The Summoning of Drumpf. The Cons(ervatives) Have A Monster of their Own Creation

I endured another Republican debate last night for some low-grade entertainment and since my expectations were very low on the IQ spectrum, I wasn't disappointed. A true spectacle starring "Little Marco", "Drumph" and "Lying Ted", oh, and another guy...you know, that governor whose opposition to recognizing death certificates of spouses in same-sex marriage led to the Supreme Court historic case (Obergefell v. Hodges).
 

Fox News anchors made an effort to challenge Trump's inconsistencies, generalities, and bogus economic arguments, but debates aren't meant to truly examine issues in depth. The court of public opinion relies on the judgment of the public to evaluate a candidate and his arguments. In a court of law, there is the legal structure, and a judge that instructs the jurors and oversees the debate, but in politics there's none of that. 

In a way, it can be argued that collectively we get what we deserve. This is the problem of democracy--it relies on the quality of the people involved, leaders and citizens. No, I am not advocating authoritarianism; I'm merely pointing out the obvious, which has occurred many, many times in the past.  Indeed, if Trump didn't have many millions of Americans behind him, he would have been in the lunatic fringe. 

Though, another argument can also be made that the lunatic fringe has been petted, entertained, and even cultivated by the Republican party in the last 30 years. The Trump phenomenon is not new; it just happens that an arrogant egomaniac has a megaphone through which he expresses what a significant size of Republicans already believe and say. Yeah, even the third-grade language (no complete sentences), insults, vulgarity, ignorance of issues, and prejudice of the ..angry base have found a loudmouth to be uttered in the political debates of the elites.  As I said before, this is not good for our country and the way we should conduct our political discourse. 

Now, how should the Democratic nominee deal with Trump? To begin with, he has to be taken seriously--a lesson the Dems are learning today by watching the GOP's contest unfolding. To rely on the news media to challenge Trump's inconsistencies and voodoo policies isn't enough judging from history. Ridiculous claims must be addressed; don't rely on the media or the public to dispel them.

I don't think it'd be hard to get under Drumpf's skin and then watch his go unhinged. But, his appeal should not be underestimated. He has a message. His logo--Make America Great Again--is the only one people can recite. I doubt most people know what the other candidates' logos are! He's simplistic but that's easily understood (it doesn't have to be an intellectual understanding) by anyone, especially the low-information voters.

A couple more observations. The country is moving in a progressive direction, despite the loud noises coming from the conservatives and reactionaries. The Supreme Court will soon take a more progressive path. What was radical 20 years ago, it's mainstream today. Even the world "liberal" is now adopted as one of their identifiers by the majority of Dems in all states, except Oklahoma, though it's strong there too. Back in 2008, the majority of Dems didn't want to identify themselves as liberals.

This election, like many others, will be decided by turnout. The more people vote the better for the Dems. We've heard that Trump has brought in millions of voters, which is probably true, but he carries very high negatives, which alienates many conservatives who may stay home on election day. Despite the low(er) numbers in the Dem primary, the groups normally supporting them will be energized next Fall, especially if Drumpf is the GOP nominee. He has alienated some of the Republican base, many of the so-called independents, the Hispanics/Latino, Asians, and women. 

Here's a view from the conservative elite discussing Romney's intervention against Trump and why some Republican don't like him. Or, "why this Republican party must die".... [link, CNBC]
 

The Dems are more united and generally happy with either Clinton or Sanders. The SCOTUS issue is big and will loom even bigger this year given the obstructionist Congressional Republicans. The battle for the Supreme Court can energize both parties' bases, but here the Dems have an advantage in numbers, especially among women. Did you hear that single adults are now the majority of Americans? Given that women are the majority in the US, then single women are a powerful political block. Why "political"? Because they're motivated by political issues of great concern to them, like health care, education, reproductive choice, etc. They are overwhelmingly pro-choice, for example, and they care about other issues liberals/progressives champion.

What do US Conservatives Want? Regression Bathed in Trickle Down Piss and Freedom to be Poor, Ignorant & God-fearing!

I watched snippets of the CPAC--the largest annual gathering of conservatives--and I kept wondering how in the hell so many people fall for this bullshit. Most of it was trite exhortations about freedom, God, patriotism; labels, simplicity, and rightwingnuttery in ample supply. These people are fit for the Dark Ages. Any politician associated with this circus isn't appropriate to lead the country forward. But, that's the point: they don't want to go forward, but backward to the "good ol' days".... making a brief stop to Reagan's 1980s, and then a fast rewind to the days when unbridled capitalism ruled, when most people who got sick died, when religious morality & freedom meant discrimination, segregation, and bigotry. Yeah, that's the kind of America the conservatives want.


More often than not, the conservative disposition can be explained by a sense of a personal loss or a price to pay if the "unworthy others" receive anything from the social safety net. They don't understand that in a proper civic society everybody receives benefits. Everybody! From the very top to the bottom. More so, for those ontop, even though they don't see it that way, as if they operate in the vacuum of space--where they make their money of course. 

The following statement is, sadly, typical not only of a conservative mind but also of a college student. Most--and I include both sides of the political divide--don't know how to write a proper sentence or explain simple ideas, let alone the fundamental beliefs they hold. 

