When Are Republicans Going To Stop Deceiving Women And Invoking Social-Darwinism As A Virtue

Declaration of Intention for Albert Einstein to become an American citizen.

In 1936, German-born physicist Albert Einstein filed this Declaration of Intention to become an American citizen. Following the Nazi takeover of political power in Germany in 1933 and the onset of persecution of the German Jews, Einstein renounced his German citizenship and immigrated to the United States to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton. On the basis of this declaration, the man who had first proposed the theory of relativity in 1905 became a U.S. citizen in 1940.


District Court for the Trenton Division of the District of New Jersey, United States

Date Created

January 15, 1936 CE

The photocopy is by way of the U.S. National Archives. Einstein was born in Switzerland.  Just besides the fact that Einstein was an immigrate, one other interesting factlet about his declaration is that his last foreign residence is listed as Bermuda. Bermuda, a British territory, is only about 300 miles off the coast of North Carolina.

Fokker F27 Friendship. The first Fokker was built in early Mad Men era, with the first prototype flying on November 24, 1955. “Friendship” was not just part of the advertising image, but part of the plane’s name. may Fokkers are still flying. Fedex Express used a late-model one as recently as 2009.

The NYT is the name of fairness frequently and regularly publishes trash by conservatives, for example see NYT’s David Brooks – The moderate conservative columnist hides appalling opinions behind “reasonable” language. Change a couple minor details and it all reads the same. There is software that is almost capable of replacing journalist ( you have probably read articles done by software already, merely touched up by editors). certainly what conservatives regard as journalism could be replaced by programming since it always has the tinny sound of an unthinking machine. Which brings us to Campbell Brown’s – Obama: Stop Condescending to Women

WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”

Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

I just wrote about conservatives putting words and even thoughts into their opponents mouths and heads respectively, just the other day. The President’s full commencement speech at Barnard is here. Barnard is a women’s college founded in 1889 and is currently affiliated with Columbia University. Thus as one might expect the president’s speech was oriented toward women. I’ve read the speech twice and I will agree that if a partisan hack wanted to interpret a line or two as condescending they could certainly do so. I would expect no less from people who are perennially disingenuous. Obama does have that ‘cool’ aspect of his persona. The Right hates it. Which is like hating someone for having freckles. People cannot really cultivate cool, you either have or you do not. For some reason Campbell left out this self-deprecating part of the speech,

We know these things to be true.  We know that our challenges are eminently solvable.  The question is whether together, we can muster the will — in our own lives, in our common institutions, in our politics — to bring about the changes we need.  And I’m convinced your generation possesses that will.  And I believe that the women of this generation — that all of you will help lead the way.  (Applause.)

Now, I recognize that’s a cheap applause line when you’re giving a commencement at Barnard.  (Laughter.)  It’s the easy thing to say.  But it’s true.  It is — in part, it is simple math.  Today, women are not just half this country; you’re half its workforce.  (Applause.)  More and more women are out-earning their husbands.  You’re more than half of our college graduates, and master’s graduates, and PhDs.  (Applause.)   So you’ve got us outnumbered.  (Laughter.)

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.

But how far your leadership takes this country, how far it takes this world — well, that will be up to you.  You’ve got to want it.  It will not be handed to you.

The President touched on individual responsibility several times in that speech. He spoke about challenges and not expecting things to be served up to you – the graduating class of a very good school – much less women who have not had that opportunity. Campbell will have none of that. her finely tuned right-wing Republican hearing discards, as usual anything Democrats say about individual responsibility, challenges, working hard and being good citizens.It is deeply ingrained to the DNA of conservatives not to hear what liberals say, pay attention to liberal accomplishments and to hear facts, that tend to have a built in liberal bias.

My cousin in Louisiana started a small company with a little savings, renovating houses. A single mom, she saved enough to buy a home and provide child care for her son. When the economy went belly up, so did her company. She was forced to sell her home and move in with her parents. She has found another job, but doesn’t make enough to move out. Family, not government, has been everything to her at this time of crisis. She, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

Another member of my family left her job at an adoption agency just before the economy crashed. Also a single mother, she has been looking for a way back to a full-time job ever since. She has been selling things on eBay to make ends meet. Friends and family, not government, have been there at the dire moments when she has asked them to be. Again, she, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

This is not to say that government doesn’t play a role in their lives. It does and it should. But it isn’t a dominant one, and certainly not an overwhelming factor in their daily existence.

