"I love the way he lights up around his kids" and other Republican speech thoughts

First, let me take something totally out of context, the way the Republicans are running with Obama's inept comment about entrepreneurs. 

Here's Romney's comment about his running mate Paul Ryan:

"I love the way he lights up around his kids . . ."

Wow, I thought when I heard this.  But it makes sense from a man whose religion forbids smoking.  It must be thrilling to see someone have the freedom to light up around his kids.  Of course, I'm assuming it meant tobacco and not that medicinal herb, cause then we'd need to know about Ryan's health issues. 

Fortunately for the Democrats, they don't have to take an out of context comment like this and run ads riffing on it, because Romney and his colleagues like Rep. Akin say enough real stuff to give them serious political ammunition.

I heard Marco Rubio and part of Romney's speech.  A few quotes from Rubio I thought worth commenting on:

"Our national motto is "In God we Trust," reminding us that faith in our Creator is the most important American value of all."

It's interesting that Romney, a little later would say:

"And I will guarantee America's first liberty: the freedom of religion."

Let's remember exactly what the First Amendment to the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Given the first Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion by Congress, it seems strange to claim 'faith in our Creator' as the most important American value of all. I understand the First Amendment was to get government out of the religion business and letting people practice as they please.  I would think justice and freedom would be higher on the list.

 Wikipedia reminds us "In God we Trust" was not the motto of our founding fathers. 

Never codified by law, E pluribus unum was considered a de facto motto of the United States^{[citation needed]} until 1956 when the United States Congress passed an act (H.J. Resolution 396), adopting "In God We Trust" as the official motto.^[4]

And reports tell us that the convention protestors were not allowed to assemble any closer than 10 blocks from the convention.


Rubio spoke movingly about his dad.

My dad was a bartender. . . A few years ago during a speech, I noticed a bartender behind a portable bar at the back of the ballroom. I remembered my father who had worked for many years as a banquet bartender.

But I couldn't help think that if everyone in the US shared Mitt Romney's values about drinking alcohol, Rubio's dad wouldn't have had a job.

And then there was the homage to the convention theme of American exceptionalism:

"For those of us who were born and raised in this country, it's easy to forget how special America is. But my grandfather understood how different America is from the rest of the world, because he knew what life was like outside America."

Rubio's granddad, as I understand it, before coming to the US only knew Cuba - the country the US has been boycotting since Castro came to power over 50 years ago.    I have no doubt that Rubio's grandfather loved his life in the US, and his gratitude for living here is appropriate.  But I'm not buying his expertise on how things are in all the rest of the world 'outside America."  There are a lot more options than Cuba. 

The US is an amazing country and has been an inspiration to people around the world.   But so was Germany before WW I. After the humiliating Treaty of Versailles,  Hitler promised Germans he'd regain their former greatness.  Rubio suggests Romney, too, will restore the US to its former greatness and beyond:

Mitt Romney believes that if we succeed in changing the direction of our country, our children and grandchildren will be the most prosperous generation ever, and their achievements will astonish the world.

Pride is one of the seven deadly sins.  Given that Rubio had already ranked faith in the creator as his number one value, you'd think he would remember this line from Proverbs:

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

I hope you realize this has not been a review of Rubio's (and certainly not Romney's) speech.  I've just taken a few lines.  Some of my comments are more serious than others.

I hope enough Americans realize, when they hear speeches like this analyzed by the media, that they too are taking what they see as the most interesting lines or the lines most likely to gain hits for their online articles.  Listen to or read the speeches yourself.

Rubio's speech.
Romney's speech.

How Many Ways Are There To Steal An Election? And Why Doesn't Anyone Care?

Americans have long taken pride in their free elections and think of voter fraud in the US as something part of history (Such as Chicago's slogan "Vote early and vote often" and stories of people voting using the names of dead voters.)

We are even proud to send observers to countries where democracy is new and governments untrustworthy.  But we have plenty of stories of problems in the US.

Alaska has a primary election today.  Given Anchorage's municipal election fiasco in April, voting machine expert and blogger Brad Friedman has posted about our voting machines and the elections practices that make them vulnerable to fraud in today's election:

Of course, there are "tamper-evident" security seals placed over some of the most vulnerable parts of the optical-scan systems, and those could never be defeated without leaving visual clues behind, right?

Well, funny thing. In Alaska, when a security seal is discovered broken on their tabulation computers --- if they are discovered broken --- poll workers are instructed to simply replace it with another one and start the voting, as both several poll workers, as well as an Alaska election official (who has now been fired) confirmed with The BRAD BLOG. Several seals, the now former Alaska election official told us when she still had a job, are provided to poll workers to make replacing broken seals very simple, as seen in this next photo...

So why would Election Officials in the Last Frontier instruct poll workers to simply replace broken seals before the election, which would seem to defeat the entire point of using "tamper-evident" seals in the first place? It's a good question, especially when these machines --- which will be used once again in more than 1,000 jurisdictions in all or parts of 24 different states during this November's Presidential Election --- have been shown by many many official studies over the last decade to be incredibly vulnerable to nearly undetectable manipulation.

I would note that this is not a case of local bloggers being asleep, they have helped Friedman get information for this post.



 The Economist has an article about stealing elections that lists several ways to steal an election.   First a few based on a study by a University of Essex researcher.