In my personal opinion, our democratic system has so many holes in it, which is leaking, causing chaos in peoples minds. With the recent reelection of Obama, there was clearly havoc that rose among people who are against him; and in good reason. Obama wants to redistribute the wealth of others to people who did not necessarily own it and he wants the government to pay for expenses for people that cannot afford it by taxing the wealthier class.  The government is basically making people rely on others to provide for them without really trying themselves, thus making this one of the laziest generations. 

I can't count the times I hear this theme from conservatives; it's part of their narrative along with misguided patriotism and inability to imagine reality. Yes, conservatives can't think in the abstract very well. That's why they may change their minds only if they experience something themselves. Have a gay son, oh, maybe it's OK. Hurricane Sandy destroys your home, oh, where's the government to bail you out? Have a retarded baby, oh, yes, how come we don't spend more to find a cure and support such. 

The conservatives have opposed the abolition of slavery, desegregation, equal rights for women, civil rights, personal reproductive choice, science, access to voting, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, clean air, consumer protection, science (yes, even science irks them!), etc, etc, oh, and electrification!  All those things that make our lives better and are the norm in every advanced liberal-social-democracy!  But, listen to the CPAC speakers and it's clear what horrible society we'd have if they got their way. Of course you have to part the smoke & mirrors of misguided patriotism, and the empty slogans about freedom. On your knees, you pitiful, wretched creature.  

 A Typical Conservative Prescription Bad for Your Health

 Gail Collins in this NYT editorial shows how the conservatives think and operate. If you think it doesn't matter, think again. Elections have consequences, from the state and local to the national and the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Texas is moving on to Step 2. As of September, it will require the clinics, which perform only simple early-term abortions, to have all the equipment, space and special air and water filters necessary to do a surgical procedure like a hip transplant. Miller determined the cost of complying would be in the neighborhood of $3 million per clinic.

There’s been a vague attempt to cloak all these new laws as health care imperatives, but, really, the cover is pretty thin. During the debate on the Texas bill, State Senator Dan Patrick told his colleagues to ask themselves: “How would God vote tonight if he were here?”

I am mentioning Patrick because this week he came in first for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, campaigning as “a Christian first, a conservative second and a Republican third.” He has also been desperately busy ginning up anti-immigration sentiment; this is the guy who claimed illegal immigrants were threatening Texas with “third world diseases” like leprosy. The lieutenant governor, by the way, is possibly the most powerful public official in the state.

Well, turnout for the primaries was very low. It was freezing down there on Tuesday. Once again, we leap at a chance to blame the weather.

The social right has been waving the banner of religious freedom lately. What that generally means is the right to impose one’s theology on other people. Particularly, it seems, when sex is involved.

For instance, the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide, in its next big Obamacare case, whether the craft-store chain Hobby Lobby can refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby actually already covers its employees’ birth control pills. Its owners just object to a few things, like intrauterine devices, because they have religious convictions against preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Scientists disagree that’s what an IUD does, but what the heck? It’s their theology.

The Texas conservatives are not alone. Again, take a look at the CPAC conference [here's their official site so you can watch their videos]where all the major conservative and Republican leaders attend and make speeches about the kind of society they want. 

Lincoln's Decision to Use Silver to Kill Vampires & Warewolves Instead of Buying Slaves Cost the Nation Dearly! (Enjoy Your Black History Month)

We like to believe what makes us feel good; it's called confirmation bias. So, why look any further? Oh, I don't know, it might be OK to keep in touch with reality, because understanding reality may have something to do with the decisions we make in real life.

How about history, the past? Bygones let them be bygones. There's no harm in revising history to fit a narrative we promote in contemporary politics. Racism, bigotry? All in the past. No need to have legal protections for people who may have had problems in the past--as the conservatives on the Supreme Court now tell us when they rule that racism is practically over, and that uninhibited access to voting, especially in the South and in GOP-dominated areas is good and dandy.

Personally, I find willful ignorance annoying. Those who spread stupidity and lies--like almost everyone at Faux News--are doing a disservice to our country. If I were to use their rhetoric, they're like Hitler holocausting history, and committing treason for betraying our country's noble mission statement, all men are created equal, and of-by-for the people.

 Revisionist history of the worst kind. The bullcrap of Faux News

 Just before Black History month ends (February), the vile opinionators (like that ass judge Napolitano in this video) at Fox News attempt to distort reality again. Jon Stuart's show has the perfect comeback.

Arctic Vortex Has Laid a Frozen Blanket in the Northeast. However, It Has no Effect on the Frozen Brains of Conservatives.

In the last several days it's been very cold around here, but it gets my blood boiling when the willfully ignorant keep arguing that this situation disproves climate change/global warming. Of course, the usual suspects are conservative voices, like their hired gun, Fox News, which has no credibility other than to reliably serve spiked coolaid to the already converted. 

Jon Stewart effectively mocks the stupid opinions of Fox News

When 97% of climate scientists say that the globe's weather has been adversely affected by human activities, it's most likely true; and it's prudent to act now in order to save our own species. How about the other 3% of doubting scientists? Many of them are paid by the fossil industry and rely on dubious studies or may have a good counter-argument. But, what should a prudent person do? Which advice should they take? At any rate, we cannot afford to be wrong in case our planet goes into a convulsion because of our activities. The opposite scenario, if true, doesn't have the same consequences.

Much of the United States was in the grips of the arctic vortex, or whatever voodoo magic libruls have conjured up.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I do not like the cold, but I don't like extreme heat & humidity either. Besides, with cold weather, even this deep freeze, there are remedies for most of us who can generate warmth and dress in warm layers of clothing. Personally, I can fight this cold, though it limits my activities outdoors.

