200 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

Santorum wants to make this about social conservatism since that is his main advantage in the GOP race; but will it work for him against Obama? Doubtful at this point, but who knows? I think the recent birth control dust up certainly was a part of that coming conflict.

[Jim Ohara]

God I hope Santorum wins Michigan.

[Robert B]

Santorum wants to make this about social conservatism since that is his main advantage in the GOP race; but will it work for him against Obama? Doubtful at this point, but who knows? I think the recent birth control dust up certainly was a part of that coming conflict.

Yeah, but that killed the GOP in the polls. Some of the candidates (well, Romney) was basically dead even with Obama before they started the birth-control stuff, and now all of the GOP candidates, Romney included, are lagging way behind the President.

They're not going to return to it in the general election though. It's a mandatory hoop that you have to jump through in the Republican primaries, and then you quietly push it to the backburner by August.

Edited by Robert B, 21 February 2012 - 12:22 AM.

[Johnny Henning]

After the "Netherlands kills and eats its elderly" comment, I can't see how anyone takes him seriously.

[Ogul]

Santorum wants to make this about social conservatism since that is his main advantage in the GOP race; but will it work for him against Obama? Doubtful at this point, but who knows? I think the recent birth control dust up certainly was a part of that coming conflict.

I seriously doubt that Santorum is strategic enough to care, he's bringing up these issues because these are the issues he cares about. If that leads to him winning, great, if not? Whatever. He's a little like Ron Paul in that regard, just with a different deck of crazy cards.

[Arjan Dirkse]

After the "Netherlands kills and eats its elderly" comment, I can't see how anyone takes him seriously.

Yeah that was ridiculous.

Old people are way too chewy, eating babies is easier and tastier.

[Christian U]

I can't believe nobody in that room burst out laughing at that.


Santorum is turning this into exactly the kind of fight I want to see. God, I hope he'll be the GOP candidate.

[Todd Gross]

Yeah that was ridiculous.

Old people are way too chewy, eating babies is easier and tastier.

Way to go, Arjan! Now I'm hungry for baby back ribs...

[Jim Ohara]

My favorite subject:

For boomers, it's a new era of 'work til you drop'


LOS ANGELES (AP) -- When Paula Symons joined the U.S. workforce in 1972, typewriters in her office clacked nonstop, people answered the telephones and the hot new technology revolutionizing communication was the fax machine.

Symons, fresh out of college, entered this brave new world thinking she'd do pretty much what her parents' generation did: Work for just one or two companies over about 45 years before bidding farewell to co-workers at a retirement party and heading off into her sunset years with a pension.

Forty years into that run, the 60-year-old communications specialist for a Wisconsin-based insurance company has worked more than a half-dozen jobs. She's been laid off, downsized and seen the pension disappear with only a few thousand dollars accrued when it was frozen.

So, five years from the age when people once retired, she laughs when she describes her future plans.

"I'll probably just work until I drop," she says, a sentiment expressed, with varying degrees of humor, by numerous members of her age group.

Like 78 million other U.S. Baby Boomers, Symons and her husband had the misfortune of approaching retirement age at a time when stock market crashes diminished their 401(k) nest eggs, companies began eliminating defined benefit pensions in record numbers and previously unimagined technical advances all but eliminated entire job descriptions from travel agent to telephone operator.

At the same time, companies began moving other jobs overseas, to be filled by people willing to work for far less and still able to connect to the U.S. market in real time.

"The paradigm has truly shifted. Now when you're looking for a job you're competing in a world where the competition isn't just the guy down the street, but the guy sitting in a cafe in Hong Kong or Mumbai," says Bill Vick, a Dallas-based executive recruiter who started BoomersNextStep.com in an effort to help Baby Boomers who want to stay in the workforce.

Not only has the paradigm shifted, but as it has the generation whose mantra used to be, "Don't trust anyone over 30," finds itself now being looked on with distrust by younger Generation X managers who question whether boomers have the high-tech skills or even the stamina to do what needs to be done.

"I always have the feeling that I have to prove my value all the time. That I'm not some old relic who doesn't understand social media or can't learn some new technique," says Symons, who is active on Twitter and Facebook, loves every new time-saving software app that comes down the pike, and laughs at the idea of ever sending another fax.

"Ahh, that's just so archaic," she says.

Meanwhile, as companies have downsized, boomers have been hurt to some degree by their own sheer numbers, says Ed Lawler of the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business.

The oldest ones, Lawler says, aren't retiring, and more and more the youngest members of the generation ahead of them aren't either. It's no longer uncommon, he says, for people to work until 70.