1.  blatant ballot stuffing (is declining)
2. alter election laws (increasing)
   [Republicans have used 'voter fraud' as an excuse to require photo id's to vote in a number of critical states.  We know that a large proportion of people without photo id's are likely to vote Democratic (and student id's with photos are not allowed in some states).  Documented cases of voter fraud are almost non-existent in these states.  Critics are calling this 'election-fraud' NOT voter fraud. See NY Times "The Myth of Voter Fraud.]
   
3. gerrymandering unlosable constituencies
   [The Alaska Redistricting Board, while more careful than past boards, has managed to endanger seats of members of the Senate coalition and Fairbanks Democratic Senators and representatives by how they drew the lines.]
4. vote-buying, using state resources in campaigning, and exploiting partisan media.
   [More common outside the US, however the Citizens United Supreme Court decision appears to have had a similar effect by unleashing unlimited private money, in some case undisclosed, that can be spent influencing voters.  And Fox News was already doing this without contributions.]
5. Some fraud masquerades as incompetence.  From a Duke study by Judith Kelly (also in the Economist article)
1. "Too few voting slips, patchy voter lists, and long queues at polling stations distort elections as surely as burnt ballot boxes and bribes. Yet election observers are likely to withhold their worst scoldings if the line between cock-up and corruption is unclear."
   [This is a large part of the problem we had in Anchorage in April] 
6. "intimidation, sabotage (doors being glued shut, for example, in Russia) or manipulation" of poll watchers.
7.  "Another dodge is to invite more than one mission" of poll watchers (external groups coming to verify elections.) 
   
   Then there's a whole new way to steal elections in the last 20 years:
8.  Tampering with Voting Machines
   Here is a video from Princeton University showing how to steal an election by messing with the software.
   
   
   

We use Diebold machines in Anchorage.  Our last election showed a number of irregularities, including seals that can easily be tampered with.  Our election officials allow voting machines to overnight with election workers and election workers are told not to worry about broken seals.  [SEE, I CAN JUST WRITE THAT WITHOUT BOLD PRINT OR EXCLAMATION POINTS, BECAUSE I TOO NOW TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.  We're like the slowly boiling frogs.  Wow, finding a boiling frog link even explodes that myth.]

If I were going to steal an election by tampering with the machines, I'd try out some things in elections before I wanted to strike.  Maybe someplace remote, like Alaska.  Test things out, lull the public into believing that, "well there are problems, but no one actually fixed the election."  That happened in Anchorage in April.  Few seemed to care about all the well documented problems, "because none of the races was close."  Then I would try it out on a specific race.  There's a perfect one to try this on today.

In today's election, international mining interests and other resource developers like Shell ($150,000 contribution)  had raised, by the end of July, over $700,000 to defeat proposition 2.  (Those supporting proposition 2 had only raised $150,000.)  The resource exploitation industry has an obvious interest in preventing the reactivation of the Coastal Zone Management program that existed for over 25 years in Alaska until the governor and the legislature could not agree on legislation to extend it.  The video shows how little it would take to manipulate the voting machines.

We do have the advantage of having back up hard copies of ballots.  But the Anchorage election in April showed how those hard copies could be mishandled.  There were many, many questions  about what happened to the hundreds and hundreds of questioned ballots.  If any of the races had been decided by less than several hundred votes, there would have been no way to verify who was really elected.

Alaskans,   elections are the foundation of democracy.  Are we going to hold state election officials and legislators accountable for making our elections incorruptible?

And what happens here is happening in different scenarios around the country.  So all you non-Alaskans have work to do as well.  And if anyone thinks that last sentence ignored my international readers, you're included.  The Irish threw out €54 million in voting machines because they weren't safe from tampering.   [Mac users, you can get the Euro symbol (€) by typing Option+Shift+2]

Do we need to call the UN to send election observers to the US in November? 



Other sources on stealing elections:

Foreign Policy has an article on how to steal elections that's quite similar, though it is focused on  countries with few checks and balances.

The vulnerablility of voting machines from ars technica.

A long Alternet piece on stealing elections has this subtitle:

Americans cling to an idealized image of our political integrity, but a look at how we run our elections tells a very different tale.

Gallup Poll senior editor David Moore has written a couple of books on this topic as specifically relates to polling and public opinion.  


I realize the title promises something on why we don't care about this.  I could change the title, but I think it's probably as important as the part on stealing elections.  Let me start a list of things that make sense to me.

1. People commiting election fraud have gotten the media to focus on VOTER fraud.
1. OK, I'm guessing about who is doing this, but googling the question comes up with stories about VOTER fraud, not election fraud. 
2. Those making money off voting machines have a vested interest in people believing they are safe.  
2. People don't know there's a problem because we don't change our basic beliefs easily.  Americans have been taught that American democracy is untouchable.  That's in part what the Republican platform title "American Exceptionalism" is all about.
3. Some people don't care as long as it benefits their side.
4. Americans are overwhelmed by things they should be worried about and so they do nothing about any of them.  (Or pick an issue and work on just that one.) 
   
   
   Readers, you have to supply the rest.

If The Democratic Convention Were Postponed By a Hurricane . . .

You know that some of those conservatives who regularly talk with God would be telling us about divine intervention.

But, since I checked before posting this, it seems a lot of others have made similar observations.