On the other hand, extreme heat and humidity, say close to or over 100F makes it unbearable. Many hot days are very uncomfortable, almost suffocating. I read somewhere that subconsciously people prefer the very hot to very cold because of other associations, like vacations, longer daylight time, etc. OK. I'll buy that. 

Here are a few pictures I took in my neck of the woods in the last week or so. I checked today, and there's lots more ice everywhere. My fingers almost got a frostbite while taking these pictures as the wind was gusting at 30-50 mph.

The Hudson river, looking south. It's more frozen now.

Ft Montgomery area, where the river is relatively narrow, thus heaving a stronger flow, but still there's lots of ice.

The widest part of the Hudson river, looking north.

It's going to warm up in the next few days. Tomorrow it'll be around the freezing mark and go up a bit over the weekend. I missed my chance to throw a hot water in the air to see it vaporize. Ah, well. Stay warm.

Life, Death, Wishful Thinking, And The Devil Incarnate. All in this Week's Post. Come Right In!

I've listened to NPR's series "What Comes Next? Conversations on Afterlife" and I found it entertaining but nothing surprised me though. The philosopher argued the most interesting points, but the rest--from all sorts of religious points--made incoherent arguments for an afterlife. No proof offered, not even good reasoning. Of course, there were divergent opinions, because, guess what, they can't agree as they don't agree on what's in the mind of God. 

Basically what they proposed was some kind of a theme based on their pre-conceived notion that select ancients had captured God's dictation--which is quite preposterous. What comes out of these arguments is wishful thinking. People need to have hope to deal with their pending total annihilation, which, I admit, is not a pleasant thing to look forward to. But, I guess it's a matter of choice whether to believe in something that makes you feel good (better) than the unpleasant reality.

Like many true skeptics, I can't be sure of what happens after we die, other than our bodies, including our brains--the seat of conscience and individualism--decompose and wither away. Survival, for the person would mean the preservation of memory and personality as a minimum. Yes, our atoms will be recycled and combine with other atoms from and into other stuff. Every atom in our body has come from an exploding star! It's novel to think that way: We're star stuff. Of course, a negative person might call us ..nuclear waste.

But, a skeptic wouldn't make up stories of a nice outcome simply it feels better than any other alternative. That's what a scared person would do. It's the job of the religious leaders to get followers by delivering enticing but empty promises. And, they do this by appealing not to reason and evidence but to credulity, fear, and ignorance.

Did you know that in the past, Xtians didn't believe that their bodies will go with then during Rapture. Actually it made more sense that way, if you wanted a better experience without an old, wrinkled, sick body that had needs, some of which were "unclean urges." In the modern age, this changed. Many Xtians today believe they'll be raptured along with their bodies and that they'll go to heaven where they'll even see their pets there!

Speaking of beliefs, most Americans (US) believe in an afterlife. Actually many believe that it's probable Jesus will return in their lifetime--in the next 30 years. That would mean the end of times, or life as we know it.  Whatever. Reality doesn't depend on majority rule, and science didn't progress by polling public opinion. 

We're far behind when it comes to scientific literacy, thanks to strong religious beliefs--which are the strongest in the western world. That's why scientific facts are controversial in the US! The age of the earth, evolution, global climate changes, or even basic human reproduction fact. Public policy and much debate in our country is "informed" by faith. 

New Jersey Allows Same-Sex Couples to Marry

The NJ Supreme Court unanimously rejected the governor's (yes, that's Republican Christie) request for a stay, not to allow these marriages to happen because he argued "irreparable damage." The high court ruled the opposite, that no one would be hurt if it happened.

The governor wanted to put this into a referendum too. Which would be fine if we had settled on the question whether it's a right or a privilege for adults to associate & marry anyone they want. If it's a right, then a simple majority (or even an occasional  supermajority) should be able to deny rights. Slavery was quite popular back when.

What's the harm by allowing same-sex marriage? I'm not gay nor black. Should I care about them? Yes, because I want a tolerant, happy, free-from-prejudice society to live in. Have you noticed that a conservative (yes, Republican too) attitude is that they care when it affects them directly! They are not for a social safety net, funding for science, etc, unless they need those services. 

Some of the loudest voices complaining about government came from Republicans after superstorm Sandy. The same people who applauded Romney's statement that FEMA (and most other public emergency response agencies) be privatized! Much like that idiot governor from Louisiana who went on national TV (responding to one of Obama's speeches) to tells it's a waste of money for government to monitor volcanoes!

Dick Cheney is in favor of same-sex marriage because he has a lesbian daughter. Sarah Palin is in favor of funding research into finding treatment for childhood diseases. You guessed it, she has a child with Down's syndrome.  By the way, why is Palin still relevant? Why did Fox News hired her as a talking head? OK. I have the answer, no need to reply. I dare you though, if you can handle it, to watch her latest interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox about the government shutdown. In true-Palin fashion, she puts some nonsensical statements together, mixing irrelevant points, confusing terms, and it's pure nonsense. 

 Conservatives Accept Judge Scalia's Views as Intellectual Fortitude

Supreme Court Justice A. Scalia proves what we progressive have been saying all along: his an intellectual midget whose moral code and "informed opinions" come from the whackiest sources.

