Author Topic: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad  (Read 7246 times)

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2012, 10:12:54 AM »
Newt Gingrich expands on his support for child labor
The Republican presidential front-runner says 'really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works' to earn money — 'unless it's illegal.'

By Paul West, Washington Bureau
December 1, 2011

Reporting from Johnston, Iowa

Doubling down on a plan that stirred controversy about his views on child labor, leading Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich said Thursday that poor kids have no habit of earning money "unless it's illegal" and should be put to work in their schools.

At a party fundraising dinner in the Des Moines suburbs, the former House speaker launched into a defense of his proposal to teach the nation's poorest children the connection between "showing up" and earning money — by putting them to work in their schools in the country's poorest neighborhoods.

"I believe the kids could mop the floor and clean up the bathroom and get paid for it, and it would be OK," he said to applause.

Gingrich said, mockingly, that those on the left would oppose his idea because it might prompt the children to earn more money and eventually escape poverty, "and then who would rich liberals worry about?"

Earlier in the day, Gingrich offered more explosive rhetoric on the subject. During a meeting with Nationwide Insurance employees in Des Moines, he was asked to clarify his views on child labor laws, which he recently described as "truly stupid."

"Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works," Gingrich replied. "So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal."

He said he favored putting children to work in paid jobs at the schools they attend "as early as is reasonable and practical."


Gingrich initially drew criticism for the idea after an appearance at Harvard last month, when he promised "extraordinarily radical proposals" to change America's "culture of poverty," such as allowing children as young as 9 to replace adult janitors at schools.

As he campaigned in Iowa on Thursday, Gingrich also outlined what he described as a rethinking of his candidacy, "sobered," he said, by the realization that he was emerging as a favorite to win his party's nomination.

"The longer I have thought about the very real possibility that I might have to serve, the more I realize that we have to clean up the Congress" as well as the executive branch, Gingrich said at the party dinner.

He said he had come to the realization that he would need to run "an American campaign," not merely a Republican one. And in an apparent reference to the need to diversify the GOP beyond its overwhelmingly white base, he said his campaign would be "open to people of every background."

"You and I know that is going to make some of our friends very uncomfortable," Gingrich said. But "if we truly want to rebuild America, we have to be prepared to make some of our friends very uncomfortable." The remark drew only a smattering of applause from the Polk County Republican crowd of 450, described by one dinner speaker as a mix of social moderates and conservatives.

The former speaker delivered a tongue-in-cheek warning to those who, he said, might be thinking about volunteering for his campaign, stating: "I have a passionate dedication to the work ethic."

Speaking to reporters after his dinner speech, Gingrich said he found his swift rise in the polls "disorienting," adding: "This is such a rapid change that we are having to rethink our own internal operations right now and where we are."

He said that as recently as two weeks ago, he would have not given such a sweeping speech about the future.

"Given where we are, I think this is the right stage setting to start saying to people, 'This is what a Gingrich presidency would look like. This is how really different it would be,'" he said.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2012, 10:13:30 AM »
December 3, 2011
Out of Africa and Into Iowa
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

NEWT GINGRICH’S mind is in love with itself.

It has persuaded itself that it is brilliant when it is merely promiscuous. This is not a serious mind. Gingrich is not, to put it mildly, a systematic thinker.

His mind is a jumble, an amateurish mess lacking impulse control. He plays air guitar with ideas, producing air ideas. He ejaculates concepts, notions and theories that are as inconsistent as his behavior.

He didn’t get whiplash being a serial adulterer while impeaching another serial adulterer, a lobbyist for Freddie Mac while attacking Freddie Mac, a self-professed fiscal conservative with a whopping Tiffany’s credit line, and an anti-Communist Army brat who supported the Vietnam War but dodged it.

“Part of the question I had to ask myself,” he said in a 1985 Wall Street Journal piece about war wimps, “was what difference I would have made.”

Newt swims easily in a sea of duality and byzantine ideas that don’t add up. As The Washington Post reported on Friday, an America under President Gingrich would have two Social Security systems — “one old, one new, running side by side” — two tax systems and two versions of Medicare.

Consider his confusion of views on colonialism. In the 1971 Ph.D. dissertation he wrote at Tulane University, titled “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960,” he is anti-anticolonialism.

“If the Congolese are to confront the future with realism they will need a solid understanding of their own past and an awareness of the good as well as the bad aspects of colonialism,” he argued. “It would be just as misleading to speak in generalities of ‘white exploitation’ as it once was to talk about ‘native backwardness.’ ”

He warned against political pressures encouraging “Black xenophobia.” What’s xenophobic about Africans wanting their oppressors to go away? It’s like saying abused wives who want their husbands to leave are anti-men.

He sees colonialism as a complicated thing with good and bad effects rather than a terrible thing with collateral benefits.

Laura Seay, an assistant professor at Morehouse College in Atlanta and an expert on Africa, blogged that Gingrich’s thesis was “kind of a glorified white man’s burden take on colonial policy that was almost certainly out of vogue in the early 1970s. Gingrich wrote this as the Black Consciousness and Black Power movements were approaching their pinnacles. It was most decidedly not the time to be arguing that white European masters did a swell job ruling black Africans through a system that ensured that most Congolese would never get a real education.”

When it comes to America’s British overlords, Gingrich is not so sympathetic. The bludgeon of American exceptionalism that he uses on President Obama was forged at Valley Forge.

In the introduction to his novel about George Washington and the Revolutionary War, “To Try Men’s Souls,” written with William R. Forstchen, Gingrich writes: “The British elites believed this was a conflict about money and about minor irritations. They simply could not believe the colonists were serious about their rights as free men and women.”

Gingrich, a radical precursor to the modern Tea Party when he staged what conservatives considered the second American Revolution in the House in the ’90s, wrote with delight of London’s shock when Samuel Adams started the original Tea Party.

But while an anticolonial disposition is good if you’re Adams, Washington and Jefferson, it’s bad if you’re Barack Obama’s Kenyan father living under British rule two centuries later.

Gingrich made one of his classic outrageous overreaches last year when he praised a Dinesh D’Souza article in Forbes, saying you could only understand how “fundamentally out of touch” and “outside our comprehension” President Obama is “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.”

D’Souza’s absurd ad hominem theory tying Obama to his father goes like this: “This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

This was a typical Newt mental six-car pileup. The man who espouses Christian values being un-Christian in visiting the alleged sins of the father upon the son; the man who reveres the anticolonialism of the founding fathers ranting against the anticolonialism of the father of America’s first African-American president. How do you rail against the Evil Empire and urge overthrowing Saddam and not celebrate liberation in Africa?

Newt is like the Great White Hunter out on campaign safari, trying to bag a Mitt, an animal with ever-changing stripes. Certainly, the 68-year-old’s haughty suggestions on child labor last week in Iowa smacked of harsh paternalism and exploitation.

He expanded on Dickensian remarks he’d made recently at Harvard, where he said “it is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid,” adding that 9-year-olds could work as school janitors.

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works,” he asserted in an ignorant barrage of stereotypes in Des Moines. “So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.”

Has he not heard of the working poor? The problem isn’t that these kids aren’t working; it’s that they don’t have time with their parents, who often toil day and night, at more than one job, and earn next to nothing.

Newt’s the kind of person whom child labor laws were created to curb. He sounds like a benign despot with a colonial subtext: Until I bring you the benefits of civilization, we will regard you as savages.