Dana Milbank at the Washington Post fills out this thought most clearly:

By their own logic, Republicans and their conservative allies should be concerned that Isaac is a form of divine retribution. Last year, Rep. Michele Bachmann, then a Republican presidential candidate, said that the East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene — another “I” storm, but not an Old Testament one — were attempts by God “to get the attention of the politicians.” In remarks later termed a “joke,” she said: “It’s time for an act of God and we’re getting it.”
The influential conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck said last year that the Japanese earthquake and tsunami were God’s “message being sent” to that country. A year earlier, Christian broadcaster and former GOP presidential candidate Pat Robertson tied the Haitian earthquake to that country’s “pact to the devil.”
Previously, Robertson had argued that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for abortion, while the Rev. John Hagee said the storm was God’s way of punishing homosexuality. The late Jerry Falwell thought that God allowed the Sept. 11 attacks as retribution for feminists and the ACLU.

Science anyone?

Republican Platform Committee Discusses Civil Unions

For Democrats who think all Republicans are nasty and uneducated and incapable of a civil discussion, watching the Republican Platform Committee discuss amendments might be a hopeful contrast to the way Republicans often appear on television and on the internet.  Even on Republican websites. 

I found these videos yesterday when trying to find a copy of the draft Republican Platform. I clipped a copy of the discussion of an amendment to recognize civil unions - same sex as well as one man/one woman - and allow marriage to be a religious sacrament.

The amendment didn't pass, but the fact that it was proposed and discussed without acrimony may come as a shock to some. For that reason alone, it's worth watching. I apologize for not quite mastering the trick of making clips from C-span videos. I cut out a minute or so from the beginning.

 [I thought it would play here, but if you click on the upper right corner - more info - it will take you to the clip on C-span.]





 You can see the complete video (there are two days of videos) of this and other discussions by the Republican platform committee. From the hour or so that I watched, I'd say that not too many amendments seemed to pass.

Republicans Finally Agree with Democratic Stance on Abortion: "It's a distraction."

Morning Edition had a three minute piece on Rep Akin's rape/aborition comments  . . .

Morning Edition host Steve Innskeep cites an LA Times report

"that in 2008 Romney touted the support of the doctor behind the Akin theory  that raped women don't get pregnant. . . 

Then he goes on:

Since that detail of the story emerged, the Romney campaign has only agreed to local interviews under the conditions that the reporters agree not to ask about Akin or abortion.

"It's a distraction.  We don't need any distractions, especially the week before our convention."  Republican consultant Ed Rogers says this controversy is a gift to Democrats and an albatross for Romney.

"It's cost him days when he could be having a message about something else, particularly about the economy.  And instead of having a message about that, we're talking about one of the wackiest things said in American politics this year . . ."

Let me get this straight.

1.  Discussion of abortion is a distraction from more important issues?  It seems to me for the last 30 years the Republicans have been using abortion as a distraction from the more important issues, because it got them money and votes.  But now that discussing abortion hurts Republicans and helps Democrats, it's suddenly a distraction. 

2.  Romney refuses to have interviews unless Akin and abortion and Romney's past support for the doctor Akin cites as the source of his 'raped women don't get pregnant' remark are off the table.  Is that also going to be a condition for the presidential debates?

3.  Republican consultant Rogers dismisses Akin's abortion view as irrelevant because it's  "The wackiest thing said. . ."   Let's play that back again slower.   Akin sponsored anti-abortion legislation that Paul Ryan co-sponsors that includes banning abortion in the case of rape and incest and he justifies this because rape victims can't get pregnant.  And this is irrelevant?  Republicans refuse to talk about it?  Sorry, it's not on my agenda, next question please - one about the economy. Why don't they just plead the fifth?

The 'distraction,'  it seems to me, is that attention is being put on Republican attempts to shut down every woman's access to abortion, even rape victims.  The Republican political agenda is intended to put the spotlight on the areas where they think Obama is vulnerable, and far from the areas where they are vulnerable.  

This is a distraction only if you are a paid consultant whose job it is to manage what Americans are talking about, because you've failed miserably in that agenda management.  Because one of the wacko (that's the Republican consultant's word not mine) politicians that you've helped get elected has escaped his handlers and said publicly what he really believes.  And you know that there are a bunch more wacko politicians out there who could do the same thing. (I heard some of the Alaska versions talking crazy like this when I was blogging the legislature.)

The Republican Platform on Rape and Abortion

If you google "Republican National Platform" there are a lot of links that pop up talking about the platform and abortion - but they are all news outlets and blogs talking about the platform.  Finding the platform itself is proving more difficult, at least for me. (If anyone has a link, please put it in the comments!)

C-Span reports that the draft platform has been sent to delegates for adoption on the first day of the convention, Monday. 

GOP.com offers the 2008 platform.

C-Span has video of the Republican Platform meetings.  I haven't looked at them, but they might offer some interesting insight into the thinking (yes, it's still thinking even if you don't agree with the conclusions)  behind the Platform.

NPR reports that the platform has language that would essentially ban all abortions including the 'wacky' Akin's desire to ban abortions for rape and incest victims.

. . .  one of the least controversial issues discussed this week is abortion.
With little discussion, the committee on Tuesday adopted the same anti-abortion language it included in GOP platforms in 2004 and 2008. It seeks passage of a constitutional amendment that would extend legal rights to the unborn, essentially banning abortion.
The language in the platform includes no exceptions for rape or incest.

So, while the Republican establishment is working overtime to distance themselves from Akin's comment about rape victims spontaneously avoiding pregnancy, they are pledging to  ban access to abortion even for rape and incest victims.  The most positive thing about this whole incident is that some Republicans understand that Akin's comments were bad.  (Not necessarily bad policy, but bad PR.)

Looking at the Republican Convention website - there are no tabs that link to the Platform.  Going tab to tab, I could find this mention of platform in "Features"

Some delegates will be chosen to represent their delegations on one of the four standing convention committees (Resolutions, sometimes referred to as the “Platform Committee;” Credentials; Rules; and Permanent Organization).