For those who might want to read the interview Scalia gave to the New York magazine, hit the link. Some of the highlights (lowlights):

• the devil is real; actually a real person who walks among us
• the Bible is a document that talks about real history, people, and events
• the Old Testament and the Gospels reveal truths about reality, the universe, morality, and why our legal system is based on such [it's not really, but that's what we get in Scalia, who's 1 of the 9 on the highest court of the land that interprets the US constitution!]
• "we're fools for Christ" [whatever this means]
• sources of information include conservative talk radio, the Washington Times (this scientology-owned, arch-conservative rag)

The Conservative Frame of Mind(less).... and, a Showcase of the Dimmest Stars at CPAC 2013

Is it the lack of imagination? Is it that conservatives have limited ability to think in the abstract? Or, is it that they don't care about anything that doesn't apply to them? Though I have to say that when it comes to wild, unsubstantiated, unreasonable conspiracy theories, the conservatives do come up with the silliest imagination. I'd call it "science fiction" but given their dislike for anything with science in it, it's best to label it "pulp fiction."

I began to ponder these questions after the conservative senator from PA changed his mind about same-sex marriage after his own son came out of the closet as a homosexual.
Sarah Palin used to tell us that it was creeping socialism/communism/fascism (she didn't really know the difference) when we spend for the social safety net; you know, that thing about the ..social contract. Anyway, if you had to guess the exception to this she was in favor?.... Oh, yeah, it was spending in support of and research for a cure for something she knew very well--child retardation. She couldn't imagine other instances whether poor mothers (or anyone in need) should need anything else in social and medical services.

Arch-conservative Dick Cheney is in favor of gay rights. Why? Because his daughter is a lesbian!

Likewise with all those idiots who worship saint Ayn Rand and her libertarian views, and all the other conservatives who hate "big government" guess what they usually say when a disaster strikes...  You've guessed it...."Where is the government to bail me out?"  Tropical storm Sandy caused tremendous damage in several states along the eastern seaboard, and it was state & federal agencies that came to help, because these are the ones who can actually be of help during these events.

Just a few weeks earlier, the Romney-Ryan dogma  touted that FEMA should be dissolved and its mission given to private entities. Of course, Sandy reminded people that leaders who don't have a positive proposal about government should not be in government!

Yeah, not only liberals have bleeding hearts but they're more likely to understand the needs of others, and be compassionate even when they're not personally affected by an issue. 

I didn't have to experience a gay member of my family, nor had to first make sure that Massachusetts didn't sink into the Atlantic after it passed its same-sex marriage law, nor had to see a lesbian couple in my neighborhood to be in favor of equal rights to marriage. 

In other words, it's nicer to be compassionate, giving, just, and understanding without being selfish first.

CPAC 2013--The Conservatives Showcase Their Dimmest Stars

 

 A political party has to remain relevant to exist, and political parties reflect public sentiment. Of course, leadership matters in moving public opinion. What's amazing about this Republican party is that many of its leaders believe the American public will move closer to its regressive positions. I have no idea why they believe that! Their most sacred policy proposals aren't liked by the majority of the US voter.

There are some voices within the GOP muttering that the more their policies see the light of day, the more the GOP is not liked!  The progressives have to keep harping on this, that parties and leaders who don't believe in a strong social safety net, positive government, in science, education, and a more equal economic field should don't deserve public support.

In the largest conservative meeting of the year, the conservatives got together in Maryland over the past weekend. Whom did they bring out to showcase? Not Christie or other moderates but this motley crew:

Sarah Palin, M. Bachmann, D. Trump, R. Santorum, Rand Paul, M. Rubio, Steve King (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Romney, P. Ryan, Ann Coulter, birthers, anti-science, anti-climate/environmental policies, tea party patriots, religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists, and Ronald Reagan's ghost (though his policies would be an anathema to this wingnut group).

I will not rehash here their lunacy, but I urge everyone who isn't aware of their extremism to check them out. When last semester I asked my students to research the parties' platforms as approved by their national conventions, many of those students were shocked by what they found out the GOP is about.

 

The Romney-Ryan Party Needs to be Defeated for its Own Sake and for the US

It is said the the choice for VP is the first major decision impacting the administration-to-be a presidential candidate makes. Well, there are political calculations, like balancing the ticket, or getting extra votes in certain states, etc. Most times, it's do-no-harm. McCain's blunder was that he was old, had several bouts with cancer (couldn't change that obviously) but he chose a totally inadequate VP in Sarah Palin--who, by the way, was recently told to stay away from the GOP convention this summer. 

To pay for whatever we decide we need to, I'm happy to be taxed at a rate twice as high as Romney! It's fair, no?... Ryan thinks so!

Anyway, a tea party congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, was chosen by Romney. This made conservatives (not the moderate ones) happy; it also made Dems and progressives happier. What many conservatives don't see is that their core policy platforms are not popular, nor will they be.


Those who say Romney will be a centrist--as he probably is on social issues, but not economic ones--and therefore will be a consensus president are absolutely wrong. He can't and he won't because he needs the nuts that have control of the GOP, in and outside Congress. He chose an extremist for his VP. Why wouldn't he choose the same for the Supreme Court? No, the Dems may block one nominee, but the president can nominate another equally conservative and extremist. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are already on the high court! The Supreme Court is always on the ballot during a presidential election. [I think it's been only J. Carter who didn't appoint a justice to SCOTUS.]

