Watching this CNBC segment with Jared Bernstein and Kudlow, I can only think how screwed the conservative mind truly is.They've morphed the takers and moochers talking points into attacks on Americans with disabilities. It's very nasty and disgraceful, since it's not just "urban Democrats" who are getting those benefits, but most likely many people who still support Republicans.

I was on disability for a time, and have been hampered for many years by severe nerve damage. Let me tell you, all that time, I only wished one thing: to be able to play music again -- somewhat pain-free. I didn't want to have to collect any benefits, I wanted to work in the profession to which I'd dedicated my life. I haven't been able to tour for almost nine years now. The number of people who are gaming the system is minimal at best, but those people are the ones labeled as representive the entire disabled community.

Pethokoukis: Back about 1935, we had a Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, and when talking about the welfare state, the dole, he called it a narcotic, a destroyer of souls. Then the left forgot about that for about 60 years, woke up in the mid 90s for welfare reform and forgot about it again. we've had an explosion of people getting Social Security disability at the same time when the workforce has become less physical, fewer injuries and yet an explosion of people on disability. Why? Because those are people who have been misdiagnosed or who are I'm sorry to say on the dole, who should not be getting disability payments. We are creating exactly the thing Franklin Roosevelt warned us against, which is a narcotic, a destroyer of souls, a destroyer of our labor force.

Bernstein followed up with facts and figures backing up his claims while acknowledging the callous attempts to demonize disabled American workers.

So while these data show some growth in the DI rolls that may reflect folks getting DI who ought not to, much of the increase appears to be explainable by known, legitimate factors. Neither is there much cyclicality to the rolls, suggest that “takers/fakers” are exploiting the program.

In fact, as I emphasized in the segment, more than 90% of entitlement dollars go to people who are either elderly, disabled, or working. In other words, the makers/takers frame is factually wrong, not to mention mean-spirited and divisive.I admit that my ears aren’t exactly non-partisan, but that frame just sounds really nasty to me, as I suspect it does to most people. So I guess if I were Machiavellian, I’d urge Larry and Jimmy to stick with it. But as I’m not, I’d urge them and others to give it up.

I agree completely. It's divisive, uninformed and painful when conservatives attack the disabled in this country with such wanton hatred. And let's face it, disability sucks for many reasons:

Continue reading »

Now you see it---now you don't. Poof! I didn't know Republicans have been studying the art of magic and illusion.

Steve Benen:

Last week, House Republicans caved on the debt-ceiling fight, at least in the short term, announcing they would approve a "three-month temporary debt-limit increase." Over the holiday weekend, the GOP plan apparently got a little touch-up.

Forget about raising the federal debt limit. House Republicans are proposing to ignore it altogether -- at least until May 18.The House plans to vote Wednesday on a measure that would leave the $16.4 trillion debt limit intact but suspend it from the time the bill passes until mid-May. The declaration that the debt ceiling "shall not apply" means that the government could continue borrowing to cover its obligations to creditors until May 18.This approach -- novel in modern times -- would let Republicans avoid a potentially disastrous fight over the debt limit without actually voting to let the Treasury borrow more money.

This is rather unexpected. Just a few days ago, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) announced plans for a three-month increase. Now, it's four months, and it's a suspension, not an increase.

What does that mean, exactly? Lawmakers are effectively declaring, "The debt ceiling won't exist until mid-May." In other words, Congress authorizes federal spending and the administration acts accordingly, but instead of needing congressional approval to borrow the difference, the White House will be able to just borrow as necessary -- without authorization -- for nearly four months without regard for legal limits.

Right-wing lawmakers will probably balk -- they weren't going to endorse the original plan, either -- but the Club for Growth said Tuesday that it will not oppose the temporary suspension of the borrowing limit. After all, Republicans aren't technically raising the debt ceiling; they're just suspending it. Of course, this raises a related question: can't Congress just make this permanent? Shouldn't lawmakers do exactly that?

Yes they should, and please, let's drop the idea that Republicans care about the deficit. They are using the debt ceiling to push an agenda which could backfire on the country and severely f*&k us all. If they can suspend it or make it disappear any time they want, then what is this whole circle jerk about in the first place? I'd much prefer to watch Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh in Houdini than this freak show.