 The 'Get Involved" tab offers us the word platform, but a different meaning:

You can sign up to receive newsletters and other updates, join convention social media conversations or get an up-close look at convention events through our website, blog and other platforms designed to create a convention without walls.

Maybe they're just waiting for it to be approved by the convention, but I'd think they would be proud of it and want to post it on their website.  But - I don't do this often - what do I know?

If You Vote For Obama Are You Voting For A War Criminal?

Obama's continuation of many of the Bush administration's war on terrorism actions are troubling - torture, the right to kill American citizens who are terrorists, the continued war in Afghanistan, etc.

Shannyn Moore posted a loooong conversation between John Cusack (the actor, who is also, clearly someone who thinks) and Jonathon Turlock a law professor and expert for various media.

Basically, they ask the question - Can you really vote for a president who violates the constitution and commits war crimes because "he's better than Romney" or because "I like his social programs?"

My personal rational has been that if a Republican appoints the next two Supreme Court justices, the chance to save democracy will be postponed another generation. 

There is also the assumption they make that Obama is in fact a war criminal.  It seems that they are guilty of convicting him without a trial, the same crime they accuse him of with his powers to assassinate people like Osama bin Laden, and worse, American citizens.  It's seriously disturbing, and that's why the media should cover it so there can be a full blown debate and the facts and interpretations can be examined.

Crossing the Rubicon is the metaphor they use repeatedly - is there no point past which Obama could go before you wouldn't vote for him? 

The alternatives to voting for Obama aren't nearly as well developed as the argument that he is a war criminal.  

“Look, you’re not helping Obama by enabling him. If you want to help him, hold his feet to the fire.”
Turley: Exactly.

If, like me, you live in a strongly red state, you can vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote.  No matter how I vote, it won't cost Obama any electoral votes.  People in blue states run the risk of too many people protesting and giving electoral votes to Romney.  When people voted for Nader in 2000 they were blamed for losing the election and the mainstream Democrats didn't get the message that people were protesting Clinton's moving so far to the right. 

So, I guess now we need to be sending messages to Obama that we are voting for one of the third party candidates unless he pledges to change his ways.  USA Today reported that there would be five third parties that will be on the ballots in more than five states:

• Libertarian
• Green
• Constitution
• Party for Socialism and Liberation
• Justice Party

Here are some excerpts from the conversation between Turley and Cusack:

Some of the charges against Obama:

Turley: Well, President Obama outdid President Bush. He ordered the killing of two U.S. citizens as the primary targets and has then gone forward and put out a policy that allows him to kill any American citizen when he unilaterally determines them to be a terrorist threat. Where President Bush had a citizen killed as collateral damage, President Obama has actually a formal policy allowing him to kill any U.S. citizen. . .

Cusack: Does that order have to come directly from Obama, or can his underlings carry that out on his behalf as part of a generalized understanding? Or does he have to personally say, “You can get that guy and that guy?”
Turley: Well, he has delegated the authority to the so-called death panel, which is, of course, hilarious, since the Republicans keep talking about a nonexistent death panel in national healthcare. We actually do have a death panel, and it’s killing people who are healthy. . .

Turley: Well, the framers knew what it was like to have sovereigns kill citizens without due process. They did it all the time back in the 18th century. They wrote a constitution specifically to bar unilateral authority.
James Madison is often quoted for his observation that if all men were angels, no government would be necessary. And what he was saying is that you have to create a system of law that has checks and balances so that even imperfect human beings are restrained from doing much harm. Madison and other framers did not want to rely on the promises of good motivations or good intents from the government. They created a system where no branch had enough authority to govern alone — a system of shared and balanced powers.
So what Obama’s doing is to rewrite the most fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution. The whole point of the Holder speech was that we’re really good guys who take this seriously, and you can trust us. That’s exactly the argument the framers rejected, the “trust me” principle of government. You’ll notice when Romney was asked about this, he said, “I would’ve signed the same law, because I trust Obama to do the right thing.” They’re both using the very argument that the framers warned citizens never to accept from their government. . .

On the lack of media coverage:

Cusack: Oscar Wilde said most journalists would fall under the category of those who couldn’t tell the difference between a bicycle accident and the end of civilization. But why is it that all the journalists that you see mostly on MSNBC or most of the progressives, or so-called progressives, who believe that under Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez these were great and grave constitutional crises, the wars were an going moral fiasco’s — but now, since we have a friendly face in the White House, someone with kind of pleasing aesthetics and some new policies  we like, now all of a sudden these aren’t crimes, there’s no crisis. Because he’s our guy? Go, team, go? . . .

It seems to me that there was media coverage about the Bush administration because there were lots of Democrats opposed to what Bush was doing.  But there isn't any noticeable Republican opposition to torture or assassination so there is no opposition and the press doesn't cover it. 

Who Ya Gonna Vote For?