He’s Belgium. The poor are Congo.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2012, 10:14:19 AM »
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Romney (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/22   --   45.9   44.4   Obama +1.5
Rasmussen Reports   11/21 - 11/22   1000 LV   44   38   Obama +6
Quinnipiac   11/14 - 11/20   2552 RV   45   44   Obama +1
FOX News   11/13 - 11/15   914 RV   42   44   Romney +2
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   47   51   Romney +4
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   49   47   Obama +2
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   46   43   Obama +3
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   48   44   Obama +4

General Election: Gingrich vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Gingrich (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/20   --   49.1   42.3   Obama +6.8
Rasmussen Reports   11/19 - 11/20   1000 LV   46   40   Obama +6
Quinnipiac   11/14 - 11/20   2552 RV   49   40   Obama +9
FOX News   11/13 - 11/15   914 RV   46   41   Obama +5
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   53   45   Obama +8
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   54   42   Obama +12
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   49   43   Obama +6
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   47   45   Obama +2

General Election: Cain vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Cain (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/27   --   49.6   39.4   Obama +10.2
Rasmussen Reports   11/27 - 11/27   1000 LV   46   36   Obama +10
Quinnipiac   11/14 - 11/20   2552 RV   50   37   Obama +13
FOX News   11/13 - 11/15   914 RV   47   38   Obama +9
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   53   43   Obama +10
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   54   42   Obama +12
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   48   41   Obama +7
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   49   39   Obama +10

General Election: Perry vs. Obama

Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Perry (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/5 - 11/14   --   49.8   40.2   Obama +9.6
CNN/Opinion Research   11/11 - 11/13   925 RV   52   45   Obama +7
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   49   39   Obama +10
Pew Research   11/9 - 11/14   1576 RV   53   42   Obama +11
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   51   40   Obama +11
Rasmussen Reports   11/5 - 11/6   1000 LV   44   35   Obama +9

General Election: Paul vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Paul (R)   Spread
RCP Average   10/28 - 11/13   --   46.7   39.0   Obama +7.7
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   47   41   Obama +6
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   49   41   Obama +8
Rasmussen Reports   10/28 - 10/29   1000 LV   44   35   Obama +9

General Election: Bachmann vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Bachmann (R)   Spread
RCP Average   11/8 - 11/16   --   49.7   35.7   Obama +14.0
Rasmussen Reports   11/15 - 11/16   1000 LV   45   33   Obama +12
PPP (D)   11/10 - 11/13   800 RV   50   39   Obama +11
McClatchy/Marist   11/8 - 11/10   872 RV   54   35   Obama +19

General Election: Huntsman vs. Obama

Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Huntsman (R)   Spread
RCP Average   8/29 - 10/21   --   45.7   37.0   Obama +8.7
Rasmussen Reports   10/20 - 10/21   1000 LV   39   32   Obama +7
Reuters/Ipsos   9/8 - 9/12   932 RV   51   37   Obama +14
ABC News/Wash Post   8/29 - 9/1   RV   47   42   Obama +5

General Election: Santorum vs. Obama
Poll   Date   Sample   Obama (D)   Santorum (R)   Spread
Rasmussen Reports   10/2 - 10/3   1000 LV   45   34   Obama +11
Rasmussen Reports   7/10 - 7/11   1000 LV   45   31   Obama +14

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2012, 10:15:03 AM »
Newt Gingrich wants to fire union janitors and hire kids to clean schools instead. Seriously. He wants to assign 9-year-old kids to do hard manual labor cleaning up after their more fortunate classmates. It's vicious, backwards and wrong.

Really, Newt? Let him know what you think of his 'idea.':
http://www.afscme.org/reallynewt

The US outlawed child labor because it denied children the chance at a real education and allowed employers to exploit children — and because children were often injured or killed on the job. That's why labor unions fought to pass laws outlawing child labor and protecting all workers.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2012, 10:15:42 AM »
Newt in His Own Words: 33 Years of Bomb-Throwing
Gingrich is announcing he's running for president. Too bad he can't run from comments like these.

By Tim Murphy and David Corn | Wed Apr. 6, 2011
Your guide to Gingrich's greatest rhetorical hits.

Editor's Note (5/10/11): Well, it kind of seems official. On Monday, a spokesman for Newt Gingrich announced that on Wednesday Gingrich would announce on Twitter and Facebook that he is running for president. (How suspenseful!) And in the days since commentators have been dissecting the former House speaker's past: his messy personal life (two divorces, three marriages), his erratic policy pronouncements, his combative politicking. But given that Gingrich has thirty-plus years of extreme conduct, many of his past excesses end up being truncated and compacted into characterizations. ("Known for his often controversial remarks...") The full Newt is often given short shrift. But a month ago, Tim Murphy and David Corn set out to chronicle Gingrich's 33 years of rhetorical extremism. They ended up with a long list. A very long list.

Newt Gingrich, a preseason 2012 Republican contender, likes to present himself as an ideas man. He is a former college professor and the architect of the ideology-driven 1994 Republican Revolution. But for all his references to Camus and Clausewitz, there's another side to the former House speaker—a verbal bomb-thrower who's never met a political crisis he couldn't analogize to the annexation of the Sudetenland.

Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. He learned quickly that a back-bencher in the minority party could distinguish himself and gain attention in Washington by employing extreme rhetoric. Ever in attack-mode, Gingrich swiftly moved up the ranks within the House GOP caucus. Democrats accused him of practicing "skinhead politics," and a 1989 Washington Post profile declared him "notorious [3]" and "defiant." But his political thuggery worked, and he led the GOPers in their historic retaking of the House and became speaker. He did not last long in the post. After a rocky stint—marked by a government shutdown, his party's sex-and-lies impeachment crusade against President Bill Clinton, and several ethics controversies involving Gingrich—the GOP lost seats in the 1998 election, and Gingrich resigned as speaker and left the House. (During this time, he was having an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who would eventually become his third [4], and present, wife.)

In his post-House years, Gingrich, at times, toned down the rhetoric. He worked with Hillary Clinton on health care IT issues [5]. He sat on a couch [6] with Nancy Pelosi to highlight their joint support for climate change action. After the 2008 election, he called for policymaking that would unite [7] Democrats, Republicans, and independents. He blasted [8] a candidate for GOP chairman who circulated a parody song called "Barack the Magic Negro." Still, he wasn't able to escape the siren call of overheated oratory. He repeatedly bashed the "secular left [9]" for attempting to destroy the country, and as he has moved closer to declaring a presidential bid, he increasingly has returned to the hooligan ways of his past.

So here's a rather incomplete guide to Gingrich's greatest (or worst) hits of the past 33 years. As he might say, it's the most accurate, predictive model for his future behavior.


1978 In an address to College Republicans before he was elected to the House, Gingrich says [10]: "I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words." He added, "Richard Nixon…Gerald Ford…They have done a terrible job, a pathetic job. In my lifetime, in my lifetime—I was born in 1943—we have not had a competent national Republican leader. Not ever."

1980 On the House floor, Gingrich states, "The reality is that this country is in greater danger than at any time since 1939."

1980 Gingrich says [11]: "We need a military four times the size of our present defense system." (See 1984.)

1983 A major milestone: Gingrich cites former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on the House floor: "If in fact we are to follow the Chamberlain liberal Democratic line of withdrawal from the planet," he explains [12], "we would truly have tyranny everywhere, and we in America could experience the joys of Soviet-style brutality and murdering of women and children."

1983 He compares Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill to Chamberlain: "He may not know any better. He may not understand freedom versus slavery...in the tradition of [former British Prime Ministers] Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, whose only weakness was they left their nation with war with Nazi Germany."

1984 "I am not a super hawk."

1984 Gingrich takes advantage of the arrival of C-Span to deliver scathing condemnations of his colleagues. He accuses Democrats of appeasement and distributing "communist propaganda [13]," and threatens to press charges against them for writing a letter to Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega. House Speaker Tip O'Neill calls it "the lowest thing that I've ever seen in my 32 years in Congress."

1984 Gingrich touts a study being compiled by conservative House Republicans, noting it "will argue that it is time to stop challenging or seeming to challenge the patriotism of Democrats and liberals. Enough historical evidence exists."

1984 "It used to be called socialism. It is now just sort of liberal Democratic platform pledges."