Romney demonstrates that he has to cater to the conservative base. He has already changed his moderate positions from when he was governor of MA. Now he says wants to overturn a health care law he signed in MA. His new positions are more in line with those of Ryan today. I doubt there will be another flip anytime soon after (if) he takes office. Besides, he will have to run 4 years later and he won't be able to go against a party emboldened by the 2012 victory. 

Fortunately, this won't happen. I think it'll be a blowout in the Electoral College, at least. If the GOP can't win at least one of Ohio, Penn, and Florida, it won't win the presidency. Yes, Obama's win will be smaller than in 2008, but he has plenty of room this year. For Romney-Ryan to win they have to have an unbelievably straight streak, winning all the toss-up states, and reverse the trends in the three mentioned above. 

Strangely, I believe another trouncing at the polls may be the best medicine for the GOP. The tea partiers, and the extremists need to be cut loose and lose big while they're controlling the agenda of the party. Yes, there are distinct visions for the future, policies, and approach to politics that have turned this GOP into a regressive party unfit for a modern country. Just look at the British or other modern conservative parties today. We progressives may not agree with them on many issues, but at least they are far more pragmatic! They accept science and the scientific way for goodness sake!

Summer Politics Worth of Staycation Laze [with an update!]

 Update, 8/11. What Delightful News!

Two days after I posted (below), Romney announced his VP pick, Paul Ryan! This is an unforced error by him. Perhaps it isn't in the order of Mac's Sarah Palin four years ago, but I think this will make it easier for the Dems to draw the distinction between sanity and the extremist elements in the GOP.

Ryan has drawn up a budget that gives tax breaks to the super-rich while cutting essential services to the poor & middle class. Every time the public is made aware of the Ryan plan's priorities it is greatly opposed, even by many Republicans! This is crucial, because he's a star in the GOP. He is of the ideological camp of the tea party conservatives that seem to control the party. This camp--with their ideas, policies, and personalities--is not popular on the national level. This is not where the country is nor where it's moving into!

The principle do-no-harm in picking a VP has been violated by Mitt. He will allow (hopefully) the Dems to draw a clear distinction and bring much national attention to the Congressional leadership of the conservatives. Ryan and other tea party leaders in Congress can do crazy stuff because they come from safe districts, but their nuttery is not good for national politics. Ryan, as R's # 2 heighten this contrast and brings forth what the Congressional Repubs actually want to do--which is not popular!

I do not think the wave of 2010--which was very bad for Dems--will occur again this year. Actually, I'm betting on the opposite, thinking that once the country will settle on re-electing Obama, that Romney's negative net [I don't remember if the GOP had a candidate whose negatives were higher than his positives, ever] will persist, and that turnout will be more suppressed on the Republican side, the Dems can hold the Senate and challenge the GOP for control of the House. Yes, I think now the House is in play.


No one can safely predict electoral outcomes, but I'm willing to say that this election will be a blowout, in the Electoral College at least!  I said the same thing earlier in the summer of 2008, and repeated it while the GOP and Sarah Palin were riding high around their convention time. I argued why the country was ready to move in a new direction and that McCain was the old guard, more of the same Bush-like crap.  As for Palin, I argued she'd be a dead weight and a negative the more the public got to actually know her. I'm repeating the same argument for Ryan now.

See you later; enjoy this fast-moving summer.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's talk politics before this summer is over and the dynamic changes after Labor Day and the two parties' nominating conventions. So, here are a few things: the nominating show, the economy, the problem with the base of the GOP, and looking into the magic bowl while chewing coca leaves... (or, something like that).

Invite or not Sarah Palin to speak at the GOP convention?

The Repubs are having their show in a couple weeks and Romney has vowed to pick his VP before then. The first rule is do-no-harm. The VP choice rarely adds anything to the ticket but it can be a drag as Sarah Palin demonstrated. At best, in an evenly matched prez field the VP can add a slight margin in his state (if it's competitive; Alaska wasn't in 2008, which was another mistake by McCain), and may add a very few more votes in a couple other states.


Here's the problem with Romney and the GOP: They are out of the mainstream. Most of their main policy proposals--as articulated on the state level, in Congress, and their affiliated tea parties--are not in line with the vast majority of Americans. Worse, if these policies and social issues stands are further explained to the public, their approval drops even lower. Worst, is that the country is moving away from them.

Romney was/is (?) a moderate, or someone who's a businessman and cares little about the social issues that don't affect his wealthy class. Yet, he wants to be president but unfortunately for him (and many other centrist Repubs) he has to go through a very conservative activist base. So, he flips-flops. He was for gun control, same-sex rights, choice, mandated health coverage, etc. He now had to denounce those views to be viable in today's GOP. 

The Chick-fil-A gay bashing issue is indicative of Romney's impossible conundrum. He avoided taking a position (as he has on many other social issues), because he can't have it both ways--he can't alienate the American public nor he can afford to turn away his activist but very conservative base. However, that inane leader of the Catholic League Donohue--who reflects the views of may social conservatives regardless of their particular denomination--has said that they're pondering sitting this election out, because they fear is confirmed they cannot trust Romney to be a social conservative!

Elections are decided on turnout to a great extend and it doesn't look good for Romney right now. Even as a known quality, even after having a Dem prez in office, Mittens was receiving fewer votes in the competitive primaries earlier this year than 4 years ago when he was losing to Mac! One might have expected a higher mobilization wave against the "Muslim Kenyan" in the Oval Office, but it's either because Anti-Christ's hold of the executive doesn't seem as too threatening or that Obama's centrist style is acceptable to most voters. Barry Hussein seems to have a much higher "likeability" index than Mittens!