UPDATE: Debt Ceiling fantasy passed

The House just passed the GOP’s plan for a temporary debt limit extension, 285-144. The threat of default has been averted — in exchange for no concessions whatsoever by Dems. This confirms what some of us knew from the start: Republicans were never — ever — going to allow default. Those who played along with the fantasy that the threat of default gave Republicans leverage got snookered. They got taken.

Today’s vote, in effect, removes the threat of default from the conversation permanently, which is good news for the country. There is very little chance that the coming battle won’t be resolved before the next debt limit deadline of May 18th. In any case, if Republicans try to tie any more conditions to the next debt limit hike, Dems will simply laugh in their faces, since they confirmed today that they are not willing to allow default, no matter what. So now the GOP will try to use the expiring sequester and the threat of a government shutdown to extract the spending cuts it says it wants.

It's time for some Clinton Derangement Syndrome after a long absence on this front by the wingnuts who inhabit the intertubes and it comes from Hillary's big testimony day on Wednesday. Leading the charge of those severely infected was John Nolte of Breitbart.

When Hillary Clinton was a young lawyer in 1974, she earned her bones in DC as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff during the Watergate scandal. But why? What difference did a little burglary make when thousands were dying in Vietnam?

Poor Condi Rice. Why didn't she pull this during the 9/11 hearings? "What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator? 3,000 Americans that September morning! "Yeah, that would've have gone over real well with the media. But Rice never would have done such a thing, because she and the Bush Administration had nothing to hide.The Obama administration, however, cannot say the same.

This is the one of the the douchiest political paragraphs I've ever read. It's rife with untruths along with nonsensical correlations about things that never took place. First of all the whole BenghaziGate faux scandal was perpetrated to help Romney win the White House, but even with Conservative media screaming nonstop for weeks on end, Americans didn't buy their lies. It wasn't some Nixonian political scandal that was used to cover up some nefarious criminal activity and they've never explained what the conspiracy is all about that's worthy of the 'gate' extension.

OK, now back to some of Nolte's false equivalencies. Watergate was a story about a Republican political criminal gang composed of Nixon's own people. I won't explain it here since most people know the story, but please click on the link for a quick refresher. However, this was about Nixon's reelection plan and not, let's say, a group that dug up false intel and fed it to the UN to persuade the world to go to war with a country that had WMDs just ready to be detonated against us all. (Sorry, that's part of Iraq's history!) Nixon's WH covered it up because people would go to jail and or be impeached.

The idea that Watergate is the same as Benghazi is Huckabeeridiculous.

As for the 9/11 Commission, the Bush administration did all it could to not have one at all, because they did have things to hide. Condi Rice had to admit to Congress that she received a PDB that said Bin Laden wanted to fly planes into US buildings a month before the Twin Towers happened. She also was exposed for her lies about those pesky aluminum tubes. which also aided in helping getting Bush's Iraq war off the ground. Bush, Condi and his entire warmongering cabinet had a lot to hide as we know and so should Nolte. Then Nulte spins his version of reality by saying BushCo had nothing to hide about the Iraq war, but the Obama administration is as guilty as those who perpetrated Watergate without actually telling us what they are guilty of.

I guess they feel they can use this if Hillary runs for office in 2016.

Steve over at NMMNG writes:

But, of course, the ripped-from-context quote is "What difference, at this point, does it make?" It's already being seized on by National Review andFox News and The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard and Glenn Beck's Blaze and Michelle Malkin's Twitchy and the Free Beaconand, of course, Breitbart. There's already a popular hashtag, #whatdifferencedoesitmake.

This is the state of Conservatism and its faux storytellers.

Malkin's got a twitch: Hysterical Hillary: ‘What difference does it make’ why 4 Americans are dead?

Glen Beck's Blaze buddy thinks Susan Rice's talking point gaffe is as bad a illegally selling weapons to Iran TheBlaze.com: It makes a big difference, Madame Secretary

There are many more nutty examples of Clinton Derangement Syndrome here if you want to check them out.