1985 Gingrich calls [14] Reagan's upcoming meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev ''the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich.''

1985 Gingrich compares a disputed House election [15] in Indiana to the Holocaust. "We have talked a lot in recent weeks about the Holocaust, about the incredible period in which Nazi Germany killed millions of people and, in particular, came close to wiping out European Jewry. Someone said to me two days ago, talking frankly about the McIntyre affair [in which Democrats refused to seat the winner of a House race until they'd conducted a recount] and the efforts by the Democratic leadership not to allow the people of Indiana to have their representative but, instead, to impose upon them somebody else, something in which he quotes [German poet Martin] Niemoller, and I have never quite until tonight been able to link it together—Niemoller, the great German theologian, said at one point [16]: 'When the Nazis came for the Jews, I did nothing…and when the Nazis came for me, there was no one left.'"

1985 Upset with Democrats' foreign policy stance, Gingrich observes, "Adolph Hitler must somewhere be burning in hell, wishing he had lived two generations later, so he could manipulate Americans instead of Englishmen."

1985 He's got the world in the palm of his hand: "I have an enormous personal ambition [17]. I want to shift the entire planet…I just had breakfast with [administration officials Richard] Darman and [David] Stockman [18] because I'm unavoidable. I represent real power."

1987 Gingrich takes to the House floor to decry…pretty much everything about the Democratic-run House: "After the first five months of this Congress, I must report to my fellow citizens that this 100th Congress may be the most irresponsible, destructive, corrupt, and unrepresentative Congress of the modern era... In future weeks, I will make a series of speeches outlining the threats of corruption, of communism, and of the left-wing machine which runs the House."

1988 Gingrich discusses his midlife crisis: "I spent a fair length of time trying to come to grips with who I was and the habits I had, and what they did to people that I truly loved [19]. I really spent a period of time where, I suspect, I cried three or four times a week. I read Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and I found frightening pieces that related to...my own life."

1989 He explains to the Washington Post why he fights with his second wife, Marianne: "It's not even that it matters to me. It's just the habit of dominance [20], the habit of being the center of my staff and the center of the news media." Newt gives the marriage a "53–47" shot of surviving.

1989 After taking down Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) by filing a string of ethics charges, Gingrich basks in his role as giant-killer. "If you're not in the Washington Post every day," he says [21], "you might as well not exist."

1989 Gingrich lays out [22] his electoral roadmap: "The left-wing Democrats will represent the party of total hedonism, total exhibitionism, total bizarreness, total weirdness, and the total right to cripple innocent people in the name of letting hooligans loose."

1989 "These people are sick," he says [23] of congressional Democrats. "They are so consumed by their own power, by a Mussolini-like ego, that their willingness to run over normal human beings and to destroy honest institutions is unending." He also warns that unless the Democrats are stopped, "we may literally see our freedom decay and decline."

1990 Gingrich's political action committee, GOPAC, sends out a memo titled [24] "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to several thousand Republican candidates running for state and local offices. It includes a list of words they should use to describe Democrats:

    decay, failure (fail) collapse(ing) deeper, crisis, urgent(cy), destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they/them, unionized bureaucracy, "compassion" is not enough, betray, consequences, limit(s), shallow, traitors, sensationalists, endanger, coercion, hypocricy, radical, threaten, devour, waste, corruption, incompetent, permissive attitude, destructive, impose, self-serving, greed, ideological, insecure, anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs; pessimistic, excuses, intolerant, stagnation, welfare, corrupt, selfish, insensitive, status quo, mandate(s) taxes, spend (ing) shame, disgrace, punish (poor...) bizarre, cynicism, cheat, steal, abuse of power, machine, bosses, obsolete, criminal rights, red tape, patronage.

1990 Speaking privately to a group of supporters, Gingrich says he's changing his public role from "explainer of political tactics to explainer of cultural change."

1992 While campaigning for President George H. W. Bush in Georgia, Gingrich uses Woody Allen [25] as a symbol for what Democrats want to do to America: "Woody Allen had non-incest with his non-daughter because they were a non-family." He adds, "It fits the Democratic Party platform perfectly." Bush distances himself from the remarks.

1994 A South Carolina woman, Susan Smith, murders her two sons. Gingrich draws the only logical conclusion [26]: "I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

1994 He sums up [27] his political philosophy: "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz. I see evil all around me every day."

1995 Following the House GOP's triumphant 1994 election victory, Gingrich sends all the Republican freshman House members copies of the GOPAC memo suggesting they refer to their opponents as "traitors [24]."

1995 Gingrich releases a novel he co-authored, 1945, in which the Waffen-SS invades eastern Tennessee. But most critics fixate on the opening scene [28], in which a high-ranking Washington politico, unsatisfied with his marriage, engages in an affair that ultimately brings about his own political demise:

    Playfully, to drive home the potential loss, she bit his shoulder, then kissed it better.

    "Aw, hell, I don't want to...I wish I could just divorce Mrs. Little Goodie Two-Shoes!"

    "I like this arrangement," she laughed softly. "Mistress to the chief of staff of the President of the United States. Nice title, don't you think? Such a book I could write." ...Suddenly the pouting sex kitten gave way to Diana the Huntress. She rolled onto him and somehow was sitting athwart his chest, her knees pinning his shoulders. "Tell me, or I will make you do terrible things," she hissed.

Gingrich calls the book "PG-13 [29]."

1995 Marianne tells Vanity Fair she will "undermine everything [30]" if Gingrich runs for president in 1996. Gignrich tells reporters [31] his wife was "just making the point hypothetically."

1995 Gingrich examines the United States' handling of the conflict in Bosnia and falls back on a familiar refrain [32]: "The UN acts totally impotently and undermines the morale of every law-abiding democracy on the planet. This is the worst performance by the democracies since the 1930s."

1996 Gingrich applies the same analogy to President Clinton's policies in the Middle East, in a speech [33] to the Center for Security Policy: "The democracies are in a greater danger than they have been at any time since [British Prime Minister] Stanley Baldwin lied to the English people about the Luftwaffe and Hitler's Germany."

1998 Gingrich steps down as Speaker, amid ethics complaints and rumors of an extramarital affair. He frames his decision in pragmatic terms [34]: "I'm willing to lead, but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."

1998 Gingrich divorces Marianne. A later Esquire profile [35] offers a glimpse of the last days, from Marianne's point of view:

    Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. "'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.'"

2004 Gingrich tells Fox News [36] that liberal financier George Soros' opposition to George W. Bush might be due to his ties to drug cartels: "[He] wants to spend $75 million defeating [President] George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin."

2005 Gingrich's latest greatest threat to America is the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's almost as though they were into destruction for its own sake and weakening and undermining America for its own sake." He also labels the group [37] "a consistently destructive organization that is opposed to and undermines the values of most Americans, and takes positions that are consistently weakening the security of the United States."

2006 Asked whether he agrees with then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments that opposition to the Bush administration's Iraq policy is tantamount to appeasing Hitler, Gingrich responds, "Yes [38]."

2006 Gingrich casts the Bush administration's War on Terror in the kind of sweeping terms [39] he normally reserves for, well, everything else: "We're in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War."

2007 Gingrich makes the case for war in Iran and Syria by using his favorite analogy [40]: "It makes no sense to have a Holocaust Museum in Washington and yet have no honest assessment of the threat of a 21st century Holocaust."

2007 "We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto [41]." Two years later, Gingrich unveils a new Spanish-language website, The Americano [42].

2008 Following the presidential election, Gingrich calls for a new era of "tri-partisan [7]" cooperation in Washington.

2008 Gingrich tells Bill O'Reilly that "there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us." The gay and secular fascist movement, Gingrich charges [43], is "prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it."

2009 On Democratic opposition to the continuing war in Afghanistan, Gingrich breaks out a familiar line [44]: "The last few weeks have been worse than Chamberlain. This is Baldwin in 1935, just willfully blind because he didn't want to tell the British people the truth because it would offend them."