And so then it gets down to the question, “Well, are you going to vote for Obama?” And I say, “Well, I don’t really know. I couldn’t really vote for Hillary Clinton because of her Iraq War vote.” Because I felt like that was a line, a Rubicon line –
Turley: Right.
Cusack: — a Rubicon line that I couldn’t cross, right? I don’t know how to bring myself to vote for a constitutional law professor, or even a constitutional realist, who throws away due process and claims the authority that the executive branch can assassinate American citizens. I just don’t know if I can bring myself to do it.
If you want to make a protest vote against Romney, go ahead, but I would think we’d be better putting our energies into local and state politics — occupy Wall Street and organizations and movements outside the system, not national politics, not personalities. Not stadium rock politics. Not brands. That’s the only thing I can think of. What would you say?
Turley: Well, the question, I think, that people have got to ask themselves when they get into that booth is not what Obama has become, but what have we become? That is, what’s left of our values if we vote for a person that we believe has shielded war crimes or violated due process or implemented authoritarian powers. It’s not enough to say, “Yeah, he did all those things, but I really like what he did with the National Park System.”
Cusack: Yeah, or that he did a good job with the auto bailout.
Turley: Right. I think that people have to accept that they own this decision, that they can walk away. I realize that this is a tough decision for people but maybe, if enough people walked away, we could finally galvanize people into action to make serious changes. We have to recognize that our political system is fundamentally broken, it’s unresponsive. Only 11 percent of the public supports Congress, and yet nothing is changing — and so the question becomes, how do you jumpstart that system? How do you create an alternative? What we have learned from past elections is that you don’t create an alternative by yielding to this false dichotomy that only reinforces their monopoly on power.
Cusack: I think that even Howard Zinn/Chomsky progressives, would admit that there will be a difference in domestic policy between Obama and a Romney presidency.
But DUE PROCESS….I think about how we own it. We own it. Everybody’s sort of let it slip. There’s no immediacy in the day-to-day on and it’s just one of those things that unless they… when they start pulling kids off the street, like they did in Argentina a few years ago and other places, all of a sudden, it’s like, “How the hell did that happen?” I say, “Look, you’re not helping Obama by enabling him. If you want to help him, hold his feet to the fire.”
Turley: Exactly.
Cusack: The problem is, as I see it, is that regardless of goodwill and intent and people being tired of the status quo and everything else, the information outlets and the powers that be reconstruct or construct the government narrative only as an election game of ‘us versus them,’ Obama versus Romney, and if you do anything that will compromise that equation, you are picking one side versus the other. Because don’t you realize that’s going to hurt Obama? Don’t you know that’s going to help Obama? Don’t you know… and they’re not thinking through their own sort of self-interest or the community’s interest in just changing the way that this whole thing works to the benefit of the majority. We used to have some lines we wouldn’t cross–some people who said this is not what this country does …we don’t do this shit, you had to do the right thing. So it’s going to be a tough process getting our rights back, but you  know Frankie’s Law? Whoever stops fighting first – loses.
Turley: Right.

How Many Others Who Serve in House With Akin Agree With Him, But Don't Say So Publicly?

Todd Akin has been a member of the House of Representatives for six terms - that's 12 years.  He's been voting on issues relating to women and all sorts of other topics. 

His old House district (it's been changed with redistricting) is just west and north of St. Louis.  These are the people responsible for his being in Congress.

from Akin's website

At 8:47pm Alaska time, these are Akin's most recent tweets:

• We can't be intimidated by the liberal elite. I will continue standing for life. Will you?  

• I am #stillstanding. Will you stand with me?

• I apologized but the liberal media is trying to make me drop out. Please stand w/ me tonight by signing my petition at http://www.akin.org/still-standing 

Let's see, these liberal elites include:

• Mitt Romney
• Paul Ryan
• Sean Hannity
• And a whole slew of other top Republican politicians and funders.

But my question is how many more members of congress feel as he does, but just keep quiet about it and use other reasons to explain their anti-women votes?

Now That Olympics Are Over, What Do Romney's Olympic Predictions Tell Us?

On the eve of the Olympics in London, as everyone knows, Mitt Romney, when asked his thoughts, told the Prime Minister that he had concerns about London's readiness.  Now that the Olympics are over, and were very successful if the press can be believed,  it seems appropriate to consider what this might reveal about the candidate.

1.  Social Graces

Romney clearly has trouble with his sense of appropriateness in interpersonal relationships.  He appears to be much more task oriented (thinking about the games) and lacking in his people orientation (not understanding this was like asking "how are you? or that as a guest you should say positive things when you first meet, not criticize.)

Asked a ritualistic question about the Olympics, which any guest should know is supposed to be answered politely and positively  - "Oh, it looks to be a great Olympics!" he took the question literally, and gave an negative assessment.

This insensitivity to non-verbal communication, to social customs, is a serious problem for a president.  Much of the job is to ceremonially represent the United States.  Much of the job requires the ability to assess the character, sincerity, and capacity of people advising you as well as inspiring their confidence in you.  This is hard to do when you are tone deaf to social signals.
 

2.  Assessment Skills

The lack of social skills is problematic.  For some people, this is made up in other skills.  But Romney, someone who has worked on a previous Olympics, was wrong in his assessment of the London Olympics.  The Olympics went well and there was no security breach, something he specifically noted as a concern.  So his assessment on a topic he is a reputed expert on, was wrong.  I must acknowledge that we don't know if there were no terrorist issues because of how good the security was or simply because no one attempted to disrupt the Olympics.  But ultimately, his assessment - inappropriate as it was to share at that moment - was wrong.

Some might argue shouldn't jump to conclusions here.  Was this something he had studied or was he just reflecting the media accounts?  But what we do know is that his inability to read the human aspect of the situation, led him to think that his opinion was being seriously sought.  And, again, due to his lack of sensitivity to basic etiquette, instead of praising his host's efforts, he criticized them, implying that there were likely to be problems - a prediction of sorts.  A prediction he never had to make.  One that now turns out to be wrong. 