How many of us have heard the old adage that it's actions, not words, that matter. I concur with that assessment generally. However, when it comes to presidential politics, it doesn't hold as fast and tight. The bully pulpit is a powerful tool to convey political agenda, ideology and action in any presidential term, and while a president isn't a king (sorry teaBirchers, he's not) who can enact whatever policy he likes, he certainly can explain and promote his beliefs to millions of Americans at any given time.

Obama over his first four years has frustrated his liberal base because he was just as likely to mention Ronald Reagan in glowing terms as much as he would Teddy Roosevelt or FDR. And he never laid out a consistent progressive agenda to the American people during his first years in the White House. (No matter what FOX News said.) But on FOX News shortly after the inauguration, Charles Krauthammer was the only one to come on after the speech and praise it honestly. Most conservatives complained that the president was being mean to Republicans yet again, but not Charles:

I thought it was an amazing speech — historically very important,” Krauthammer said. ”Not memorable — there’s not a line here that will ever be repeated, but I think very important historically because this was really Obama unbound. And I think what’s most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism in this speech.

I was pretty astonished by his response when I watched this, because for the most part, Charles has been one of the leaders of the Sour Patch Kids who live off being deficit scolds. Obama's victory is forcing many conservatives to come to grips with certain realities (maybe America isn't a center right country?) and Charles is trying to understand what it means for Republicans in the future. I may disagree with his notion of what 'Big Government' is and means, but his analysis on the whole is fairly accurate.

Funny, how many pundits that criticized Obama for not extending a loving hand to Republicans never mentioned George Bush's second inauguration speech. It dealt almost entirely with his bombastic and aggressive foreign policy beliefs.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Bush did promote his "ownership society" theories, but freedom was the central tenet of his speech after the 9/11 tragedy. He also talked a little about equality, but shrouded it in Republican orthodoxy. Unfortunately for us, his beliefs helped destroy the global financial economies. There was nary a word about Democrats and Republicans working together to cure the ills of our land. I guess he's been deleted from conscious thought by the Villagers in which we are to compare past and future presidents.

In Obama's second inauguration--he surprised many liberals by making the case for some of the strongest beliefs the left holds dear like equality; including marriage, voter rights, climate change and exalting the safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.

----

We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. (Applause.) They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. (Applause.)

In your face Roger Ailes, Mitt Romney, Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove and the entire Conservative movment. So Obama is off to a good start at least in terms of rhetoric. And yes, rhetoric from the top is an important ingredient for baking a very progressive pie. He is the leader of the Democratic party. However, if Obama does not continue to use the bully pulpit promoting Liberal ideas and falls back into being a deficit scold then all will be lost.

At least for now he's on the right path.

Continue reading »

If you don't know, Memeorandum is a blogger news aggregator. I check it out occasionally even if it does lean right. On Tuesday their top story was some explosive new coverup during Obama's second inaugural speech. Wait for it...Beyoncé lip-synched the Star Spangled Banner at the inauguration — The wingnutosphere went ballistic.

After embarrassing themselves with the Bengahzi/Watergate comparisons, wingnuts have moved on to attack lip-synchers. Aretha Franklin laughs at this idiocy. I don't understand why Memeorandum focuses in on wingnut conspiracy theories so much, but that's their right.

I'm just shocked that Hillary Clinton wasn't questioned on this by Rand Paul.

Face The Nation had an interesting "power panel round table" where bipartisanship ruled the day and all the parties involved could agree on one thing for sure: President Obama is being a real meanie to Republicans. Bob Woodward, Dee Dee Myers, Peggy Noonan and Condoleezza Rice all made the same vapid points to Bob Schieffer. See, all this obstructionism by the Republicans ever since Obama moved into the Oval Office has never been about them. It's all about the mean and nasty Obama is not being sensitive to their needs. Here's how Beltway sage Bob Woodward framed the last four years:

Woodward: ...governing is a collaboration between the White House and the Congress and let's face it, it's a collaboration that is not working. It is broken and the President has not found a way to close the deal with the leaders of the Republicans and quite frankly, with his own party.