2009 Gingrich compares [45] the Obama administration to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. "I just have this interesting idea of asking [then White House communications director] Anita Dunn if this is her idea of a cultural revolution and if she really wishes that she could get Sean Hannity and the other Fox commentators to go to a farm and work the way Mao sent the intellectuals out."

2010 Gingrich warns [46] that Obama's agenda "would mean the end of America as it has been for the last 400 years."

2010 Gingrich argues [47] that Muslims don't have a right to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan: "They're trying to make a case about supremacy…Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington."

2010 Sign of the times: Gingrich swaps gay secular fascism for "secular-socialist machine [48]"—which he says "represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

2010 A year after writing a book about noted anti-colonialist George Washington, Gingrich suggests that the current president holds a radical, anti-British worldview of his own. "What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks [49]. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

2010 Gingrich sounds the alarm [50] about a new threat facing America: "We should have a federal law that says Sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States."

2011 Gingrich tells [51] the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody that he was driven to his cheat on his previous two wives because of his one true love: America. "There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."

2011 Secular-socialists give way to atheist-Islamists [52]: "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [his grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." His spokesman later clarified that Gingrich meant either Islamists or atheists would take over America, not both.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2012, 10:16:26 AM »
Will child labor laws be repealed if Republican Newt Gingrich defeats President Obama's reelection bid in 2012? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2012, 10:17:21 AM »
The Herman Cain Meltdown
By Molly Ball
The hits keep on coming for the businessman and onetime GOP front-runner, who seems determined to go down in flames




The Herman Cain implosion is under way.

Once the Republican front-runner, Cain now seems to be self-destructing before our very eyes. Beset on all sides and sinking in the polls, he's not content to go out with a whimper. Instead, his campaign has become a spectacular series of blunders.

The latest: While trying to fend off criticism of his recent foreign policy gaffes on Thursday, Cain mounted a spirited defense of ignorance and even illiteracy.

"Who knows every detail of every country on the planet? Nobody!" Cain told reporters following him on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. And: "We need a leader, not a reader!"

That line's unfortunate echo of the buffoonish president from The Simpsons Movie seemed telling. All along, Cain has been a sort of cartoon version of a presidential candidate, entertaining, silly, and preposterously exaggerated.

Meanwhile Thursday, Cain abruptly canceled a planned interview with New Hampshire's most important conservative editorial page, the Manchester Union Leader. It appeared to be a belated, and narrowly targeted, attempt to prevent the candidate from facing further questioning and doing further self-damage. But it only served to invite criticism from another quarter, and it certainly didn't prevent Cain from making more inadvisable remarks (see above).

The implosion's beginning can be traced to another newspaper editorial-board interview, with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, on Monday. That's when Cain got tripped up by a simple, open-ended question on Libya -- you know, the site of the last major U.S. military intervention. His helpless fumbling gave Rick Perry's "oops" some serious competition in the brain-freeze sweepstakes.

Then, on Wednesday, Cain made a pilgrimage to Miami's Little Havana, without apparently bothering to do any homework on Cuba: He professed ignorance of the U.S.'s "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy, called a query about Obama's Cuba policy a "gotcha question" and inquired with apparent seriousness, "How do you say 'delicious' in Cuban?"

At this point, stories about Cain aren't even mentioning the sexual harassment accusations he spent weeks trying to fend off. That's ancient history. Heck, compared to all these random countries people keep asking him about, Cain might like to be talking about the allegations again -- at least that's something he has some practice answering questions about.

Though the harassment scandal isn't the source of his present difficulties, it seems likely that it's at the root of Cain's unraveling. The revelations about accusations of sexual harassment against Cain from four different women clearly set him off-balance and planted a seed of doubt in voters' minds.

His erstwhile supporters might have wanted to tiptoe discreetly off his sinking ship. But Cain, it seems, would rather chase them off with sirens blaring.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2012, 10:18:04 AM »
Remember John Lewis' Warning About Violent Talk?
By: Joel Dreyfuss
Posted: January 11, 2011

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the civil rights veteran warned against overheated rhetoric. It's no wonder, given black Americans' experience as targets of political violence. But the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, reminds us that it's advice all Americans should heed.

We were warned by Rep. John Lewis two years ago. He took John McCain and Sarah Palin to task during the 2008 presidential campaign for "sowing the seeds of hatred and division." Lewis knew well the consequences of political violence; he was badly beaten during civil rights protests in the South a half century ago.

Throughout last year, alerts continued, delivered by black politicians and pundits who expressed alarm about weapons at Tea Party rallies and brutal, sometimes racist rhetoric that cast President Barack Obama as a Nazi, a communist, a Middle East terrorist or, worse, an illegal alien who had somehow fooled the American people into putting him in the White House. But like a lot of the wisdom that comes out of the mouths of black folks, these warnings didn't get much play in the mainstream media.

When Lewis and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) reported that they had been called names and spat upon last summer by a crowd protesting health care reform, their credibility and even their motives for walking through a hostile crowd were questioned by the right. One conservative talk-show host offered a reward for a video proving that the two men had been mistreated -- essentially calling them liars.

When the NAACP's Benjamin Justice urged the Tea Party to purge its ranks of racists, he was greeted with derision or accused of playing the race card -- until a Tea Party leader's outburst proved him right.

For the moment, at least, the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the accompanying massacre have focused mainstream attention on the verbal -- and occasionally violent -- excesses of the American political system. Within minutes of the alleged rampage by 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, the punditocracy began an inflamed debate on whether the brutal political dialogue of the last two years had played a role in instigating or nurturing an atmosphere that led to the shootings.

The sheriff of Arizona's Pima County, Clarence Dubnik, had no doubts: It's clear, "when you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," he said. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous."

Up to now, politicians, news commentators, talk-radio hosts and others who engage in political dialogue have tended to shrug off, tolerate and even sometimes instigate violent political language. News stories in the last few days have cataloged the excessive verbiage that has been a constant thread in political discussions in the last two years.

There were the brutal anti-Obama signs at Tea Party functions. There were those who came to political rallies armed. There were the bull's-eyes on Sarah Palin's maps and her provocative "Don't Retreat. Reload!" language. There was senatorial candidate Sharron Angle hinting that citizens should resort to their Second Amendment privileges (the right to bear arms) if they didn't like the outcome of elections or Supreme Court decisions.

Liberals have rushed to make the link between the violence and heated political dialogue of the last two years. "We need to put the guns down," said MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann. "Just as importantly, we need to put the gun metaphors away, and permanently." But within hours, the conservative blogs were already questioning the connection. Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin posted this on her site: "Twitter and the left-wing blogs -- and now a Fox-bashing Democrat congressman -- have gone completely insane trying to politicize the shootings. Best to tune that all out."

 

Conservative Mark Thiessen, writing for the Washington Post, opined: "What is really outrageous is how quickly so many jumped at the opportunity to politicize this tragic shooting -- blaming the Tea Party and conservative political rhetoric without a shred of evidence to back those claims." Even the editorial page of the Washington Post, owned by The Root's parent company, put a distance between cause and effect: "But metaphors don't kill people -- guns kill people." The paper called for tighter gun-control laws.

Loughner may well turn out to be a deeply disturbed young man with no coherent political philosophy. But how assuredly can we separate his convoluted thinking from an environment of brutal language, threats, poisonous letters and warlike metaphors -- yes, metaphors? Even if Loughner's alleged deadly act was not an explosive response to the fuse of excessive language, are we now assured that there are no other individuals out there convinced they must do something to stop that communist/socialist/Nazi/foreigner president and his minions from ruining our country? I doubt that the head of the U.S. Secret Service will let out a sigh of relief if Loughner's apparent lack of political acumen or purpose is confirmed.