If he was wrong about the odds of a successful Olympics, what does that tell us about his assessments of things like the economic crisis, health care, tax policy, etc.?

In terms of the social problems, this is just one more in a long series of such incidents.  In terms of his assessment of the Olympics this doesn't tell us too much, but we learn about people by adding up bits of information over time.  So I'm just taking notes that can be compared to his other pronouncements. (We could, say, add this to what we know about someone who set up a health care  plan as a governor that is remarkably similar to Obama's national plan that Romney tells us is terrible.) 

But I think this episode tells us, at least, this much:

• His sense of appropriate behavior and etiquette are out of synch with most folks
• He takes things literally, missing the social meaning
• His first response was to point out the potential negatives
• He was wrong 

[As I reread this, I realize that it sounds like I'm pussy-footing around here, treating Romney way too gingerly.  My rationale is that much of the debate going on over the presidential candidates has been about things which are difficult for the average no-too-involved observer to assess.  But this Olympics incident, thought not big, is something where we can look at the facts and come to a pretty clear conclusion that most people can understand easily.]

"to secure a citizen's right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience"

[UPDATE 7:47pm:  The people of Missouri sure do like to pray.  Here's the result (with only two precincts missing) from the  Missouri Election page:

Constitutional Amendment 2

yes no

779,269 162,326

83% 17%

HTML Tables

 942,032 Missourians voted out of  4,137,545 registered voters (as of 2010.)  22% of the registered voters made decisions for the other 88%.  The result will be expensive legal battles when this amendment is challenged in court.]

People in Missouri today are voting to amend their Constitution's Article I, Section 5 Religious Freedom--Liberty of Conscience and Belief--Limitation.  They are going from about 100 words to about 600 words. 

I was first struck by this phrase which only gets changed by adding "and women":

"all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences;"

The Alaska Constitution, for example [in contrast], mimics the US constitution:

§ 4. Freedom of Religion

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Specifying "Almighty God" seems to suggest a particular god, a single god, one that has ultimate power.  There's no article such as "an" almighty god.  And it's capitalized which suggests it's a proper name of a specific god.

I'm guessing it refers to the Judeo-Christian god.  Possibly the Muslim god is included since Muslims also worship Almighty God.

But what about Hindus or Buddhists who don't worship an Almighty God?

It doesn't include "not worship,"  only worship.  What rights does  "according to the dictates of their own consciences" give to agnostics and atheists?

The most controversial language, apparently, is that part that allows school children to opt out of curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

"no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic     assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;"

The Kansas City Star's Midwest Democracy writes:

Susan German, president of the Science Teachers of Missouri, said the amendment could have a major impact on the teaching of certain topics in classrooms around the state.
"It is evident that some of the major areas of concern include teaching the age of the Earth, evolution, or climate change in the science classrooms," German said in a letter to the organization's 450 members. "While this may not be a direct attack, it certainly opens the door."
German said her organization has not taken a formal position on the amendment, but it is urging its members to go beyond the summary to fully understand potential ramifications.

The sponsor, state Rep. Mike McGhee, according to the article, says the intent is to allow students to not take a class on Buddhism or Islam if they so choose.  And a Muslim student wouldn't have to learn about Christianity.  He thinks if the curriculum is offensive to some, it should just be changed.

There is a difference between "learning about" and  being proselytized.   The only reason I can think of that a parent might not want their child to learn about other religions is that such classes may raise questions about their own religious beliefs.  Blocking objective knowledge about other beliefs deprives their own children's right to religious freedom. 

The article then points out that this section of the amendment is not mentioned in the ballot summary:

"You can't put the entire amendment in the summary, but letting students opt out of assignments is a pretty big change," said Anthony Rothert, the legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "I don't know if voters will know that this is what they are voting for."

It appears that the vagueness of the amendment - despite its length - means it will be resolved in the courts.  Perhaps that will have the unanticipated effect of questioning the language which specifies worshiping Almighty God.

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/right-to-pray-amendment-spurs-debate-about-students-opting-out-of-schoolwork/#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/right-to-pray-amendment-spurs-debate-about-students-opting-out-of-schoolwork/#storyli

___ Is To Alaska What Football Is To Penn State

This is just a little thought experiment.  I’m going to try to keep the analogy simple.  [I didn't succeed.  Life is complicated and so many things are interrelated.  But the basic analogy you can read quickly.]


Fill in the blank:

___ is to Alaska  what football is to  Penn State.

 I'm sure every Alaskan reader would immediately say "thoughtfulness."  No?  How about that black gooey stuff?

When things go wrong, the very least we can do is learn something from them so that when the elements return in a different disguise, we can recognize them.  What then are the key elements of these two stories?

The Penn State

1.  A sacred cow - At Penn State, football served the function of uniting everyone in spirit and (at least people believe) generated a lot of money, which was translated into enhanced programs and lots of jobs on campus for people in the surrounding community.    Certainly the hotels and bars and restaurants benefited from crowds coming to home football games, and buying Penn State paraphernalia. The  university benefited from the television money the highly ranked football team brought in.  
Challenging the sacred cow in any way 1) is disloyal to the Penn State spirit and 2) threatens a lot of people’s income. 
This results in relatively little scrutiny because 1) everyone wants to believe in the goodness of football and 2) those benefiting don’t want to threaten those benefits.  The rule of a sacred cow is that no one should raise embarrassing questions.  So people self-censor, knowing that any criticism will bring on quick retaliation.

2.  Big fish in a  small pond.  Penn State is located in a relatively small city where its and football's influence is much bigger than it would be in a larger city.  A challenge from inside is unlikely.