I remember Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, used to always say 'it's hard to not like someone who says they like you.' You talk to senators and congressmen, as you know, and they feel Barack Obama doesn't like them or is at least indifferent to them. And so you have all of these conflicts in negotiations and they end... Look, the President has the upper hand now and will for some time, but you know in any... Condi Rice knows so well, any any negotiation you need to leave the opponent with their dignity and the president is going out and sticking his finger in their eye.

Has any analysis by a politico who's supposed to have been following this day to day been more bombastically wrong of our current political situation? My God, I know Obama is about to start his second term with higher popularity rates than anyone else in the Beltway, but this is the best narrative Villagers could come up with?

The only thing that makes sense is that they are trying to force Obama to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Schieffer goes farther and says Obama doesn't even like the process of governing or 'getting his hands dirty', which is a quiet way to frame him as just being detached and lazy. Dee Dee Myers chimes in:

He's a politician who doesn't love politics---right, I mean I'm not sure if he even likes the art of politics and that's a problem. He hasn't built the kinds of relationships that sustained other politicans in tough times...

At this point, Myers takes a moment to pay homage to Woodward:

You have to let the other guys leave the table saying they got something for their side, because they're going to give up something big if it's going to be an important deal. I think this White House has not done this as successfully as they need to 'cause you end up with Versailles...

How can Obama negotiate in good faith with a party that has been fractured by their own extremism? Speaker John Boehner is constantly forced to withdraw from negotiations because the tea party refuses to be a grown up caucus. But this is left unmentioned. It's all Obama's fault, dontchaknow?

Bob then turns to Peggy Noonan, (who should probably be given a breathalyzer before she goes on any TV panel) to really get a grip on what's happening in Washington.

Noonan: Hmmmm....well, it's true on the Hill speakers and such don't quite control their conferences and caucuses as they have, but what's different for the last few weeks say, since the President was re-elected is that he's playing it in a way differently than previous presidents. Previous presidents get a win, whether it's close or not, and then they try to sort of put their arms around everybody and summon them in. We're essentially a 50-50 country still. Instead of 'let's all be together,' he's been very sharply definitively 'us guys' vs. 'you guys' by going at the Republicans on the Hill. By speaking in a way that is very...sour about why Republicans take the stands they take, he, I think... it's a new way to play it, a tough way to play it and dicey way to play it.

Do you remember George Bush rallying the Democrats after he won? I don't. He did say he now had new political capital that he was going to spend and spend it big time. He stuck a fork in the eyes of Democrats on the Hill by trying to destroy Social Security. But why bring up real facts?

I also recall that after Bush won re-election in 2004, all the Villagers were heralding in the idea that America is a center-right nation while pimping Fox News' all red map of the United States. This circle jerk meme of Obama's mean behavior swept all the other networks, including CBS.

When Republicans act like meanies, they are thought to be tough negotiators and skilled politicians, when President Obama become tough, he's really just aloof and politically lazy and mean to the poor, misunderstood Republicans, just trying to get along. I'm not shocked the teabaggers threaten to blow up the debt ceiling; because they won't be blamed by the Villagers. I can see it now, Obama was mean to them so he deserved whatever the GOP do to him.

Coburn: Debt Ceiling Breach Is 'a Wonderful Experiment' to Shut Down 'Stupid Things'

Economists like Nobel prize-winner Paul Krugman have warned that Republicans could "blow up the world economy" if they refuse to raise the nation's debt ceiling but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) disagrees, saying that it could actually be a "wonderful experiment." During a Tuesday interview with conservative talk show host Sandy Rios, Coburn insisted that only "stupid things" would be shut down if the the debt ceiling was not raised.

We've written and read many posts about the End Timers --those Christians who see the great Armageddon coming very soon and are making their plans for a new millennium. So far, the end of the world as we know it didn't come to pass, as the latest timetable (brought to you by the Mayans) proved wrong. However, we do have a new breed of Conservative Republican end timers who are itching to blow up the entire world's economy, just to see what would actually happen -- via their refusal to raise the debt ceiling.