As for the economy, people are pessimistic--they've been hurting since 2008--but not quite blaming Obama for the entirety of the misery. They don't see a good alternative in Mittens either. So, I suppose O's positives will hover around 50%, good enough for reelection, barring any major disaster before November.

It's often said that Americans don't really pay attention to politics in the summer. Maybe the don't follow the details {do they other times?} but impressions still are being formed about the major candidates. Two issues that aren't going away is how R made money at Bain Capital and his tax returns. The latter creates the impression that he's out of touch, that he's hiding something by not releasing older tax records. I think this is a case of double damnation--releasing the records or not.   

Even if Harry Reid--who claimed that a former Mitt associate said R didn't pay any taxes for 10 years--is wrong, I assume that most Americans wouldn't like it that a multi-millionaire pays half the rate most of us do. Yes, it's an issue with me as well. I'm in the so-called middle class and my tax rates are twice as Romney's 12.99% of his last tax return! I don't care how he gets his income. Well, actually I work hard while he collects dividends and interest from his vast fortunes. There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

And, the Repubs want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, which is another point the Dems must keep reminding everyone. Even billionaire Warren Buffet [clearly a ..traitor to his class] said that the rich always ask for more money so they can spend more and thus create more jobs! Obviously a ridiculous claim but one adopted by the GOP that wants to convince us the trickle down effect is rain and not the wealthy pissing on us.

Guns Don't Kill People! Then Why Shouldn't We Allow ALL and ANY Weapons?

Update, 7/30/12

The Second Amendment Has Been Turned Into a Sick & Deadly Joke. Who Are the Enablers of Death?

Those who don't like gun control now--after the theater massacre in CO--say "let's not politicize it". I say, we shouldn't if no aspects of this outcome are related to political decisions. Of course, we all know that the prevalence of gun violence in our society isn't because of our culture but also because of laws which are the result of political considerations, lobbying, and leadership.

Short on something?

Speaking of leadership, the president failed to lead, again, on this issue. He may lead, from the rear, in the near future if the country moves ahead on this issue and demands sensible gun controls. This issue is like so many others--oh, "controversial"--so Obama is cautious. Like he was with the Don't Ask Don't Tell, same sex marriage, taxes, etc. First the country moved, then this president followed instead of providing leadership.

Even most NRA members agree that sensible gun laws, better and more complete ones we have now, are needed! So, when will this president and Congressional leaders take on this issue? Why isn't there a federal law prohibiting assault weapons, certain ammo, and requiring background checks and waiting periods? 

Not turn-the-other-cheek fellow.

One of the stupidest arguments is that "the Gov will take away our freedom if it takes away, or knows about, our guns!" Oh, really? IF it comes to that, it will be too late indeed; the GOV always has more and bigger guns. We would have lost our fundamental freedoms well before that. And, we'd lose those freedoms by being idiotic, apathetic, and having a bumper-sticker mentality!

Modern societies have progressed from the days when justice and protection was up to each person--if they could afford it. Disputes are better solved without violence and if there's violence deadly weapons aren't used. We tried the method of everybody carrying a gun to defend themselves and we, at least most of the advanced societies, decided to change that. 

Disarm?

Sure, it's possible that the Colorado incident might have turned out differently had most of the theater audience packed guns. How different, I'm not sure. On campus where I work we've talked about the V Tech student massacre few years ago--when one person walked on campus and killed 30+ people. Maybe that would have happened if faculty, staff, and students had been carrying guns. However, what would happen every other day?! And, what would the atmosphere be when everybody knows a dispute can escalate into bullets flying everywhere?!
 

The Notion of Freedom 

I will not tire repeating that freedom is not just the absence of restraint! Yet, this is how most Americans define it, but this is rather inadequate nowadays. Obstacles to freedom include poverty, illiteracy, prejudice, tyranny of the majority, disease, lack of opportunity, etc.  


From my perspective, having the freedom to carry a gun and use it for protection is not as important as having health care, education, and be in an environment that allows me to reach my potential.  I cannot understand why having limits on the types of weapons I can buy, the types & amount of ammunition I can obtain, or restrictions on how and where to use certain weapons is limiting my true freedom. 

If guns don't kill people, then why have any limits? How about licensing nukes, armed fighter planes, and dirty bombs? Don't we need such weaponry for hunting or target practice? Obviously no one needs this weapons or huge ammo clips that attach to machine guns. If then it's about the effects οf weapons, then reasonable restrictions are necessary.


Necessary gun control plus some common sense enhance everyone's freedom and the quality of life.
........................................

Update, 7/27

The NYT has an editorial today reflecting many of the points here. Both candidates for president, but especially the sitting president failed to take this opportunity to lead and push for sensible gun laws.  On the other hand,  NYC mayor Bloomberg has been right on this issue all along. 

“Maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”Mayor M. Bloomberg

As much as Obama has been lukewarm on many important issues, GOP flag bearer Mittens Romney is ridiculous. When he was one-term Gov of MA, he advocated all sorts of good things--health care, gun control, same-sex unions, abortion rights, etc. Of course by vying for the leadership of a lunatic party he changed his tune completely. 

And, this is my argument with people who say voting for Romney will not make much of a difference and that maybe he'll be more effective than the siting president. This is wrong on so many counts. Romney will have to govern with this Republican party, with its extreme policies and backward party line. He has flipped-flopped from his centrist positions and he'll most likely won't go back to them if elected. Plus, he'll be running for reelection which will make it even harder to adopt centrist policies.