This is one of the hidden consequences against the unemployment rate. People aren't quitting anymore. We're really screwed as a generation.

[Todd Gross]

My favorite subject:


This is one of the hidden consequences against the unemployment rate. People aren't quitting anymore. We're really screwed as a generation.

To go the opposite of Arjan's modest proposal, would you like to turn the Boomers into Soylent Green?

[Adam Wednesdays]

I can't believe nobody in that room burst out laughing at that.


Santorum is turning this into exactly the kind of fight I want to see. God, I hope he'll be the GOP candidate.

Me too! Because not only will he get his mother-lovin' @$$ whooped from one coast to the other, going whole hog on the crazy is the only way the GOP is going to work this out of their system. They nominate Romney, and the hardliners will blame the fact that he's a "moderate" for the fact that they lost, and that they need to stand for "true values" to win.

And for all the complaints that Obama has gotten from progressives for being middle of the road, it's pretty easy to see what he's been doing: staking out the center ground as comfortably as possible, and then letting the GOP try to turn the centrist position into "CRAZY SOCIALIST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY!" and alienate everyone who isn't a complete hardliner.

Edited by Adam Wednesdays, 22 February 2012 - 12:45 AM.

[Ogul]

Me too! Because not only will he get his mother-lovin' @$$ whooped from one coast to the other, going whole hog on the crazy is the only way the GOP is going to work this out of their system. They nominate Romney, and the hardliners will blame the fact that he's a "moderate" for the fact that they lost, and that they need to stand for "true values" to win.

The other benefit to Santorum is that he'll mobilize the people opposed to his social conservative agenda (pro-choice, pro-gay, that sort of thing), which should completely doom the various anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-religion ballot referendums going on in many of the states this year.

[Johnny Henning]

Meanwhile, in the middle of all this distraction, the Supreme Court prepares to eliminate affirmative action.

Put it out of its misery really since affirmative action hasn't been all that effective.

[Robert B]

And for all the complaints that Obama has gotten from progressives for being middle of the road, it's pretty easy to see what he's been doing: staking out the center ground as comfortably as possible, and then letting the GOP try to turn the centrist position into "CRAZY SOCIALIST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY!" and alienate everyone who isn't a complete hardliner.

I don't like that plan. It means when people turn to the Republicans (and they will), we get lunatics like the Tea Party and disasters like their debt ceiling nonsense.

But I don't think that is the plan.

[Christian U]

I don't like that plan. It means when people turn to the Republicans (and they will), we get lunatics like the Tea Party and disasters like their debt ceiling nonsense.

But I don't think that is the plan.

If it was the plan, then this wouldn't be the consequence though. Because after the major ass-whupping the GOP would get this campaign, they'd turn back towards the middle ground for 2016 when they'll be elected.

[garjones]

It's behaviour repeated down the ages in many countries. They get badly beaten so they return to their core which is either to the right or the left, it's not something unique to Republicans or right wing parties, which takes them further from the centre which is what votes a President in.

Then they eventually get fed up of losing and put forward a shiny centrist.

It's happened twice in my lifetime in British politics but they don't seem to learn.

[garjones]

Saw this in my Twitter feed today.

This afternoon, the House Judiciary (Non-Civil) Committee will take up HB 954, a measure that would prohibit abortions on women who are more than 20 weeks pregnant. Current law prohibits abortions after the second trimester, or about 24 weeks.
The bill sponsored by Doug McKillip, R-Athens, asserts that 20 weeks is the point at which a fetus can begin to feel pain. The measure also attempts to tighten “life of the mother” exceptions to abortion:

No such condition shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the pregnant woman or that the pregnant woman will purposefully engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.

In response, House Democrats have scheduled a 3 p.m. Wednesday hearing at the state Capitol, to propose a bill that would ban Georgia males from seeking vasectomies. From the press release:

“Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies,” said Rep. Yasmin Neal, author of the bill. “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”
House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams added, “The Republican attack on women’s reproductive rights is unconscionable. What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of HB 954’s author. If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of this General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.”

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/02/21/democratic-women-seek-a-state-ban-on-vasectomies-for-men/

[Ricardo_C]

Given that vasectomy is not the direct opposite of abortion, I think the point of Neal's counter-attack will be lost in semantics.

[Christian U]

It's a funny jibe, but it's besides the point of the abortion opponents, so it's not really a constructive contribution.

[Jim Ohara]

This is Georgia only, which seems to be locked in a moron battle right now. Which if you've been to Georgia is no surprise.