Friday, February 18, 2011

Fishback and Sprigg on Fox 5

Maryland is getting closer to passing a marriage equality bill in the state Senate, the bill passed in committee yesterday and should be headed to a vote on the floor. Yesterday Fox 5 News interviewed David Fishback and Peter Sprigg on the subject. David is well known to us as a friend of TTF, an officer in DC Metro PFLAG, former chair of the citizens advisory committee that recommended a new sex-ed curriculum -- which got us involved in the public debate in the first place. Peter is also well known to us as an officer in the hate group Family Research Council, a leader of Montgomery County's Citizens for Responsible Whatever, spokesperson for PFOX, and he currently advises the Montgomery County Public Schools on development of their sex-ed curriculum as a member of the citizens advisory committee.

Check it out (sorry, I couldn't get rid of the commercial at the start -- and it's like twice as loud as the show itself):

Gay and Lesbian Couples Monitor Same Sex Marriage Vote in Maryland Legislature: MyFoxDC.com

Lately Peter Sprigg has been focusing on the argument he presents here:
I think we have to look past the individual stories of particular couples and so forth and ask ourselves a question, why is marriage a public institution in the first place? Why does a government get involved in this most personal relationship? And I think the answer to that is because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race, and to keep together a mother and father to raise to maturity the children produced by their union. This public purpose of responsible procreation is central to the meaning of marriage and it's a purpose that simply is not served by same-sex relationships.

Doesn't he wish we could "look past the individual stories of particular couples and so forth"! Abstract concepts are so much easier to argue about, and it gets so difficult when real people go and fall in love and dream of establishing a home and family together.

Okay, he wants to talk about marriage in the abstract -- he gives one justification for marriage, and then continues as if that were the only justification. Marriage is for having kids and raising them. Okay, it does serve that purpose sometimes. That's the way we do it at my house, you can't argue that married people don't raise kids.

The heterosexual couple across the street from me do not have children. They are are very active in the community, they are always working on their house and their garden, making it all nicer, they walk their dog and play frisbee with it, when tree branches fell during the recent snowstorm the husband came out with me and helped pull them out of the road. It has never occurred to me that there was something weird or suspicious or fake about their marriage. It does not appear that "responsible procreation" is a big part of their marriage. So what?

On the other hand, I personally know of several gay couples who have adopted children and are raising them in a house full of love. Nope, didn't procreate, shame on them.

Marriage serves many functions. It provides an institution that supports intimate soul-sharing and love between pairs of individuals. It provides a secure environment for sexual expression. A dyad is a more stable economic unit than a single person, the pair can share the tasks of managing a home and bringing in money. The security of a stable pairwise relationship allows the individuals to develop as individuals, they can find careers and hobbies and avocations and develop interests, working from a base of love and security. Not so much in our culture, but traditionally marriage is an important way to cement alliances between families, clans, tribes. Marriage serves to produce an endless stream of material for the comedy industry. I mean, come on, you can't take one part of marriage and say "that's what it's for,"

Peter launched into one of his famous "the research shows that" speeches. Luckily, the announcer, Laura Evans, had her notes in front of her.

Peter said:
We certainly feel that the social science research is clear, that the ideal family form for children is to be raised by their own biological mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifetime marriage.

Evans comes back:
Peter, there have actually been three decades of research on this matter, the American Psychological Association has found that there is no scientific evidence that parental effectiveness is related to sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely, they say, as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. What do you say to those studies, twenty-five years worth of studies?

Peter responds by criticizing the scholarship of the research.
Well, those studies, the studies that have focused specifically on gay parenting, have suffered from severe methodological difficulties, very small sample sizes, convenience sampling where they're not a truly random sample, and by not being compared with actual married biological mothers and fathers, in comparing them with for example single parents instead, so I think that we can draw very few firm conclusions from that body of research, and we should be looking instead to the much broader and much larger and much more reliable body of research on family structure in general.

Peter Sprigg is trained as an actor and a Baptist minister. As someone who has struggled through the literature on both experimental research and survey methods, and a nearly-twenty-year member of the American Psychological Association, I am somewhat alarmed to think that Peter Sprigg is able to get the public's ear to criticize decades of research that has passed through a brutally skeptical peer review process, as if he knew what he was talking about.