There were many of them who wanted the American auto industry to collapse, (as well as numerous related businesses) with no regard for the millions of Americans who'd lose their jobs. They have been proven wrong over and over again, but their cult-like ideology is all that matters to them. It appears they've been emboldened since Bush crashed the world economy in 2008, but the cons were rewarded with winning back the House in 2010 by a FOX News-created tea party revolt. That comeback sent a triumphant wave of uber-right wing/black helicopter extremism washing over the ranks of the GOP, ridding them of any last vestige of normalcy. After a bruising two-year war against government spending with President Obama and the recent defeat of the 2012 election, they are ready to cross the line and usher in this catastrophic plan:

House Republicans are seriously entertaining dramatic steps, including default or shutting down the government, to force President Barack Obama to finally cut spending by the end of March.

The idea of allowing the country to default by refusing to increase the debt limit is getting more widespread and serious traction among House Republicans than people realize, though GOP leaders think shutting down the government is the much more likely outcome of the spending fights this winter.

“I think it is possible that we would shut down the government to make sure President Obama understands that we’re serious,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state told us. “We always talk about whether or not we’re going to kick the can down the road. I think the mood is that we’ve come to the end of the road.”

These fiscal end timers know that with the deficit hysteria of the Beltway media being so pervasive, even if all hell breaks loose, they won't be blamed as much as they should since they'll have their media surrogates blaming Obama for any repercussions. And of course all these tea partiers and their media instigators realize that they and their families have not as much to fear from a destroyed economy. Certainly not like the millions of working class Americans who already have had to deal with the ripple effect and high unemployment of the worldwide mortgage scandal.

Here's something else these knuckle-dragging savages haven't thought about. There are close to 100 million payments made each month from the government for all types of responsibilities and there's no way the Republicans would be able to safely transition into not paying at least 40% of our bills. No one even knows how to calibrate the government computers to do that.

It's literally insane to believe that if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, it's no big deal. No matter how crackpots like Marsha Blackburn frame their lunatic arguments, they cannot contain the damage they'll cause, or control what bills get paid and when.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Monday said that she would be willing force a 'thoughtful' shutdown of parts of the United States government if President Barack Obama did not agree to deep spending cuts.

Heck, their plan reminds me of Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocols, based around a nuclear terrorist who wants to wipe out humanity via a nuclear Armageddon just so it will come back stronger than ever. These extreme conservatives believe America will be stronger if they drastically cut and gut the federal government while turning over the care of the state to the free markets. Sure, there are a few corporate R's like Murkowski who are starting to speak out against messing with the debt ceiling including the Koch Bros, but will it be enough to defuse the end timers' ticking time bomb?

I caught some of Obama's last presser of his first administration and although he is fighting against the psychos wanting to destroy the global markets by refusing to raise the debt ceiling; I just don't understand some of his other words pertaining to our economy. Why does the President spend so much time on convincing America that the deficit is the GOD of all things and he's there to reduce it in a balanced approach? That's not what he was elected for.

The always awesome Charles Pierce:

The general public seems to think that The Economy is defined by how many people are working and how many people are not. The political elite, including the president, and the courtier press that services that elite, all seem to define the economy through the deficit. The cognitive dissonance in Washington is about how best to deal with an economy defined by the deficit. The cognitive dissonance in the country is about how best to deal with an economy that is being defined at the highest levels of the government in a way that the rest of the country finds odd and inadequate. So when the general public hears the president say this...

As I said on the campaign, one component to growing our economy and broadening opportunity for the middle class is shrinking our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. And for nearly two years now I've been fighting for such a plan, one that would reduce our deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade, which would stabilize our debt and our deficit in a sustainable way for the next decade. That would be enough not only to stop the growth of our debt relative to the size of our economy, but it would make it manageable so it doesn't crowd out the investments we need to make in people and education and job training and science and medical research — all the things that help us grow.

...it thinks the president has his priorities in the wrong order. When he talks about The American People, and the Middle Class thereof, he ought not to convince himself that he was re-elected because he's the guy who'll best bring down The Deficit. He got re-elected because the other guy convinced America that he wouldn't much care if people ate grass by the side of the road. The people who voted for this president did not do so because they wanted a balance program to bring down the deficit. They did so because they thought he was less likely to make their everyday lives harder than they already are. Because, as the blog's First Law Of Economics states: Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money.