3.  An aging hero with long incumbency- Joe Paterno's 45 year career made him the longest serving head coach in US college football.  Born in 1926, Paterno became Penn State’s assistant football coach in 1950, and the head coach in 1966.  Dan Rorabaugh at US News wrote a line that appears repeatedly online:  “Joe Paterno is Penn State.” Paterno did a lot of good.  In addition to winning, Paterno's team regularly had high graduation rates.  In 2011 his dynasty ended when it was disclosed that he knew that his trusted, long-term assistant coach and friend, had been sexually molesting young boys in Penn State related programs for many years.   Paterno died shortly after that. 


4.  A  spoiler:  A good friend of the hero who turns out to have some serious problems - For whatever reasons, personal loyalty, protecting the sanctity of PSU football, disbelief, Paterno turned a blind eye to Jerry Sandusky's crimes.  More than a blind eye, according to the Freeh Report.  The hero, it turns out, knew and blocked attempts to do something about it.



The Alaskan Story

1.  The Alaska sacred cow has to be oil.  And probably to an even greater extent than football at Penn State.   Close to 90% of the state revenue comes from oil.  Every community has projects that were built on oil money.  Every citizen is eligible for a permanent fund check. 

2.  Oil is a whale in a small pond up in Alaska. 

3.  An aging hero with long incumbency -   There is no hero as closely linked to oil as Paterno was linked to football.  The Alaskan most similar to Paterno was Senator Ted Stevens.  Senator Lisa Murkowski said at Stevens’ memorial "Ted was Alaska – he just was Alaska.”  He was born in 1923 and was appointed to the US Senate in 1968. Seeing any patterns?

When he left, he was the longest serving Republican in Senate history. In 2008 a good friend and political ally from the oil industry testified against  Stevens in court.  Stevens was convicted and lost his reelection bid months later. (The charges were later vacated by Obama’s incoming Attorney General because of prosecutorial misconduct.)  Stevens died in a plane crash two years later.

4.  A spoiler:  A good friend of the hero who turns out to have some serious problems.  Bill Allen, a high school dropout  who became a powerful political king-maker as the head of his billion dollar oil support company VECO, became a witness for the Department of Justice against a number of Alaskan politicians including Ted Stevens.  Aside for political corruption on behalf of the oil industry, Allen is alleged to have had an affair with an underage young woman. 



In the Penn State case, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office came into the small Pennsylvania town where the University is located to prosecute Jerry Sandusky.  Penn State University accepted Joe Paterno's early retirement.  A University commissioned report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh harshly condemned a number of Penn State officials.  Paterno and three other key officials "are portrayed as manipulating administrative channels to protect Sandusky, the football program and their own reputations."  [If Alaska is a model, Pennsylvanians should watch for the rehabilitation of Joe Paterno in the not too distant future.]

In Alaska, the FBI began a covert operation which video taped Bill Allen's hotel suite in Juneau as he entertained legislators and made deals with them trying to prevent tax changes that were not approved of by the oil companies.  Allen cooperated with the Justice Department and was a witness in a number of court cases where state legislators were convicted of various corruption charges.  He also was the key witness in the Stevens trial in DC, where Stevens was convicted as well.  Stevens lost his reelection bid shortly after, narrowly.   However, Obama's attorney general vacated Stevens' conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct.


In the meantime, a former oil company lobbyist is now the governor of Alaska.  And few see any problem with this. Can you imagine the outcry if the former lobbyist for Green Peace or Wilderness Society were governor?  Although the oil companies have been tarnished, their interests are still in power and they are spending money to maintain their sacred status,  aided in the upcoming election by the Citizens United decision. 

Oil plays an important role in the world.  Oil has brought Alaska wealth and benefits we could not have had otherwise.  But any faction that gains so much power and influence in any society or institution, begins eventually to feel entitled and gets harder and harder to keep accountable. 

The stifling of sacred cow challengers shows up in lots of places. 

• Why weren’t people asking more questions about the home loan industry?  Or listening to those who did?  
• Why didn’t parents believe their kids who said the priest molested them, of if the kids remained silent, why didn’t they question the kids’ different behavior?  
• Why has it taken so long for the military to address the many psychological problems of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan?  Or take seriously the complaints of sexual harassment and assault by women in the military?  
• Why do we continue to spend billions on the so called War on Drugs when it clearly is so ineffective? 

All of these issues involve sacred cows that people want to believe in and people resist those who challenge those beliefs.  They all involve people who benefited from silencing and marginalizing those who challenged the system.  All of them have wealthy interests funding misinformation campaigns to convince the public and the decision makers that there is no problem. 

This is nothing new in human history.  Ruling classes have brainwashed their subjects from the beginning.  Americans think they are different, yet large numbers of our populaltion succumb to empty slogans, and to appeals to their fears and insecurities. 

I think about Egyptians and Libyans and Russians and Syrians who see through their government’s lies and risk their lives to change things.  Americans are willing to sacrifice the lives and mental health of the relatively few Americans who serve in the military, but what are they personally willing to sacrifice? 

It turns out that not staying alert has cost people their homes, their savings, and their jobs.  It wasn't a voluntary sacrifice.  Rather,  enough people voted for those false slogans and put people into power whose faith in unbridled capitalism allowed bankers and traders to make fortunes on what turned out to be giant swindles.

We get another turn at bat in November.   The propagandists are already spinning their lies and spreading hate and fear to convince voters to forget the size of the catastrophe that Obama inherited and instead blame him for the fallout of the Bush2 administration. 

