Dear Commons Community,

I have been trying to figure out Rick Santorum’s comment about President Barack Obama and “phony theology”.  I did not get it.  If you missed it,  in a speech to Tea Party conservatives on Saturday in Columbus, Ohio, Santorum had dismissed Obama’s politics as being based in “some phony theology.”

“It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs,” Santorum said. “It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.”

It seems I am not alone.  Yesterday on Meet the Press, the  host, Bob Schieffer began his interview with Santorum by asking, “What in the world were you talking about?”  Santorum’s reply:

“I’ve repeatedly said I don’t question the president’s faith, …I’ve repeatedly said that I believe the president’s Christian — he says he’s Christian. But I am talking about his worldview, the way he addresses problems in this country, and they’re different than most people view it in America.”

“I was talking about the radical environmentalists,” Santorum said, suggesting that they believe man should protect the earth, rather than “steward its resources.” “I think that is a phony ideal. I don’t believe that’s what we’re here to do … We’re not here to serve the earth. That is not the objective, man is the objective.”

Sorry I still don’t get it. This morning on Morning Joe (MSNBC), six news and media people were still trying to figure out what Santorum meant.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Quantum computing came a step closer as Australian and American physicists  built a working transistor from a single phosphorus atom embedded in a silicon crystal.   The New York Times reported that:

“The group of physicists, based at the University of New South Wales and Purdue University, said they had laid the groundwork for a futuristic quantum computer that might one day function in a nanoscale world and would be orders of magnitude smaller and quicker than today’s silicon-based machines.”

Imagine computers operating at the atom level.  The speed and capacity of such computing would be many magnitudes greater than what we have today and the cost would be significantly cheaper.  Such devices would be able “to solve problems beyond the reach of today’s machines”.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

With the Michigan Presidential Primary a week away, the New York Times has republished Mitt Romney’s op-ed piece entitled, Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.   Originally published on November 19, 2008, it basically advises the Detroit automobile industry (GM, Ford, Chrysler) that the best thing they could do is to declare bankruptcy and restructure:

“IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

Given that all three automakers have bounce back well (GM recently had its best quarter ever last),  Romney is busy having to explain his business “acumen” to Michigan voters.

Romney sounds a little like President Gerald Ford in 1975 who in essence said “drop dead” in terms of helping New York City out of its fiscal crisis.  The comment cost Ford his re-election.  Will it cost Romney the primary in Michigan or should he win, cost him the presidential election should he be the Republican nominee.

Tony