Campbell’s friends one assumes have taken zero  from the safety net. No unemployment benefits, no Medicaid for their children. No SNAP (food stamps). If that is true how great that these friends happen to have families who can afford to take up the economic slack for those women. What about women that do not have families who can afford to help or can only afford to help a little or have no families. Why don’t these conservative women have husbands. Conservatives are always accusing women without husbands to support them and their children as losers. Where did Obama or any major Democrat ever say that government should play a “dominant” role in a woman’s life or a man’s for that matter. This is Campbell beating the hell out of a straw-man who doesn’t, never has existed. We call what we stand for in terms of assistance – the safety net, because that is what it is. I know its blasphemy to say so but the reality is that free markets are not perfect. In the way the U.S. runs our version of the free market people can work themselves have to death and JP Morgan or Citibank can wipe your savings, your hard work out over night. Campbell does her best impression of Fox disinformation peddling in trying to shift blame for unemployment among women from conservatives to Obama.

But Mitt Romney will never be confused with Rick Santorum on these issues, and many women understand that. (I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.) The struggling women in my life all laughed when I asked them if contraception or abortion rights would be a major factor in their decision about this election. For them, and for most other women, the economy overwhelms everything else.

Change that wording to “my husband is an adviser to Mr. Obama” and imagine the sound of conservative readers laughing so hard they blow milk through their nose. No, her politics and associations with the extreme Right have no bearing on her warped world view at all. In the mist of this overwhelming need to not bother to focus on social issues conservatives have some how found the time and money to spend on those suddenly unimportant little things – Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on WomenRepublican “War On Women” Is Not A Democratic Invention and The Republican War on Women Is Only Getting Bigger.

Because of the strength of conservative tin-foil, facts and basic moral decency will never get through. Money spent on food assistance and unemployment benefits do not disappear down some vortex never to be seen again – Food Stamps and Unemployment Insurance Create Jobs in a Weak Economy

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Robert Barro dismisses Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s claim that every dollar spent on food stamps generates $1.84 of economic activity.  Barro claims Secretary Vilsack’s “Keynesian” estimate conflicts with “regular” economics, which he says predicts that increasing transfer payments like food stamps and unemployment insurance (UI) would lead to a decline in economic activity and a fall in employment because they would “motivate less work effort by reducing the reward from working.”

Contrary to Barro’s assertion, however, the Secretary is in good company appealing to Keynesian multiplier analysis under current economic conditions, and Barro’s assessment is implausible.  For example, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that transfer payments to individuals like the increase in food stamp benefits and additional UI compensation of the 2009 Recovery Act generate between 80 cents and $2.10 for each dollar spent when the Federal Reserve holds short-term interest rates as low as possible (see Table 2 here).  Barro says “there is zero evidence” that deficit-financed transfers increase economic activity and boost employment;” CBO explains why, taken as a whole, the evidence says they do.

Circumstances matter.  When the economy is humming along on all cylinders and unemployment is very low – think the late 1990s – deficit-financed increases in food stamps and UI would not increase economic activity or boost employment.  The multiplier would be essentially zero because the Federal Reserve would raise interest rates in response.  Any rise in demand stimulated by the increase in transfers would be offset by the fall in demand due to higher interest rates.  Barro’s concern about work disincentives could come into play if transfers were exceedingly generous.

That’s not where we are now.  Higher interest rates due to Fed tightening will not likely be a concern anytime soon.  Instead, we face a long period of high unemployment and excess productive capacity.  These are just the circumstances in which transfers will most likely be effective in stimulating demand and creating jobs.

Food stamp and UI recipients spend most of any increase in income they get, and they spend it quickly.  That means more spending at local businesses and more orders for those businesses’ suppliers.  The additional spending generates income for local businesses and their suppliers, and the boost to demand multiplies through the economy.  With nine unemployed workers for every two job openings and businesses generally operating well below full capacity, constraints on expanding production and employment to meet the increased demand should be minimal.  Treasury borrowing costs will continue to be low and we will increase the odds that a real economic recovery will take hold.

I’m about to spill the secrets to never having to work again and live off the gov’mint. SNAP ( food stamps) pays on average ( its varies a little by state) a family of 3( the average sized family in the U.S. is about 2.6 individuals) – pays $526 a month. Three people live on about $17.53 per day or each person gets about $5.84 for food. Obviously everyone reading this is going to quite their job tomorrow and really start living high off all that Marxist Kenyan cash. Just in case someone as out of touch with reality as Campbell Brown or Mitt Romney stops by, you’ll be eating a lot of bread, baloney, potatoes and generic corn flakes. Exactly what day was it that it became cool to allow people who have no real power over how the economy is run to starve or live under bridges.