welfare reform | Existential Ennui

Tags

astronomy, Mars, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Mormonism, science, taxes, voting rights, welfare reform

This is one of the first shots taken by Curiosity of its new home in a crater, looking out on a mountain that is in that same crater.

No word yet whether Curiosity can see Russia from her porch.

Yeah, I know, she’s a non sequitur now, no need to beat a dead horse.

Given that Willard tends to avoid like the plague any discussion regarding his faith, you might be interested in a New Yorker piece about four new histories of the movement. I am not a person who makes fun of what anyone chooses to believe as long as it doesn’t include harm to others, but after attempting to read the book of Mormon, simply as an exercise in being “informed” I gave up, finding it to unalterably boring to push through.

But the story of Joseph Smith and his magic tablets is fascinating, so you might decide, after reading the New Yorker review to pick up one and have a go.

Willard must have the shortest memory in the history of homo sapien sapien. I swear he must. Again, he is vilifying the president for something he (you got it) supported himself. The President would allow states to opt out of certain welfare work requirements upon proof that they had come up with a more innovative (lest costly and workable) alternative. Now Willard says that amounts to just sending people a welfare check. Of course he said the opposite when he was governor of Massachusetts, when he praised and pushed for such a waiver system. Click on the link and you can see his fat signature on the letter.

I almost hate to post this as a joke, since frankly, you and I both know, it’s all too possibly true.

From the Onion:

H/T to Joe.My.God.

We have been a waiting for weeks now Willard’s tax returns. Willard says he ain’t a gonna give ’em up, since the mean old Democrats will only twist them, and ya know, ask for more.

Well, I have moved that “answer” around in my mouth for a good while now, and it’s time to spit out the truth. Whatever the tax returns say are FACTS. They are what they are. Perhaps they can be twisted but they can’t be made into some awful lie because facts are facts. Unless of course you are of the Romney mind: then facts are irrelevant and you can just say they mean the opposite of what they commonly mean. Is that what he is afraid of? That the Obama folks will invent new meanings like he does?

The burden is on Willard. As everyone says, he can clear this up in a heartbeat. Release them, and fair-minded people will read the truth.

But Willard can’t stand the truth. And that must mean that there is something gawd-awful in them.

As Hunter at Daily Kos says:

Whatever’s in Mitt Romney’s old taxes, whether it be zero-tax years or Swiss tax amnesties or non-tithing or that he made several million dollars on a new product called Fetus Chow, it’s apparently so bad that America wouldn’t vote for the rich business guy if they saw it.

It ain’t goin’ away Willard. You can refuse, deny, and look the other way, but we can smell a rat.

Editorial alert:

As a law student, I heard this phrase a dozen or more times: We believe it is better than a 100 guilty go free rather than one innocent be wrongly convicted. Indeed nothing can be more shameful than the periodic release of yet another innocent who has been imprisoned for years for a crime he did not commit. (The phrase goes back at least as far as Blackstone and English law, but has been attributed to many others, including several justices down through the years.)

What this speaks to is our special commitment to justice.

If there is a hallmark to a democratic state it must be the right to vote. I can think of no other more important right than the ability of one to cast their vote for a candidate of their choice. Indeed, one wonders why the far right which is always a titter about “our freedoms” isn’t more vocal on this most important freedom of all.

Yet, clearly the GOP is trying mightily to inhibit the right to vote for literally millions of Americans across the country–and doing so quite openly, all under the guise of “stopping voter fraud”. This voter fraud of course proves to be non-existent when looked at, averaging less than one possible case PER state, per year. In NO CASE has there been any fraud that changed an election of threatened to do so.

Is is not better that 100 potentially fraudulent votes be cast rather than one rightful voter be denied the vote? I would think so.

You?