On the other hand, Obama might be freer to pursue sensible policies (more) boldly after November thinking of his legacy and not of reelection in 2016.

Religious Freedom in America. Theocracy is Trying a Comeback

As many faithful here in the US have been celebrating some of the most important religious holidays in April, it's worth noting that the many of our compatriots don't understand the constitution, do not have knowledge of our history, and, most importantly, do not recognize other people's rights when it comes to religion, nor do they recognize the wall of separation between church and state.

This is one of the better documentaries I've seen on the issue of religious freedom. The focus is King, North Carolina, but the statements and beliefs those residents also reflect religious people all over the country. What's great about this documentary is that once the subject of religiosity is examined beyond the slogans and bumper-sticker mentality, a whole other pictures emerges: that of contradictions, belief without even a smidgen of skepticism, lots of ignorance of someones' own faith, and ample fanaticism.

 

It's a long documentary but definitely worth-watching. Scott Burdick became a filmmaker after he witnessed the small town of King, NC having a rally for Xtianity that had been ignited by a returning Afghanistan veteran who threatened to sue the town if they didn't remove the Xtian flag from the public Veteran's Memorial.

There are the voices of intolerance but also of those who, in the name of religious freedom, argue for a separation of Church-state. There are also a few skeptics and non-believers, but I think the best effect comes not from those who criticize the believers but from the believers themselves.

Richard Dawkins commented, 

"One highlight, for me, was the spectacularly stupid woman around 0:22:40. She begins by denying that God could ever sanction slavery. Scott then gets her to read aloud the relevant passage from Leviticus and she then completely changes her tune, saying that homosexuality is worse than slavery. That's right: homosexuality is WORSE than slavery. Why? Because the Bible condemns homosexuality and (as she has just that minute learned from Scott) it doesn't condemn slavery.

Even more horrifying is the section (starting around 0:59) labelled "Following Orders": a covert allusion to the Nuremberg Defense. Scott asks people to put themselves in the position of Joshua, ordered by God to slaughter the native peoples already living in the promised land, or of Abraham, ordered by God to sacrifice his son. One after another, the faith-heads say (reluctantly in the case of the young man with glasses and curly hair, but with something close to relish in the case of the odious man with a bald head and little beard) that yes, they would commit genocide and infanticide if God ordered them to. This is as clear an illustration of the evil of religion as I have come across for a long time."

With all the tools of reasoning and knowledge, and having the relative safety, leisure, affluence, freedom it's truly incredible why people believe crazy stuff. Take the identifiers out, or the identity of the author, and then examine the moral imperatives in holy books... most people would see the horrors and the ridiculousness of those beliefs. They do that for the ..others people's faith already! 

So, it must be a virus of the mind: self-replicating, zombiefying, fear-inducing, paralyzing, reason-killing, hiding the infection and making the host believe this virus is the host's greatest asset!

And, now something totally new.... (or, old)

Author D.M. Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S.)

Evidence is for persons who are curious about what actually happened or actually is, so no evidence can convince the religious fanatics. They ask for a ton of evidence from the skeptics (and that the skeptics ..prove there's no god) while they present none to prove their own extraordinary claims. 

The Theater of the Absurd Keeps Performing, and Amazingly Attracting Audience!

The last GOP debate before "super Tuesday" took place yesterday with hyperbole and hubris at center stage.  I liked the audience booing too. This theater of the absurdity is beyond critical evaluation; it's entertainment of the lowest (and we know how low this is) common denominator in Republican politics today.

Here's a better, funnier, cleverer clip of Jon Stewart. Enjoy! Don't even think why so many Americans actually believe the crap the conservatives have been dishing out, because you'll probably weep.

Controversy over contraception. There they go again: "Sex for Pleasure isn't Good". Surely they're fucking with us!

WARNING: If you're offended by sex, vulgarity, by a rational argument against nuttery, or, if you don't want to think about sex, sexual innuedo and sexual intercourse, and why people have sex for fun, (I know, it's too late now not to think about those things) DO NOT read the following post.... So, you are forewarned. And, by the way DO NOT look at the picture below).

****

An appropriate solution to those who oppose contraception?

Persons who have the least experience in (good, mature) sex tell us that sex isn't good for us!  Many of the strongest advocates of this nuttery are some clergy who looked the other way (or, shielded the many perverts who were raping children). Not to be remiss, a bunch of conservative religious pricks in the US stick their heads in our private affairs-- instead of sticking their heads in the usual place, you know,whether the sun doesn't shine.

No fucking for pleasure they argue, because, god-knows where this may lead.... Or, is it using contraception the main problem? Maybe that's why those rapists in the church overwhelmingly chose to molest--you know, orally and anally--children of the faithful. Ergo, no need for contraception there. Why not sex for pleasure, you ask? Because if it's for pleasure, then what happens to the religious view of the perverse human nature? And, bodily pleasures [this should include food, sports, movies, art, and all mental/emotional rewards] take away from worshiping our imaginary tormentor. This is the purpose in life, isn't it?...

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Did you notice that God didn't do anything about it while this was taking place in his house of worship. Not one of those sodomites was struck dead. Maybe god is OK with it. Or, maybe he doesn't really care what the fuck we humans do down here. It's up to us to decide what's good or bad! It's up to us to think whether it makes sense to use contraceptives to plan family size and for women's health. It's up to us to rationally think and act without some false divine and private revelation, and without the perverse interpretation of some inane passage in the book god allegedly wrote.

