Take a look and let us know what you think. There are several LDS-related articles up, and others that Mormons will find worth perusing.
Author Archives: Geoff B.
The failed war on poverty
Here are some facts on the U.S. war on poverty. Most of these facts are taken from this paper here.
–The U.S. currently spends more than $1 trillion per year on anti-poverty programs. This is more than we spend on Defense.
–The U.S. has spent more than $15 trillion since the “war on poverty” was declared in the 1960s, yet the poverty rate is only slightly lower than it was then.
–There are 126 federal programs dedicated to the “war on poverty.”
–Spending on anti-poverty programs has skyrocketed during the Obama administration, yet the poverty rate is increasing.
The national media is catching on to Democratic anti-Mormonism
This story in the Daily Beast is eerily similar to one posted on M* just a few months ago.
The title: “Democrats have bigger anti-Mormon problem in election than GOP has.”
The key graph:
Despite the media’s obsession with the alleged anti-Mormonism of evangelical Christians, the party with the larger anti-Mormon problem is the Democrats. According to Gallup, while only 18 percent of Republicans said they would oppose a Mormon candidate, among Democrats the figure was 27 percent. As if on cue, Montana’s Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, last week volunteered that women would not back Romney because his father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico.”
To key points from your not-so-humble correspondent: 1)I and others at M* have roundly condemned, in the strongest language possible, Republican anti-Mormonism. 2)I actually think the Obama campaign has been relatively restrained in playing the anti-Mormonism card so far. I expected far worse and have been pleasantly surprised. I hope that continues. 3)There are valid reasons to oppose Romney related to his religion (many people I know just don’t trust and like people with his conservative lifestyle, and the criticize his lack of passion). I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is disliking him because of his religion, and using it as a wedge issue, which is what the Lawrence O’Donnells and the Bill Mahers of the world do.
Power to the 99 percent!
In general I reject the 99 percent-1 percent divide, but it is useful to illustrate an important economic principle. That principle is: how do we truly give the most power to the 99 percent?
Taking money from the rich by force is a temporary measure that can easily create a new class of 1 percent and give no real power to the masses. This is easy to show: In 1915, the Russian czar and various Russian cronies had the majority of the wealth and nearly all of the power, and the 99 percent had nearly none. By 1935, Stalin and various cronies had the majority of the wealth and nearly all of the power, and the 99 percent still had none. So, changing bosses does not solve anything.
The real solution is to come up with a way to give the 99 percent the power. And it is the market that redistributes power best of all. In a truly free market, consumers have the majority of the power and the 1 percent live in constant fear of losing what they have. A truly free market — without government interference — empowers the majority.
A psychologist discusses the ideology behind the war on moms
I present some very provocative statements from a psychologist regarding the ideology behind Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney.
You can read the entire piece here.
Some key excerpts:
What Hilary Rosen has exposed is a psychological fault line that separates those women who simply oppose unfair gender-based barriers in education or employment or elsewhere from other women who actually despise and disrespect those females who choose to be full-time wives and mothers, instead of entering the workforce.
These “anti-gender” women have it in for anyone who embraces her femininity, maternal instincts and capacity to nurture as their highest priority — postponing or passing up other laudable opportunities to work at, say, a law firm or as a marketing executive. They despise the notion that some women may indeed be drawn — instinctively and happily — toward creating special and loving environments in which to raise their children, while spending all their available time sustaining and enriching those environments and those children.
They despise the parts of themselves that may be drawn to such roles, as well. That’s why women like Hilary Rosen make such outlandish statements, to begin with. They’re essentially talking to themselves — albeit, with the rest of the world forced to listen — trying to reassure themselves that their own choices in life weren’t only equally as good as those of other women, but better. Far, far better. They feel like their choices are better because they have thrown off the shackles of roles that were once “expected” of them, leaving them not only freer than, but superior to, those women who don’t feel enslaved at home, but feel fulfilled at home.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/12/nasty-comments-toward-ann-romney-cast-light-on-haters-who-cant-handle-feminine/#ixzz1s2ZEODeo