It is also perhaps interesting, in an odd way, that the people who published the main paper critical of the research on same-sex parenting, the paper that Peter is certainly quoting, are neighbors and friends of mine. Bob passed away a year or so ago, but I have known them for years, Bob and I have had many discussions of research and statistical techniques, they brought over cookies when our dog was hit by a car. They were contractors who work for conservative think tanks, and this particular report went through a lot of studies concluding that same-sex couples were perfectly competent parents, and found the weaknesses in each one.

The fact is, many published studies have found that children raised by same-sex couples do as well as children in opposite-sex homes. Each of these studies was scrutinized by scholars, filtered through a rigorous editorial process, and was determined to meet the research standards of the scientific journal. Every study in every field has a weakness, but focusing on the weaknesses of each study does not seriously undermine the fact that all of them found the same thing: gay people can be good parents.

Trust me, if one peer-reviewed study had found that gay parents were bad at raising children, Peter would have mentioned it, it would be part of his anti-gay stump speech.

David Fishback was great on this show. As he states in the interview, he is the father of two gay sons, and he is obviously delighted at the prospect that his sons may be able to marry someday in the state of Maryland. At this point there isn't much need to make a case for it, David wasn't asked to prove why gay people should marry, it is common understanding now that the time has come to shed the embarrassing ignorance that has typified our society and move forward to something that is objectively reasonable and morally benevolent. I am always awed to watch David Fishback talk, he thinks in pull paragraphs and lays out his argument in a clear, well-organized way. I think Fox viewers yesterday could easily see who has right on their side and who is twisting the facts to perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination.

30 Comments:

Anonymous Robert said...

Hooray for Maryland (and David)!

February 18, 2011 12:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Peter said "Well, those studies, the studies that have focused specifically on gay parenting, have suffered from severe methodological difficulties, very small sample sizes, convenience sampling where they're not a truly random sample, and by not being compared with actual married biological mothers and fathers, in comparing them with for example single parents instead,".

What a lying sleezball, that man has no ethics whatsoever. The exact opposite is true. The studies he refers to are claiming they prove children do best with a father and mother are the ones that compare those families to single parent families. I've never seen a study of gay parents that didn't compare two gay parents to two opposite sex parents.

February 18, 2011 4:06 PM  
Anonymous ellaffsalot said...

Peter made it sound as if it's the role of government to bring men and women together to procreate!
Wow--what a relief. Who needs computer dating? (Do you think they beam the pick up lines into our brains, or do we have to come up with those on our own? LOLZ!)
Seriously, so people whose reproductive years are over should just do society a favor and forget about marriage? What about those couples where one or both are unable to procreate short of a petri dish or similar assistance? Should marriage be out of bounds for them?
Marriage is certainly a fundamental institution around which societies organize, but that doesn't mean we should adopt a fundamentalist perspective on the subject. Peter should be free to decline to solemnize any ceremony which violates his religious principles, just at rabbis and priests (and all manner of persons of the cloth) so often refuse to officiate. To insist that those whose marriages are deemed undeserving of the seal of approval of a given religion should likewise be denied the right to a civil ceremony should be anathema in Maryland and in America.

February 18, 2011 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rolling my eyes.

The government encourages home ownership by giving tax breaks, but that does not mean that everyone has to buy a home, or is demonized for not buying a home.

A society decides what's important to it and then encourages that behavior.

Same sex marriage is not important to society, which is why most places in the world don't have it.

February 18, 2011 7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, what you just described is exactly the opposite of freedom and the liberal principles that this country is based on.

February 18, 2011 7:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all a matter of degree. If you "encourage" too much of something, then you become a socialist/liberal/communist -- and then you lose your freedom.

But, in general, we encourage certain broad things, like marriage between a man and a woman so that our children benefit.

February 18, 2011 7:58 PM  
Anonymous there's no easy way to be free said...

Measures that would end federal funding of Planned Parenthood and block money for implementation of the national health care law passed the House Friday, as Republicans continued a fourth day of a marathon effort to trim the federal budget for the current year.

Dozens more amendments, out of a total of more than 130, are still up for consideration, and a final vote on the government funding bill might not come until the wee hours of Saturday.

The Planned Parenthood defunding amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), was the subject of three-plus hours of debate Thursday night.

The passage of the health care measure was another big victory for Republicans. The amendment offered by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) would deny new funding for the federal government to administer the new health reform law during the remaining seven months of the 2011 fiscal year.

The tactic is an alternative to outright repeal of the law -- which remains extremely unpopular.