It's not surprising that African-American leaders have been alarmed for some time about this level of nasty rhetoric. Black Americans were long the targets of horrific political violence in the name of democracy. We have a long list of leaders and allies, from Medgar Evers to Viola Liuzzo, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Robert Kennedy, who paid with their lives for their beliefs -- and all in a climate of extremist language that gave legitimacy to acts cast as a means of saving America from the evil of integration or black empowerment. And that's why, even 40 years later, we are sensitive to the dangers of excessive language.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2012, 10:18:51 AM »
Remember John Lewis' Warning About Violent Talk?
By: Joel Dreyfuss
Posted: January 11, 2011

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the civil rights veteran warned against overheated rhetoric. It's no wonder, given black Americans' experience as targets of political violence. But the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, reminds us that it's advice all Americans should heed.

We were warned by Rep. John Lewis two years ago. He took John McCain and Sarah Palin to task during the 2008 presidential campaign for "sowing the seeds of hatred and division." Lewis knew well the consequences of political violence; he was badly beaten during civil rights protests in the South a half century ago.

Throughout last year, alerts continued, delivered by black politicians and pundits who expressed alarm about weapons at Tea Party rallies and brutal, sometimes racist rhetoric that cast President Barack Obama as a Nazi, a communist, a Middle East terrorist or, worse, an illegal alien who had somehow fooled the American people into putting him in the White House. But like a lot of the wisdom that comes out of the mouths of black folks, these warnings didn't get much play in the mainstream media.

When Lewis and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) reported that they had been called names and spat upon last summer by a crowd protesting health care reform, their credibility and even their motives for walking through a hostile crowd were questioned by the right. One conservative talk-show host offered a reward for a video proving that the two men had been mistreated -- essentially calling them liars.

When the NAACP's Benjamin Justice urged the Tea Party to purge its ranks of racists, he was greeted with derision or accused of playing the race card -- until a Tea Party leader's outburst proved him right.

For the moment, at least, the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the accompanying massacre have focused mainstream attention on the verbal -- and occasionally violent -- excesses of the American political system. Within minutes of the alleged rampage by 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, the punditocracy began an inflamed debate on whether the brutal political dialogue of the last two years had played a role in instigating or nurturing an atmosphere that led to the shootings.

The sheriff of Arizona's Pima County, Clarence Dubnik, had no doubts: It's clear, "when you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," he said. "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous."

Up to now, politicians, news commentators, talk-radio hosts and others who engage in political dialogue have tended to shrug off, tolerate and even sometimes instigate violent political language. News stories in the last few days have cataloged the excessive verbiage that has been a constant thread in political discussions in the last two years.

There were the brutal anti-Obama signs at Tea Party functions. There were those who came to political rallies armed. There were the bull's-eyes on Sarah Palin's maps and her provocative "Don't Retreat. Reload!" language. There was senatorial candidate Sharron Angle hinting that citizens should resort to their Second Amendment privileges (the right to bear arms) if they didn't like the outcome of elections or Supreme Court decisions.

Liberals have rushed to make the link between the violence and heated political dialogue of the last two years. "We need to put the guns down," said MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann. "Just as importantly, we need to put the gun metaphors away, and permanently." But within hours, the conservative blogs were already questioning the connection. Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin posted this on her site: "Twitter and the left-wing blogs -- and now a Fox-bashing Democrat congressman -- have gone completely insane trying to politicize the shootings. Best to tune that all out."

 

Conservative Mark Thiessen, writing for the Washington Post, opined: "What is really outrageous is how quickly so many jumped at the opportunity to politicize this tragic shooting -- blaming the Tea Party and conservative political rhetoric without a shred of evidence to back those claims." Even the editorial page of the Washington Post, owned by The Root's parent company, put a distance between cause and effect: "But metaphors don't kill people -- guns kill people." The paper called for tighter gun-control laws.

Loughner may well turn out to be a deeply disturbed young man with no coherent political philosophy. But how assuredly can we separate his convoluted thinking from an environment of brutal language, threats, poisonous letters and warlike metaphors -- yes, metaphors? Even if Loughner's alleged deadly act was not an explosive response to the fuse of excessive language, are we now assured that there are no other individuals out there convinced they must do something to stop that communist/socialist/Nazi/foreigner president and his minions from ruining our country? I doubt that the head of the U.S. Secret Service will let out a sigh of relief if Loughner's apparent lack of political acumen or purpose is confirmed.

It's not surprising that African-American leaders have been alarmed for some time about this level of nasty rhetoric. Black Americans were long the targets of horrific political violence in the name of democracy. We have a long list of leaders and allies, from Medgar Evers to Viola Liuzzo, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Robert Kennedy, who paid with their lives for their beliefs -- and all in a climate of extremist language that gave legitimacy to acts cast as a means of saving America from the evil of integration or black empowerment. And that's why, even 40 years later, we are sensitive to the dangers of excessive language.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2012, 10:19:26 AM »
November 10, 2011
Legends of the Fail
By PAUL KRUGMAN

This is the way the euro ends — not with a bang but with bunga bunga. Not long ago, European leaders were insisting that Greece could and should stay on the euro while paying its debts in full. Now, with Italy falling off a cliff, it’s hard to see how the euro can survive at all.

But what’s the meaning of the eurodebacle? As always happens when disaster strikes, there’s a rush by ideologues to claim that the disaster vindicates their views. So it’s time to start debunking.

First things first: The attempt to create a common European currency was one of those ideas that cut across the usual ideological lines. It was cheered on by American right-wingers, who saw it as the next best thing to a revived gold standard, and by Britain’s left, which saw it as a big step toward a social-democratic Europe. But it was opposed by British conservatives, who also saw it as a step toward a social-democratic Europe. And it was questioned by American liberals, who worried — rightly, I’d say (but then I would, wouldn’t I?) — about what would happen if countries couldn’t use monetary and fiscal policy to fight recessions.

So now that the euro project is on the rocks, what lessons should we draw?

I’ve been hearing two claims, both false: that Europe’s woes reflect the failure of welfare states in general, and that Europe’s crisis makes the case for immediate fiscal austerity in the United States.

The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats” and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.” The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.

It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits — including universal health care — and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well — if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure” — spending on welfare-state programs — was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.

Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.

The euro crisis, then, says nothing about the sustainability of the welfare state. But does it make the case for belt-tightening in a depressed economy?

You hear that claim all the time. America, we’re told, had better slash spending right away or we’ll end up like Greece or Italy. Again, however, the facts tell a different story.

First, if you look around the world you see that the big determining factor for interest rates isn’t the level of government debt but whether a government borrows in its own currency.
Japan is much more deeply in debt than Italy, but the interest rate on long-term Japanese bonds is only about 1 percent to Italy’s 7 percent. Britain’s fiscal prospects look worse than Spain’s, but Britain can borrow at just a bit over 2 percent, while Spain is paying almost 6 percent.

What has happened, it turns out, is that by going on the euro, Spain and Italy in effect reduced themselves to the status of third-world countries that have to borrow in someone else’s currency, with all the loss of flexibility that implies. In particular, since euro-area countries can’t print money even in an emergency, they’re subject to funding disruptions in a way that nations that kept their own currencies aren’t — and the result is what you see right now. America, which borrows in dollars, doesn’t have that problem.

The other thing you need to know is that in the face of the current crisis, austerity has been a failure everywhere it has been tried: no country with significant debts has managed to slash its way back into the good graces of the financial markets. For example, Ireland is the good boy of Europe, having responded to its debt problems with savage austerity that has driven its unemployment rate to 14 percent. Yet the interest rate on Irish bonds is still above 8 percent — worse than Italy.

