Grimm bravely comes out in favor of adoption. He also favors funding the Fire Department.
What guts.
Still, it might be more convincing if his Party weren't taking the lead all over the country in trying to make certain kinds of American ineligible to adopt–not because they are personally unfit, but rather because of prejudicial conclusions the GOP has drawn about people holding their sexual orientations (or rather, because the GOP is trying to pander to the people who’ve drawn such conclusions).
But does Grimm, in service to the cause of orphaned children, proposed blowing up these barriers?
No, rather than depleting the ranks of orphans, Grimm proposes expanding them, by creating new pools of children who are "saved" from abortion, and “saved” from unwed mothers who are raising their kids alone.
So much faith in traditional marriage from a guy whose ex-wife made campaign appearances with his opponent.
To top it off, Grimm asks:
"How would have the civil rights movements turned out if Malcolm X hadn’t been put in an orphanage and later fostered by various families?"
The answer is that the Civil Right movement would have done just fine without Malcolm X. The proof of that is that it did just fine without Malcolm X.
Whatever one thinks of Malcolm X, he was not part of "The Civil Rights Movement." He called the movement's most famous event "The Farce on Washington." Only briefly towards the end of his life did Malcolm X embrace the Civil Rights Movement.
Malcolm X may have raised consciousness, but for most of his life as an activist, he would have been insulted to be called (paraphrasing his own words), “a so-called Civil Rights Negro.” It's Time to 'Think Different' About Adoption www.foxnews.com
The link I got said Powell was running for Congress again.
I shuddered and thought:"Didn't we already dodge that bullet?"
Then I heard it wasn't Kevin, and breathed a sigh of relief.
Then I heard it was Adam, and I shuddered again. THE PEREZ NOTES: Clayton Powell IV preparing to run for Congress again El Diario La Prensa thepereznotes.blogspot.com
A few years ago, I noted:
" Mario's WORDS were certainly more progressive than Spitzer's; Mario's DEEDS (to the extent he ever did anything but blame his complete lack of accomplishments on a Republican Senate he refused to expend any of his political capital, monetary or otherwise, on trying to alter for the better) may not so qualify."
"Mario Cuomo was an arrogant thug with a silver tongue…As governor, Mario Cuomo spent 12 years talking about shining cities on a hill while not producing a hill of beans. He spent 12 years complaining about having his initiatives blocked time and again by the Republican Senate, while never investing blood or treasure to help the Democrats take control; in fact, Mario was notorious for going into the districts of Republican marginals at campaign time and singing their praises. When it came to the cause of liberalism, Mario usually talked the talk, but Mario rarely, if ever, walked the walk. In the end, Mario left the treasury of the State Democratic Party, which he operated as his personal piggy bank, with a hole almost exactly the size of the surplus in his own personal campaign account."
In this piece, Dan Feldman concurs and fills in a few more details. My only question is, does he believe Koch would have been a better “progressive?”Koch and Cuomo talesfromthesausagefactory.wordpress.com
No rule against the drums?
Not for nuthin, but I get the feelin that most locals would prefer the occupation without the drums to the drums without the occupation. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/beat-protesters-drums-return-zuccotti-park-days-eviction-article
Tom Friedman still refuses to acknowledge the truth: Obama is doing everything a "centrist" could hope for, and it is the GOP who are the obstructionists. "Centrist Pundits" www.slate.com
Hey, if the Taliban has moved their operations to Libya, isn't that good news? Herman Cain’s latest foreign policy gaffe: 2012 GOPer suggests Taliban play a role in Libya’s new go www.nydailynews.com
GATE: (11/9/11): I'm sorry, but I don't get the umbrage being expressed [about Obama, Sarkozy and Netanyahu].
What Obama confirmed by his remarks is that the US-Israel relationship is bigger than any two leader's likes and dislikes and that he knows it.
Could Israel really ask for better news than that?
Jewish Telegraphic Agency (11/17/11): One source reported hearing a top official at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee quipping, “Obama and Bibi talk every day? This is great news!” Pundits, Politicos Still Parsing Sarkozy-Obama Exchange On Bibi | JewishPress www.jewishpress.com