The GOP is dead serious in its zeal to shrink the budget and trim a federal deficit of $1.5 trillion for 2011. On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner issued a strong message to the White House and Democratic lawmakers: go along with the GOP bill to cut the current 2011 budget, or risk a government shutdown in two weeks.

Boehner said he would not allow the House to consider a temporary funding resolution to keep the government operating past March 4, when the stopgap measure expires, unless spending is reduced substantially.

"I am not going to move any kind of short-term measure at current spending levels," Boehner, said at a news conference Thursday.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders want to approve another extension of the temporary funding measure while the two chambers work out their differences.

Some senators indicated they are willing to submit to the GOP on making cuts in the 2011 budget. "There will be some additional cuts, we know that," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

After the House passes its final version of the bill, the debate moves to the Senate where it is unclear whether the chambers will be able to agree on something before the temporary funding measure expires and the government runs out of money.

At its core, the House debate reflects a fundamental difference between the political parties regarding the role of government in public life. Republicans want to demonstrate their conviction that the federal government is inefficient, bloated and must be curtailed to create a more competitive economic climate. Democrats, on the other hand, have argued that government plays a vital role in regulation, and its supervisory activities are critical to ensuring a well-functioning society.

February 18, 2011 8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fine, "encourage" all you want (though I am not especially optimistic that you can "encourage" gay people to go straight). You aren't "encouraging" anything though, you are advocating prohibition of marriage between two people who love one another but don't meet the government requirements. That's totalitarianism and is counter to the American Way.

February 18, 2011 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys crack me up

after all the bad stuff you've said about FOX, now you're all over one of their stories

"Peter is also well known to us as an officer in a hate group, and he advises the MCPS on development of their sex-ed curriculum as a member of the citizens advisory committee."

I didn't know MCPS was putting leaders of hate groups on their advisory committees.

Do you think we should recall the school board?

"He gives one justification for marriage, and then continues as if that were the only justification. Marriage is for having kids and raising them."

There you go again, Jimmy.

He didn't say procreation was a justification for marriage. He was hypothesizing about why certain liberal politicians believe it is government's role to define it.

Marriage was created by God and doesn't need "justification."

"It does not appear that "responsible procreation" is a big part of their marriage. So what?"

I don't think Peter would disagree.

"A dyad is a more stable economic unit than a single person,"

When someone starts calling marriages "dyads", you need to take a grain of salt while reading his comments.

"I mean, come on, you can't take one part of marriage and say "that's what it's for,""

Well, you can look to the Creator and ask "how should it go?"

"Peter launched into one of his famous "the research shows that" speeches. Luckily, the announcer, Laura Evans, had her notes in front of her.

Peter, there have actually been three decades of research on this matter. What do you say to those studies, twenty-five years worth of studies?

Peter responds by criticizing the scholarship of the research."

Sounds like what lunatic fringe gay advocates do whenever a study doesn't go their way.

"Peter Sprigg is trained as a Baptist minister."

There's a good reason to be biased against him, right there.

"As someone who has struggled through the literature on both experimental research and survey methods, I am somewhat alarmed to think that Peter Sprigg is able to get the public's ear to criticize decades of research that has passed through a brutally skeptical peer review process, as if he knew what he was talking about."

Oh yeah, only a trained scientist can truly understand....PEER REVIEW!!

Please.

Peer review is a worthwhile process but you always invest it with way too much validity.

Peer review examines the reasoning and conclusions of a study...as described.

It's perfectly possible to write a fictitious research paper and pass peer review.

Moreover, the result can be swayed by the bias of the editor selecting the reviewers, as well as societal peer pressure.

It happens.

February 18, 2011 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is also perhaps interesting, in an odd way, that the people who published the main paper critical of the research on same-sex parenting,are neighbors and friends of mine."

That is oddly interesting.

Where can we read the paper?

"this particular report went through a lot of studies concluding that same-sex couples were perfectly competent parents, and found the weaknesses in each one"

no big surprise there

"Each of these studies was scrutinized by scholars, filtered through a rigorous editorial process, and was determined to meet the research standards of the scientific journal."

Who was the editor of the journal? Alfred E Neuman?

"Every study in every field has a weakness, but focusing on the weaknesses of each study does not seriously undermine the fact that all of them found the same thing."

If weaknesses of studies don't undermine them, what would?

"David Fishback was great on this show."

They don't call him Slick Davey for nothing.