The moral of the story, then, is to beware of ideologues who are trying to hijack the European crisis on behalf of their agendas. If we listen to those ideologues, all we’ll end up doing is making our own problems — which are different from Europe’s, but arguably just as severe — even worse.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2012, 10:21:09 AM »
November 9, 2011
Back to Common Sense at the Polls

It might have been “too much too soon,” a chastened Gov. John Kasich of Ohio admitted on Tuesday night, after his state’s voters overwhelmingly rejected his attempt to break public employee unions. He certainly was right about “too much,” an analysis that also applies to other examples of Republican overreach around the country that were kicked into the gutter: an anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi, a voting restriction in Maine, the radical anti-immigrant agenda of a politician in Arizona.

These policies, and similar ones in other states, were passed in an arrogant frenzy by a Tea Party-tide of Republicans elected in 2010. Many of them decided that they had a mandate to dismantle some of the basic protections and restrictions of government. They went too far, and weary voters had to drag them back toward the center.

As a result, Tuesday brought an overdue return of common sense to government policy in many states. Many voters are tired of legislation driven more by ideology than practicality, of measures that impoverish the middle class or deprive people of basic rights in order to prove some discredited economic theory or cultural belief.

That was most evident in Ohio, where voters overwhelmingly repealed a law pushed through last spring by Republicans to shred collective-bargaining rights for public employees. It prohibited bargaining on health benefits for state and local workers, including teachers, police officers and firefighters, and made it much harder to collect union dues or negotiate on staffing.

Many states are bleeding because of high salaries and lavish benefits, but, as New York and Connecticut have shown, it is possible to reduce them without breaking unions. The roughshod course chosen by Ohio, as well as Wisconsin and Indiana, made the real agenda all too clear: breaking the political power of public unions. Blue-collar voters in Ohio, many of whom got to the middle class through collective bargaining, understood the game.

Many of those same voters also supported a powerless amendment repudiating health care reform. With the matter up to the courts, there was little campaigning on the issue to explain its benefits to the uninsured.

In Arizona, voters recoiling from anti-immigrant stridency recalled the State Senate’s president, Russell Pearce, who was the main sponsor and public face of Arizona’s immigration law, which imposed sweeping police-state powers to harass and expel people without papers. The law, largely blocked in federal court, has done huge damage to the state’s economy and reputation, and voters in Mr. Pearce’s district clearly had had enough.

Maine voters saw right through the partisanship behind Republican attempts to eliminate same-day voter registration and reinstated it. In state after state, Republicans have tried to make it harder to vote, knowing that restrictions tend to hit lower-income and minority voters — traditional supporters of Democrats. Unfortunately, Mississippi voters were not as enlightened, approving a new requirement for identification cards at the polls.

But, even the voters in that state, one of the country’s most conservative, decisively rejected an amendment to ban abortion by declaring a fertilized egg as a person.
The measure also would have effectively banned some forms of contraception and even in-vitro fertilization, and 58 percent of voters said that was going too far.

It is not clear that Tuesday’s votes add up to a national trend that will have an effect on 2012 or even the deadlock in Congress. But they do offer a ray of hope to any candidate who runs on pragmatic solutions, not magical realism, to create jobs and reduce the pressures of inequality on the middle class and the poor.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2012, 10:21:55 AM »
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/demons.htm

 MUHAMMAD AND THE DEMONS

by Silas

PART 1 MUHAMMAD'S EXPERIENCES WITH SPIRITS

[NOTE: My comments in the source material are in [ ] type brackets. Source author's / translator's quotes are in ( ) type brackets.]

1) An experience Muhammad had as a child.

When Muhammad was a child he was nursed by a Bedouin woman. During this time he had an experience with "two men in white raiment". Here is W. M. Watt's translation of Ibn

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2012, 10:22:33 AM »

Ford. Quayle. Stockdale. Now, Poor Rick Perry
By James Fallows
In the long annals of presidential-campaign debating, there had until this evening been three famous-disaster moments:

1) 1976, Gerald Ford and Poland. This one wasn't quite fair. Ford was trying to make a reasonable point -- that the Polish people would never consider themselves a vanquished population. But what he actually said was, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and under a Ford Administration there never will be."  And since the background imagery of those days was an (also unfair) mainly SNL-based theme that Ford was not really that bright ... well, it made trouble for him. And the Jimmy Carter campaign, for which I was working at the time, did all we could to rub it in.




2) 1988, Dan Quayle and Jack Kennedy. He walked right into this one -- and Lloyd Bentsen was there, crocodile-like, just waiting for him.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]


3) 1992, James Stockdale, "who am I?" Sigh. (For the young: he was Ross Perot's running mate, and was in a debate against the other VP candidates, Quayle and Al Gore.)




4) 2011. Now, sadly, there is a fourth. I think anyone watching had to feel bad for Perry. I do.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

More from Garance Franke-Ruta. Poor Perry.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2012, 10:23:10 AM »
Libya's post-Gaddafi world is showing a lurch towards radical Islam, with strict Sharia law and Al-Qaeda flags in evidence there. It's barely a week since NATO moved out after the campaign to swap a dictator for democracy, yet the Alliance and the U.S. don't seem too concerned about the shape it's taking.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2012, 10:23:55 AM »
Jobs Bill Defeated: The Republican Calculated Campaign To Sabotage President Obama


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2012, 10:25:18 AM »
Former Republican Mayor of Meridian, Mississippi and current President of Reconnecting America, John Robert Smith talks about the urgent need for Congress to come together and support the President's call for infrastructure investment. http://whitehouse.gov/jobsact



Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2012, 10:25:46 AM »
Fucking Lawl at Johnny - made my day.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2012, 10:26:00 AM »
November 3, 2011
Putting Millionaires Before Jobs

There’s nothing partisan about a road or a bridge or an airport; Democrats and Republicans have voted to spend billions on them for decades and long supported rebuilding plans in their own states. On Thursday, though, when President Obama’s plan to spend $60 billion on infrastructure repairs came up for a vote in the Senate, not a single Republican agreed to break the party’s filibuster.

That’s because the bill would pay for itself with a 0.7 percent surtax on people making more than $1 million. That would affect about 345,000 taxpayers, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, adding an average of $13,457 to their annual tax bills. Protecting that elite group — and hewing to their rigid antitax vows — was more important to Senate Republicans than the thousands of construction jobs the bill would have helped create, or the millions of people who would have used the rebuilt roads, bridges and airports.


Senate Republicans filibustered the president’s full jobs act last month for the same reasons. And they have vowed to block the individual pieces of that bill that Democrats are now bringing to the floor. Senate Democrats have also accused them of opposing any good idea that might put people back to work and rev the economy a bit before next year’s presidential election.

There is no question that the infrastructure bill would be good for the flagging economy — and good for the country’s future development. It would directly spend $50 billion on roads, bridges, airports and mass transit systems, and it would then provide another $10 billion to an infrastructure bank to encourage private-sector investment in big public works projects.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican of Texas, co-sponsored an infrastructure-bank bill in March, and other Republicans have supported similar efforts over the years. But the Republicans’ determination to stick to an antitax pledge clearly trumps even their own good ideas.

A competing Republican bill, which also failed on Thursday, was cobbled together in an attempt to make it appear as if the party has equally valid ideas on job creation and rebuilding. It would have extended the existing highway and public transportation financing for two years, paying for it with a $40 billion cut to other domestic programs. Republican senators also threw in a provision that would block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing new clean air rules. Only in the fevered dreams of corporate polluters could that help create jobs.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, bitterly accused Democrats of designing their infrastructure bill to fail by paying for it with a millionaire’s tax, as if his party’s intransigence was so indomitable that daring to challenge it is somehow underhanded.

The only good news is that the Democrats aren’t going to stop. There are many more jobs bills to come, including extension of unemployment insurance and the payroll-tax cut. If Republicans are so proud of blocking all progress, they will have to keep doing it over and over again, testing the patience of American voters.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2012, 10:26:40 AM »
The politics we believe in starts not with expensive TV ads or extravaganzas, but with you — with people organizing block-by-block, talking to neighbors, co-workers and friends.

