable of adapting to circumstances. In the 1990s, digital music threatened to destroy the music industry. Countless millions simply downloaded music for free, robbing both artists and corporations of their just profits. Yet, the industry adapted. Today, the industry sells — profitably — 30-second ring-tones of songs for a buck or so. That’s pure gravy.
The greater consideration is, and should always be, the rights of citizens to gather information freely. “Protect IP/SOPA” would damage that right.
© 2012, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
Not voting for a Mormon
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Truth is, I don’t know that I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, but I know I won’t be voting for Mitt Romney. His record as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007) does not reflect strong conservative (even Mormon) values. Strikingly, Ron Paul or Rick Santorum seem better choices for religious conservatives.
© 2012, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
Sarah Ferguson will not be deported for exposing abuses in orphanages
Turkey wants to arrest former princess for secret filming
Hear, hear –
“I am a human rights activist for children. I’m apolitical and multi-faith. I go with the governments, not against them. But I will be a foghorn for silent whisperers if I feel that children are not given the life that they should be given. In other words if they’re in institutions and haven’t even seen the light of day, that doesn’t sit well with me.” — Sarah Ferguson, 2009
Ferguson’s crime, according to Turkey, is secretly videoing children in orphanages, in which she exposed abuses. Turkey claims the former princess violated the children’s right of privacy. If convicted, she could face upwards of 22 years in prison — but that won’t happen. “It has to be an offence in both the countries’ laws. It’s not an offense in U.K. law, so the duchess won’t be extradited,” a British government source told the press (see here).
The notion that children should suffer abuse privately is appalling and unacceptable. Ferguson is to be commended for her work, not condemned.
© 2012, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
Mayor Nutter: Murdered teens should have been in bed
Philadelphia mayor chastens parents for allowing teens to stray
His words may not be politically correct, but they are right on the mark. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter criticized parents of three teens murdered Tuesday night, saying, “Seven young people, somewhere between 14 and 16 years old, on a Tuesday night — a school night — are out in a car going to somewhere to have a fight with some other teenager. That is completely insane, it is irresponsible. Parents have to know where their children are and what they are doing” — (full story at MSNBC).
He continued, saying, “The least you can do is know where the hell your kids are, in the daytime, in the nighttime, or at any time during the week or on the weekends. That’s the minimum we should ask and expect from our parents. You want to have kids? Take care of them.”
The loss of these young lives is tragic indeed, but more tragic is the loss of a generation, given to violence and malice. It’s time for men like Mayor Nutter to speak out. A generation depend on them.
View more videos at: http://nbcphiladelphia.com.
© 2012, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
Clever words, dirty politics
Why Romney can't get elected
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
© 2011, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