"he is obviously delighted"

tickled pink, I'm sure

"it is common understanding now that the time has come to shed the embarrassing ignorance that has typified our society and move forward to something that is objectively reasonable and morally benevolent"

then why do electorates reject this "common understanding" again and again?

36 states have voted to reject this

sounds like the common understanding is that we like marriage the way God made it

February 18, 2011 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You aren't "encouraging" anything though, you are advocating prohibition of marriage between two people who love one another but don't meet the government requirements. That's totalitarianism and is counter to the American Way."

two people can do whatever they want in a free society such as ours
and any church that chooses to may marry them under the freedom of religion we enjoy

that doesn't mean it is the role of government to give them preferential treatment or, even, recognition and endorsement of their relationship

government gives preferential treatment to arrangements that benefit overall society

there are many examples of this and I doubt you consider them totalitarian

the totalitarian tactic is actually on the gay side

their goal is for the government to prohibit speech that expresses any thought that homosexuality is negative

February 18, 2011 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What a lying sleezball, that man has no ethics whatsoever."

Look who crawled out from under a rock!

Hey, Priya Van Winkle, a few things have changed since you fell asleep in the forest.

The Tea Party runs America now and everyone knows Barack Obama is a twerp.

We even cut taxes on the super-rich!!

February 18, 2011 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously anon you are free to run your foul mouth as much as you want. No one has proposed that you should not be allowed to spray your venom wherever you want.

You want people to have to meet government standards before they can marry, and that is unjustifiable by any enlightened political philosophy.

February 18, 2011 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You want people to have to meet government standards before they can marry"

no, I don't

I want government to back off and get out of the business of deciding who should marry

February 18, 2011 10:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good, then we're agreed. No need for the government to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.

February 18, 2011 11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they never have

marriage is defined by other institutions, not governmental ones

what government has done is to give preferential treatment to certain arrangements

marriage has been preferenced because most think it benefits society as a whole

homosexual relationships don't benefit society as a whole

and they aren't marriage

February 18, 2011 11:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just in time for Presidents Day, Ronald Reagan tops a list of the nation's greatest chief executives, ahead of Abraham Lincoln, according to a new survey out Friday.

The Gallup Poll puts Reagan in the top spot for the third time. Reagan also occupied the position in 2001 and 2005 -- and he has been in the top three eight times since Gallup started asking the "greatest president" question 12 years ago.

John F. Kennedy, who was on top in 2000 and tied with Lincoln in 2003, came in after Lincoln this year.

The country's first president, George Washington, follows after Kennedy on the list.

February 19, 2011 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After a lengthy and emotional debate about abortion Thursday night, the House of Representatives today passed the Pence amendment to the spending bill.

The Pence amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., bans Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds. The House of Representatives approved the amendment 240-185.

So what does this mean?

The Pence amendment would prevent Planned Parenthood and 102 affiliated organizations from receiving any federal funds -- including money for STD testing, pregnancy testing and cancer screenings, a Planned Parenthood press release says. Planned Parenthood also charges that the Pence amendment would "cut off 48 percent of Planned Parenthood patients -- approximately 1.4 million people -- from their source of health care."

According to Pence, Planned Parenthood receives $363 million per year from the U.S. government.

Pence and other House Republicans have said that the Pence amendment and other proposed legislation targeting federal funding for abortion would help alleviate the federal deficit, though that claim has angered those who support the murder of unborn children.

February 19, 2011 12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2012 looks worse for Democraps every day:

New Mexico Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman will announce his retirement today, Democratic sources confirmed.

Bingaman, who is serving his fifth term, is among the most senior Democrats in the Senate. He also serves as chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

February 19, 2011 7:54 AM  
Anonymous try looking for jobs on Craigslist, Barry said...

PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. registered voters are evenly split about whether they would back President Barack Obama for re-election in 2012 (45%) or "the Republican Party's candidate" (45%).

Younger voters are an element of Obama's original coalition that do not seem to be intact heading into 2012. Gallup's 2008 pre-election poll found 63% of registered voters aged 18 to 34 choosing Obama, while 33% backed his Republican rival, John McCain. By contrast, today a bare majority of the 18- to 34-year-old group, 51%, and 43% of those 35 to 54 say they would vote to re-elect Obama.




Bottom Line

It's a political maxim that in elections with a sitting president running for re-election, voters are not so much choosing between two candidates as voting for or against the incumbent. That is not to say it won't matter whom the Republicans choose as their standard-bearer, but perhaps it matters slightly less than it would in an open election.