And that kind of campaign takes time to build. So even though the race may not reach full speed for a year or more, the work of laying the foundation for our campaign must start today.

In the coming days, supporters like you will begin forging a new organization that we'll build together in cities and towns across the country. And we'll need you to help shape our plan as we create a campaign that's farther reaching, more focused, and more innovative than anything we've built before.

We'll start by doing something unprecedented: coordinating millions of one-on-one conversations between supporters across every single state, reconnecting old friends, inspiring new ones to join the cause, and readying ourselves for next year's fight.



johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #44 on: January 20, 2012, 10:27:40 AM »
Libya's new interim prime minister has promised to make national reconciliation one of his top priorities, but in the town of Bani Walid, a former stronghold of Muammar Gaddafi, this may prove to be difficult.

The new head of the main hospital in Bani Walid is a pharmacist turned NTC fighter, and it is apparent that this is not a place where the anti-Gaddafi fighters are welcomed like heroes.

There is little communication between the fighters and the visitors, even if both stem from the same tribe.

Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid reports from Bani Walid, Libya.


johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #45 on: January 20, 2012, 10:28:21 AM »

The Nominee Will Be Romney and the GOP Will Like Him
by Eli Lehrer


Although I’m hardly optimistic that he’ll take the presidency, there’s every reason to think that Mitt Romney is going win the Republican nomination and attract the votes of his own party members.

Thus, while I would still bet on Obama to win reelection, I disagree with David Frum’s contention that Romney’s current level of support in his own party ought to be a topic of concern.

In a very large nominating field where only residents in a few states will cast primary votes anytime soon, primary candidate preference polls are roughly the equivalent of asking a sci-fi geek to pick between Star Trek, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica. All of the choices are pretty good and saying that you like one doesn’t exclude a deep and even geeky affection for the others.

The fact that Romney is a slightly bland individual–Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman are all a lot more fun to watch–probably depresses the number of people picking him as their first choice a bit further. With the possible exception of Ron Paul’s supporters (many of whom may stay home or vote Libertarian on election day) almost all primary voters will rally around the party’s eventual nominee.

The polling firm Rassmussen Reports–generally pretty accurate although known to lean a bit towards the R side–estimates that 33.9 percent of the electorate self-identifies as Republican. And the number of people who will vote R almost no matter what is higher than that. Barry Goldwater, the worst-performing post World War II Republican candidate, still landed just about 40 percent of the vote.

For Romney this means he’s still the true frontrunner even if others briefly surpass him in the polls. If he can avoid being utterly embarrassed with finishes below third place in closely watched primaries, his well oiled fundraising machine and the organizational resources he built up in his last run for the presidency will likely let him win the nomination the same way they did for plenty of other people (e.g.John McCain) who stumbled in early contests.

This still doesn’t mean that things are going to be easy for Romney. Anyone taking on an incumbent has an up-hill fight. But, unless the rules of American politics get rewritten, Romney shouldn’t have to worry much about what Republicans think of him. They’ll come around.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2012, 10:28:54 AM »
Bill Kristol and Rush Limbaugh: The Right's Leading Race-Baiters
By Conor Friedersdorf
How have they reacted to Occupy Wall Street and harassment allegations against Herman Cain? Playing the card conservatives claim to abhor most.



In college and for some time afterward, I believed that the conservative movement was earnestly against using race as a political cudgel. It isn't that I had no knowledge of political history. I knew about the Southern strategy, the wrongheaded opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and the stubborn persistence of racists on the fringes of the political right (and the political left). But hadn't things changed? On college campuses, I saw that invocations of racism were sometimes cynical, intended to empower the accuser -- shortly after I graduated, for example, a professor faked a hate crime against herself -- and seeing 18, 19, and 20 year-old campus conservatives speak out against such nonsense, even as they were earnestly anti-racism, made it that much easier to nod along to the conservative movement's critiques of Al Sharpton's bad behavior and certain attacks on Ward Connerly, who sought to repeal affirmative action policies at California public universities, and other incidents too. The critics made sound points.

I still think some on the left are guilty of cynically using race as a political cudgel. I've written about the Duke players falsely accused of rape and prosecuted by both a grandstanding Mike Nifong and the left-wing media; about the New York Times columnist who said that minorities who attended a Tea Party rally were minstrels; and about Lawrence O'Donnell questioning Herman Cain in a way it's difficult to imagine him questioning a black Democrat. It is true, as Matt Yglesias is fond of pointing out, that racism remains a much bigger and more urgent problem than false accusations of it. Nevertheless, using race as a political cudgel is corrosive and ought to be called out.

What I no longer believe is that the conservative movement (as opposed to many individual conservatives) is earnestly against the cynical use of race as a cudgel. I haven't believed it for a long time now. You'll still see peripheral figures on the left, the present day equivalents of Sharpton and Nifong, behaving dishonorably. But the new status quo in the conservative movement is something different. In the conservative movement, extremely prominent figures race bait in the ugliest, most transparent ways. And no one complains. Despite decades of denouncing this sort of behavior as ugly, illegitimate, and immoral, the movement right is unperturbed.

How bad have things gotten? Recall the outrage on the right when people like Janeane Garofalo tarred the whole Tea Party as racist, citing some racist signs in their midst. To be clear, Garofalo was absurdly sweeping in her comments. Now look at how Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, is characterizing Occupy Wall Street in a new ad put out by a group he leads (he's quickly becoming America's foremost producer of disgusting video spots):
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

The antisemitism in those clips are execrable, and ought to be roundly denounced, but how little integrity must you possess to present such hate speech as if it defines all of your adversaries in a political controversy? And in just the way that your ideological allies were complaining about mere months before! (See Reason TV's excellent coverage from Occupy Los Angeles for an example of journalists who neither shied away from the creepy racist element in the protests nor misled their viewers into an exaggerated impression of its prominence.)

Kristol is hardly alone.

On Rush Limbaugh's Web site, under the headline "We should not be surprised by the left's racist hit job on Herman Cain," the talk radio host characterizes Politico's sexual harassment story as follows:

    What's next, folks? A cartoon on MSNBC showing Herman Cain with huge lips eating a watermelon? What are they gonna do next? No, Snerdley, I'm not kidding. The racial stereotypes that these people are using to go after Herman Cain, what is the one thing that it tells us? It tells us who the real racists are, yeah, but it tells us that Herman Cain is somebody. Something's going on out there. Herman Cain obviously is making some people nervous for this kind of thing to happen.

Did anyone object that he labeled an entire half of the political spectrum racist based on a sexual harassment story in a single publication that didn't in fact contain any racial stereotypes?

Nope.

And no surprise.

As I've pointed out at great length, Limbaugh frivolously accuses more people of racism these days than anyone else in public life. And the conservative movement is happy to consider him an ally.

Thus the pathology spreads:

    Ann Coulter led the charge soon after the story broke on Sunday night, evoking Clarence Thomas's words in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, that this was "another high-tech lynching," saying, "There's nothing liberals fear more than a black conservative."

    The racial theme, and evocations of Thomas, were echoed across conservative talk radio on Monday. Laura Ingraham, who clerked for Thomas on the Supreme Court in the 1990s, said "Doesn't this all sound so familiar? A black man who thinks for himself...He needs to be put in his place, a lot of people think. Time to put this man in, hate to say it, the back of the bus."

    ...Brent Bozell, the founder and president of the conservative media watchdog the Media Research Center, wrote a post called "Stop the High-tech Lynching of Herman Cain" that argued that "anyone in the press that gives this story oxygen" is "hypocritical."


Should there be any confusion, that's the same Ann Coulter who said that "liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race," the same Laura Ingraham who thinks disagreeing with Obama gets you demonized as a racist, and the same Brent Bozell who authored columns including Team Obama's Race Baiting and Selective Race Baiting.