Prez Obama has used the Republican talking points about the federal debt for a long time now and I had hoped it would disappear for his second term, but I've been mistaken. I wonder if it's the Beltway Villagers unduly influencing his advisers to make sure he constantly talks like this when discussing the economy in front of America, or if he really believes this FOX News strategy. It makes no sense at all. Americans want to work. Americans want to make money.

That's what the economy means to them.

The additional maddening thing is that if you fix the jobs problem you largely fix the deficit problem. The reverse is not true. If you "fix" the deficit you kill the jobs.

It's that simple.

I didn't think I'd ever see the day when conservatives would disagree with their hero Antonin Scalia, but that's what's happening in the current gun control debate. It also points out how far outside the norm these gun nuts are when trying to defend the gun manufacturers over all Americans. When Larry Pratt says guns without limits, ---he's really just trying to be the pitchman for every gun /ammo manufacturer and supplier in America. It is really that simple.

FOX News Sunday:

WALLACE: OK. I want to get into one last issue, a bigger issue. Mr. Pratt, you say, one of the -- maybe the basic problem here, is that President Obama's disdain for the constitutional right to bear arms and, in fact, you have compared him to George III, British monarch during the American Revolution.

PRATT: He might be learning from his example.

WALLACE: Yes. But when the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment in the 2008 case, the Heller case here in D.C., I want to put up what Justice Scalia said. Let's put it up on the screen. "There seems to us, no doubt on the basis of text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms. Of course, the right was not unlimited." In fact, in his decision, Scalia talked about restrictions on what kinds of guns can be --

TANDEN: Absolutely.

WALLACE: -- guns can be sold, who can buy them and, where they can be carried. So, yes, he said, there is a Second Amendment individual right, but he didn't say it's without limits.

PRATT: Well, that was unfortunate because the Amendment does provide its own degree of scrutiny. It says shall not be infringed. And, we know that at least one justice, Mr. Thomas, takes that point of view.This is not something where the government is supposed to be free to tell we, the people, the government's boss, how much -- how far we can go with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government. Not the people.

WALLACE: So you think that Scalia was wrong when he said that that right is not unlimited?

PRATT: He was not speaking from a constitutional perspective.

WALLACE: And, finally, Ms. Tanden --

TANDEN: That was the Supreme Court Justice.

WALLACE: Pardon?

TANDEN: That was the Supreme Court justice.

WALLACE: Well, you disagree with Supreme Court justices all the time.

TANDEN: I do. But I'm surprised he is disagreeing with Justice Scalia on this issue.

The NRA puppets like Pratt are trying to get rid of every gun control law in America. It's pathetic and dangerous, but very profitable for all parties involved.

Are you ready for the CrazyTown USA on guns? It's here, it's near and coming to a wingnut village near you.

Toledo Blade:

The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education has approved the carrying of handguns by its custodial staff.The 5-0 vote of the board Wednesday night to allow handgun training for four custodians to be able to tote weapons at the K-12 campus at the Williams County school came after last month's deadly shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. School officials say that having armed personnel - believed to be the first for any school system in Ohio - is designed to thwart incidents of violence and prevent what happened in Newtown, Conn., from occurring here. "Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn't happen to you is just not good policy anymore. There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures," Supertendent Jamie Grime told The Blade today. "Having guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect."

School board President Larry Martin said that while the school district began looking into arming employees about six months ago, the board didn't announce the concept publicly until Wednesday's monthly meeting. He said the Dec. 14 massacre of 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook heightened the decision to put the resolution on the board agenda."Our main goal is to offer safety for our students while they are in the classrooms and in the buiding," Mr. Martin said. "We have to do something and this seems like the most logical, reasonable course to go with."Before voting on the resolution, which was approved 5-0, village Police Chief Jeffrey Lehman met with the board and superintendent in executive session to provide advice, suggestions, and his professional opinion, said Mr. Martin, a school board member for 20 years.

Have you ever heard of a more ridiculous idea than this in a long time? OK, strike that, but it's still insane, dangerous and very reckless.

Via Lawyers Guns and Money.

Really hard to see what could go wrong here. And given that school custodians are often poorly paid and treated as expendable labor, my thoughts that nothing could go wrong are only reinforced.