At this stage, as numerous Republican contenders begin the long process of wooing Republican delegates and voters, or consider jumping into the race, Gallup's generic re-elect measure indicates that their efforts would not be in vain, as fewer than half of registered voters are prepared to vote for Obama in 2012. Both George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush were better positioned for re-election at this point in their presidencies. However, given that one ultimately won and the other lost his re-election bid, it is clear that much can still change.

February 19, 2011 8:04 AM  
Anonymous would you like food stamps or a paycheck? said...

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, said tonight that President Barack Obama is vulnerable politically because of his job performance and his core values.

The Georgia Republican said Obama has to bear some responsibility for a national unemployment rate of 9 percent and can no longer blame the poor economy on former President George W. Bush. He also said the Hawaii-born president has accepted a European model of governing.

"This is a country which believes deeply in our creator, it believes deeply in the work ethic, it believes deeply in personal freedom," Gingrich told reporters before speaking at the Hawaii Republican Party's Lincoln Day dinner at the Hilton Hawaiian Village in Waikiki. "And to the degree that he has accepted a kind of European model, where power comes from government, where the bureaucrats are decisive, where the rest of us ought to let Washington tell us what to do, I think he has a values challenge as well as a performance challenge."

Gingrich said he would decide by the end of the month or in early March whether to enter the Republican presidential primary. He is vacationing on the Big Island with his wife, Callista.

February 19, 2011 9:10 AM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

I've been accused of being boring, but never slick. Who are the "they" who call me "Slick Davey"? Hey, I haven't been called Davey since 1955, during the Davey Crockett craze.

I should note the following regarding Laura Evans' introductory statement that
"Peter Sprigg is trained as a Baptist minister." You see that as bias on the part of Ms. Evans. Let me give you some background. The station asked me for a short blurb for the introduction, and I assume it did the same for Peter. So I suspect he provided the information. Also, since the lead-in mentioned issues of faith and policy, she was giving Peter the "credibility" to talk about the theological issues -- which many in the General Assembly have mentioned as reasons to vote against the bill. Peter chose not to go that route.

February 19, 2011 9:34 AM  
Anonymous we need rational leaders said...

some of these Democrats in Congress are scary:

"Senior staffers of U.S. Rep. David Wu were so alarmed over the Oregon Democrat's erratic behavior just days before the November election that they demanded he enter a hospital for psychiatric treatment.

Wu was increasingly unpredictable on the campaign trial and in private last fall, and had several angry and loud outbursts and sometimes said "kooky" things to staff and potential voters and donors.

The fact that Wu was in the middle of a difficult re-election campaign from his Portland-area district made his behavior particularly worrisome to staff who organized a meeting with the congressman at his campaign headquarters on Oct. 30, with a psychiatrist.

"This is way beyond acceptable levels and the charade needs to end NOW," wrote Lisa Grove, a senior and long-serving campaign pollster, in an e-mail to colleagues the day of the meeting. "No enabling by any potential enablers, he needs help."

Wu was defiant and left the meeting."

February 19, 2011 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I've been accused of being boring, but never slick."

I was just throwing out facetious remarks in response to Jim's over-the-top hyperbole.

As I think I've said before, I think you're a great spokesman for your side.

btw, I think scientists are planning to do a Jurassic Park type of thing with a frozen Wooly Mammoth they found

if it works, I think we should bring Davey Crockett back so he can go off to Congress and serve a spell, fixin' up the Government and laws as well and he patch up the crack in the Liberty Bell

February 19, 2011 9:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"after all the bad stuff you've said about FOX, now you're all over one of their stories"

There's no surprise here. Anon can't differentiate a lot of thing, apparently even between FOX News Channel and FOX Broadcasting Company.

"Who was the editor of the journal? Alfred E Neuman?"

Is this what passes for intellectual discussions at those conservative blogs you frequent? Go back to them and stay there.

"I didn't know MCPS was putting leaders of hate groups on their advisory committee"

Peter Sprigg is the court appointed PFOX rep who was given a seat on the MCPS CACFLHD in 2005. His organization, the Family Research Council, was not designated as a hate group until the winter of 2010. Peter believes gay Americans should be expelled from the country and that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court. He'd like to see government intrusion into every bedroom in the country by making sodomy illegal.

February 19, 2011 10:32 AM  
Anonymous TEA PARTY!! said...