How depressing to think an ideological movement is actually opposed to something in principle, to nod along to the abstract, righteous arguments it marshals, only to watch as some of its leading figures cynically engage in the very awful behavior that they once claimed to abhor.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2012, 10:29:48 AM »


    TODAY'S MARKETS
    JULY 21, 2011, 6:40 P.M. ET

Progress On Debt Rubs Off On Stocks
By TOM LAURICELLA

Signs of progress in dealing with debt woes on both sides of the Atlantic Thursday propelled U.S. stocks, European bonds and the euro sharply higher in volatile trading.

In the U.S., the good news came in the form of hints that talks between the White House and congressional Republicans are moving closer to a deal that would raise the federal debt ceiling and slice the U.S. government's deficit.
Market Data Center

In Europe, officials agreed to a plan designed to reduce Greece's debt burden and, more important for most investors, limit the potential for contagion that could send Italy and Spain into crisis.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted its second straight day of triple-digit gains, rising 152.50 points, or 1.2%, to 12724.41. The blue-chip index is now less than 100 points shy of its 2011 high of 12810.54 reached in late April. In Europe, Spanish and Italian stock markets were the big winners, gaining 2.9% and 3.8%, respectively, recovering ground lost in recent weeks.

The euro went for a roller-coaster ride on its way higher, as traders were once again whipsawed by comments from European officials. During European trading hours, it fell to around $1.4150 from more than $1.42 on news suggesting a meeting of European leaders wouldn't result in a comprehensive plan aimed at thwarting contagion. But then traders were spun around as news of a deal trickled out. The euro was up 1.5% against the U.S. dollar at $1.4424 in late New York trade.

The hope among investors is that the day's events bring the financial markets another step closer to resolving the major risks that have been bedeviling investors. In recent weeks, fears have been growing that the political bickering over the U.S. debt ceiling could lead ratings firms to take away the U.S. government's AAA rating. At the same time, Italy and Spain were once again being dragged down by worries that a default by Greece would ricochet through financial markets.

Blue-chip stocks surged as hopes for a major budget deal in Washington and efforts to contain Europe's sovereign-debt crisis whetted investors' risk appetite. Steven Russolillo has details. Plus, earnings from Microsoft.

Still, the deal also brings Greece closer to default, the prospects of which could keep investors unsettled. At the same time, the U.S. is still far from resolving its own debt problems.

Given the potential risks from a U.S. downgrade or a disorderly default by Greece, many hedge funds have been stockpiling cash. Those that have been trading have been chewed up by sharp back-and-forth price swings as markets respond to the latest comments from U.S. or European politicians.

"Everyone says the resolution of the debt crisis is good for the euro and the resolution of the debt ceiling is good for the dollar, but it's not so much that it's good or bad but that it adds certainty, and therefore trends, back into the market," says Jon Stein, managing director at Parker Global Strategies.


In the currency markets, daily big swings in the euro against the dollar have made for a challenging environment for many hedge-fund managers. The bias among many so-called macro funds, which invest based on big economic themes, has been to bet that the crisis will lead to a lower euro. While the euro has fallen against some currencies, especially the Swiss franc, it has gained against the U.S. dollar.

That volatility has extended to stocks, where the Dow has been swinging in a wide range since February. Making things especially difficult for stock pickers is that many individual stocks have been moving in lock-step.

"It's been a ping-pong market, and you really haven't been rewarded for individual stock-picking during the first half of the year," said Jonathon Trugman, who runs New York-based equities hedge fund Pendulum Capital Management. To make money, "you've had to play the big macro moves. Now we can shift back to being more stock-specific."

The news out of the European summit helped Italian and Spanish bonds extend a rally that began Tuesday. The yield on Spanish 10-year debt fell to 5.7% Thursday from 5.9% Wednesday, having topped 6.2% Monday, according to Tradeweb. The yield on Italian 10-year bonds fell to 5.3% from 5.6%.

Analysts said the summit appeared to address many concerns. And while it offers some breathing room, it likely doesn't mean the end of the crisis.

"They have said all that the markets could have hoped them to say, and it is creating some relief in terms of the immediate concerns," said Robert Sinche, currency strategist art RBS Global Banking & Markets.

He said the focus will shift to Greece's ability to implement reforms, with key deadlines in September and December.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2012, 10:30:22 AM »
Oct. 27, 2011, 4:50 p.m. EDT
U.S. stocks surge on accord in Europe, GDP
America’s growth in third-quarter dispels recession talk

By Kate Gibson, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — U.S. stocks on Thursday blasted to near three-month highs, lifting the S&P 500 back into positive turf for 2011 and with banks in particular rallying in relief over Europe’s debt accord. Quarterly data illustrating the largest jump for the U.S. economy in more than a year added to the bulls’ rampage.


“There is a lot of talk about how do you get 27 countries to agree -- we have far more adult leadership from these leaders than many members of the U.S. Congress and supercommittee. As is often the case, the greatest threat to the U.S. economy comes from partisanship,” said David Kelly, chief market strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, referring to the joint deficit-cutting panel.

“The GDP report is the strongest evidence yet that the U.S. isn’t in a recession, and it didn’t scare itself into a recession in the third quarter,” Kelly added.

Closing above 12,000 for the first time since Aug. 1, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI:DJIA) rose as much as 415 points and ended at 12,208.55, up 339.51 points, or 2.9%. Up 5.5% for 2011, the blue-chip index is up nearly 12% for October, with two trading sessions to go in the month.


All 30 of the Dow’s components advanced, led by Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC)  , up 9.6%.

The S&P 500 Index (SNC:SPX) gained 42.59 points, or 3.4%, to 1,284.59, with financials and natural-resource companies rallying the most among its 10 sectors, all of which advanced. The index closed up 2.1% for the year and nearly 14% up on the month.

Among the noteworthy gainers, Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS)   rallied 17%.

The Nasdaq Composite Index (NASDAQ:COMP) rose 87.96 points, or 3.3%, to 2,738.63, up 13% for October and 3.2% for 2011.

It was the highest close for the Dow average since July 28, and the highest close for the Nasdaq and S&P 500 since Aug. 1.


For every stock on the decline, more than seven gained on the New York Stock Exchange, where 1.4 billion shares traded. Composite volume topped 6.6 billion.

Equities, commodities and the euro leaped as investors in Greek debt accepted a voluntary write-down of 50% and European leaders widened a rescue fund to $1.4 trillion.

“The most positive news was after months and months of wrangling, European leaders reached broad agreement,” said Alan Skrainka, chief investment officer at Cornerstone Wealth Management, of the effort to contain Europe’s debt crisis. Read more on Europe's sovereign-debt deal.

“The market jumped because of the Europe news, but what shouldn’t be lost is a very is a very solid report on the economy. It’s not very robust, but it’s a far cry from recession,” said Skrainka of the Commerce Department report, which found the U.S. economy grew 2.5% in the third quarter. .

Another report, this one from the Labor Department, had first-time jobless claims declining by 2,000 to 402,000 last week.

Dow component Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM)  rose 1% after the oil giant reported net income that topped $10 billion in the third quarter as the price of oil advanced.

On the New York Mercantile Exchange, crude futures climbed, with the futures contract for December delivery (NMN:CL1Z)  up $3.76 to end at $92.94 a barrel. Gold futures (CNS:GC1Z)   added $24.20 to close at $1,747.70 an ounce.

johnnynoname

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18257
  • i have a face like a shovel
Re: Bisping: Criticism of UFC fighter pay makes me mad
« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2012, 10:30:58 AM »
Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

Conservative states spend most on porn (Image: Raymond Gehmann/Corbis)


Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.


"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.
Political divide

Edelman spends part of his time helping companies such as Microsoft and AOL detect advertising fraud. Another consulting client runs dozens of adult websites, though he says he is not at liberty to identify the firm.

That company did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Old-fashioned values

Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays – a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

"One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.