It's, therefore, up to us to fuck however we want, among consenting adults, and have fun while doing it. Those who dislike sex do not have to have it. Or, they do not have to use contraceptives. But, most importantly, they should stay the fuck out of our way.

Poorly designed church mural

UPDATE: I'm not claiming popular wisdom as being always right, but when it comes to personal choices, and what the insurance companies, health providers should do, it's a clear majority of Americans who believe contraception/family planning should be provided to employees. Those organizations who extend their domain into health care, insurance, etc, should be required to provide for such services as deemed appropriate in a modern society.

It has nothing with religious freedom. They're free to worship and believe in any god and in Divine revelation. Can you imagine, say the Mormon Church, arguing that it would not have to pay for goods and services if such were rendered by a black person? Oh, it was the Mormon dogma (until 1979) that blacks were inferior. OK. That's what that church believed; it was its right not to admit blacks or other minority. That's freedom of religion.

• 73 percent of Democrats agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 65 percent of millenials agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 62 percent of women agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 58 percent of Catholics agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 57 percent of all voters agree “that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”
• 55 percent of ALL Americans agree that employers should be required to offer health plans that cover contraception at no cost.
• 53 percent of Catholic voters agree“that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.”

Those who want to deny health services on moral grounds should get out of that business. Imagine a doctor who has a religious belief that would prevent him from treating a particular injury when you're rushed to the ER?  Preposterous. I know. We have to let them  know too.

I'm not usually this vulgar as when I wrote this post, but I resent being told about morality from those who have no shame and have no hesitation in wanting to force others to follow their perverted ways!

When the Party of Crazy Gets a Seat at the Discussion Table

The flat-earth people have gotten a chair at the table and are now part of the discussion on the nature of our planet—and this (about the planet)is an assumption of mine, because I’m not sure they even believe the earth is a planet. I hear voices that say there should be a compromise, and why can’t our leaders come to a solution…

Sure, let’s all agree that the earth is ..square—which is the compromised position between those who say it’s flat and those who say it’s round! Plus, from now on, we have to set policies based on this concept of reality (or delusion).

Since WW 1, Congress has routinely increased the debt ceiling over 70 times! For the last 10 years, all of those Republicans who now care about the deficit have voted for the increase every year! This is a manufactured crisis and a waste of time and money. The GOP’s best hopes for defeating Obama (especially given the declared presidential candidates) is to make sure the economy is as bad as they can make it. In addition, the party of crazy (Tea Party) has undue influence on the Congressional Republicans to the point that the GOP leadership is powerless to deliver an acceptable solution.

Even The Wall Street Journal and many other conservatives have been urging the GOP to drop this stance and promptly vote to maintain the US’s financial responsibility. This is not the same as maintaining huge deficits. In good times, there should be surpluses (like during Bill Clinton’s second term), but when there’s a true need, we must spend. This whole capitalist economy (and most of us individuals) use credit when we need it. When sick, you buy the medicine needed for recovery.

Isn’t time we started calling a spade a spade? It’s a disservice by the media to frame this issue in general terms of conflict politics, gridlock, need to compromise, etc. Defaulting on our obligations is a bad thing; it very simple.

Soon we have to have a serious discussion about national priorities, funding for the programs we need, and how to pay for them. John Stuart Mill noted that the worth of the state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it. How true it is.

Yes, our system (the greatest ever devised by man) is complicated and gridlocked, but as long as there is a critical mass of political “floaters” (low information voters who frequently move from side to side) and others distracted by ..shiny objects (words & symbols), then change will be very slow and costly.

The Party of Crazy.

It's a sad day for the US when the president has to stoop to the level of stupidity and political absurdness by having to prove he's a US citizen! It has to do with the conservatives and bigots who will never accept Obama as a legitimate president. Even though this campaign to de-legitimize this Democratic president has racial undertones, the same people did it to president Clinton.

By the way, there's nothing that will satisfy the "birthers" and those who will never accept Obama's legitimacy to be president. It's not a simple political disagreement here. Bush was awarded the presidency in 2000 but even though we hated his policies we recognized that half of the country voted for him. I think Obama calculated that he'd score some political points by presenting the "long form" of his birth certificate, and that the clueless "floaters" [low-information, highly impressionable voters] were buying the birthers' conspiracy! Whatever.

Such campaigns of stupidity take hold because there's a critical mass in the US that support it. Haven you noticed something else? The crazies tend to congregate in the Republican party and the conservative base. Nowhere in no time* the Democratic party, and the progressive voters, allowed for such craziness to take hold. There is a reason why the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et. al (too many to mention) don't exist on the progressive side. 

We had liberal populists but any presidential candidate that broke the 5% approval was not politically extreme. Take a look at the field of the GOP presidential candidates fro, 2008 until the next presidential election next year... Oy!

OK, I haven't forgotten the Congressional Republican leadership and their demonstrated values and priorities, but for now... it's the economy, stupid!


Update: * Obviously, the history of the Democratic Party has had its shares of kooks, but I meant in my lifetime, in the last couple generations, no crazy extremist has gained acceptance by the rank and file. The Republican party was the progressive party during the Civil War and up to the start of the 20th century when there's was a split--with the progressives leaving it (like Theodore Roosevelt), charging the GOP as a offshoot of the big business interests.