Jolted to action by deficit-conscious newcomers, the Republican-controlled House agreed early Saturday to cut $61 billion from hundreds of federal programs and shelter coal companies, oil refiners and farmers from new government regulations.

Passage of the legislation was the most striking victory to date for the 87 freshman Republicans elected last fall on a promise to attack the deficit and reduce the reach of government.

"The American people have spoken. They demand that Washington stop its out-of-control spending now, not some time in the future," said freshman Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.

The $1.2 trillion bill covers every Cabinet agency through Sept. 30, when the current budget year ends. It imposes severe spending cuts on domestic programs and foreign aid. Targets include schools, nutrition programs, environmental protection, and heating and housing subsidies for the poor.

Senate Democrats are promising much higher spending levels and are poised to defend all of Obama's policies and regulations.

Changes passed in the House on Friday and Saturday would shield greenhouse-gas polluters and privately owned colleges from federal regulators; block a plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay; and bar the government from shutting down mountaintop mines it believes will cause too much water pollution.

In almost every case, the measure sides with business groups over environmental activists and federal regulators.

"This is like a Cliff Notes summary of every issue that the Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and the (free market) CATO Institute have pushed for 30 years," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. "And they're just going to run them through here."

The Obama administration claimed on Friday that workers who distribute Social Security benefits might face furloughs because of the GOP cuts.

Across four long days of freewheeling debate, Republicans left their conservative stamp in other ways.

They took several swipes at Obama's year-old health care law, including a vote to ban federal dollars for putting it into effect. At the behest of anti-abortion lawmakers, they called for an end to federal money for Planned Parenthood.

Republicans awarded the Pentagon an increase of less than 2 percent increase, but domestic agencies would endure cuts of about 12 percent. Such reductions would feel almost twice as deep since they would be spread over the final seven months of the budget year.

About the only victory scored by Obama was on a vote to cancel $450 million for a costly alternative engine for the Pentagon's next-generation F-35 warplane. It was a priority of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and passed with the votes of many GOP conservatives who opposed the $3 billion program.

The Environmental Protection Agency took hits from Republicans eager to defend business and industry from agency rules they say threaten job creation and the economy. The EPA's budget was slashed by almost one-third, and then its regulatory powers were handcuffed in a series of votes.

The measure would block proposed federal regulations on emission of greenhouse gases, which are blamed for climate change. It also would stop a proposed regulation on mercury emissions from cement. Additionally, the bill calls for a halt to proposed regulations affecting Internet service providers and privately-owned colleges.

The 359-page bill was shaped beginning to end by the first-term Republicans, many of them elected with tea party backing.

February 19, 2011 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give it a few weeks and the protests in Wisconsin will be a fond memory of easier times for incumbent GOP and TP office holders.

Seniors who don't want their Medicare and Social Security touched are not going to be happy waiting for GOP furloughed SSA employees to get their checks out to them while the wealthy enjoy their GOP tax breaks.

February 19, 2011 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seniors who don't want their Medicare and Social Security touched are not going to be happy waiting for GOP furloughed SSA employees to get their checks out to them while the wealthy enjoy their GOP tax breaks."

a crass Machiavellian move on Obama's part that will backfire on him and will be easily expose

obviously, the government has the money to process the checks and everyone knows it

February 19, 2011 10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not with 12% cuts in 7 months of a fiscal year! There is not enough money to get the work done that the government does for her citizens, especially our seniors who rely on SSA checks to pay their bills.

Do you think maybe some of the wealthy with their tax cuts would volunteer at the SSA to help get the checks out to seniors who need them to pay for medications not covered in the GOP created donut hole?

Seniors are coming to see that GOP balances the budget on the backs of seniors while keeping tax cuts for the wealthy.

February 19, 2011 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me that if the government is so concerned about the "sanctity of marriage" then it should also be concerned about the alarming and family-destroying rate of divorce in our country. Talk about wanting to raise children in a "loving and committed man/woman" relationship! Ha ha

Sanctimonious blatherings such as "Marriage was created by God and doesn't need "justification."
and "sounds like the common understanding is that we like marriage the way God made it" do not justify the hypocracy of those who would deny a marriage union to two people of the same gender who want to create a family.

Perhaps we should advocate an amendment to the Constitution that would ban divorce and also condone the arrest and conviction of any single-parent trying to raise a family that doesn't conform to the strict religious definitions assigned to marriage by those who purport to be religious.

February 19, 2011 2:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home