----------
While I was looking for a link to support a point I'd made, I found that Cliff Groh had already made the Paterno-Stevens comparison in November 2011.

Can Astrology Explain The Strange Events The Last Few Days?

 Thursday, there were several stories in the paper that were so unexpected that I finally checked an astrology page for Wednesday (July 25) to see if there was some sort of strange star alignment.  From Cosmic Life Coach:

Intellectual Mercury in creative Leo is forming a 120-degree trine to Uranus in self-expressive Aries (9:27 am EDT). Uranus is considered the higher octave of Mercury and is linked with our more brilliant or genius impulses and also our intuition. Mercury-Uranus tends to quicken our mental activity, in addition to helping to showcase our original perceptions. It can also suddenly ignite our intuition, or the voice of our spirit. Accordingly, today may be an excellent day for brainstorming, trying new approaches to old problems, making discoveries, and for tuning into that “still, small voice within” for wisdom and guidance. [emphasis added]

Trying new approaches to old problems?  Is that what explains why Sandy Weill, the man everyone is crediting with shattering the Glass-Steagall Act, was now saying he was wrong and that the wall between banks and investment companies should be rebuilt?

Then there are the Republicans, led by Senator John McCain and Rep. John Boehner, who have publicly disawowed Rep. Bachmann for her unsupported anti-Muslim slurs against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff.

Don Young's campaign ad endorsing Representative Mazie Hirono in the Hawaii Democratic primary isn't quite as shocking.  After being repeatedly elected to Congress since 1973, he seems to feel he can say or do whatever he wants without worrying about  reelection.  Plus, Alaskan and Hawaiian members of Congress have a history of reaching out across the aisle to protect their common interests.  But prominent national Republicans don't normally endorse Democrats these days, particularly not in television ads.


And while I was checking the star alignments, I thought I might see whether Mitt Romney's horoscope (he was born March 12) for July 26 might have warned him to be nice in London yesterday.   Possibly, except there was no agreement. And most it was  ambiguous.

Here are some examples:

Pisces

February 19-March 20

Remain stable, strong and straightforward in the duties you must perform today. However, remain receptive to the advice an experienced and knowledgeable female friend will offer you regarding a particular money matter.    Lucky Number:  401   Financial Outlook:   very good   Compatible Sign:   Scorpio  (Star Telegram)

I imagine Romney's financial outloook is always 'very good.'  Strong and straightforward probably wasn't good advice.  And whatever female friend warned him, financial matters weren't the problem. 

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/07/26/4126940/horoscopes-for-thursday-july-26.html#storylink=cpy

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20). You’ll be in the position to choose your focus. Look at the moral implications, and let them weigh heavily on your decision-making process. Enjoying what you do is not a sufficient reason for doing it. (Philstar) [emphasis added]

His problem (the ones we know about anyway) was more in the realm of etiquette than morality.  Perhaps the last line is the one he should have paid attention to.  

PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20) • • • • Reach out for more information. You might be more perplexed than you realize and could be thinking on a different level from many other people.  (The Spokesman)

Looks like Mitt should have read this Spokane newspaper - get more info. . .perplexed . . . thinking on a different level from other people.  He should cut this one out and read it every day.

PISCES. (Feb. 18 - March 18): This is an auspicious time for dusting off an old project or aspiration. See where it stands. You may find it's more doable than ever.  (SF Chronicle)

Well, he is revisiting the Olympics, isn't he?  Maybe the folks in London are going to show him how doable it is.  What did the Prime Minister say?  "it's easy to run an Olympics in 'the middle of nowhere.'"  Ouch.  Not exactly the good host either.  (The mayor of Salt Lake City has since invited Cameron to 'the middle of nowhere.')

Pisces (Feb. 19-March 20)
If you’re travelling, just go with the flow today and tomorrow. If you’re not travelling, the next two days are a poor time to book a reservation somewhere. There’s a goofy element at loose in the world. It is what it is.  (National Post)

This Canadian newspaper seems to have been telling him to chill the first couple of days and it did warn him about a 'goofy element.'  It just didn't say he was the goofy element.

PISCES (Feb. 20 - Mar. 20):
The pressure has been cranking up for quite some time and over the next few days it may even become intolerable. But you are tougher than you look and will rise to the challenge. Give as good as you get. (Globe and Mail)

Is this one suggesting a turnaround for Mitt in the next couple of days?  Will Mitt seem smarter and the Brits look dumb if something goes really wrong during the Olympics?   Does being right override being a polite guest?  Except that Mitt has since said he "expects a highly successful Olympics."


The Independent (Ireland) didn't gave me their July 26 horoscope.  I got July 27 instead and I couldn't help but feel they wrote this especially for Mitt, with the knowledge of his first day in London:

Pisces: Be disciplined and careful not to alienate people with your powerful feelings. This will make life less intense and you will find it easier to cope. Watch out for your need to control events and circumstances just now. You will feel much more relaxed if you do not try so hard. Love will find a way.

"Romney retroactively cancels visit to London" and other tweets about the Republican Candidate

I don't have a Twitter account, but I saw at Immoral Minority that Mitt Romney had done so badly on his first day in London that someone started a new Twitter RomneyShambles hash tag.  Here are just a few of the tweets about England's response to Mitt.

  Danielle Blake ‏@DCPlod

Mitt Romney retroactively cancels visit to London. #RomneyShambles

  Jon Berry ‏@jonberrydesign

"The trip was meant to make him look presidential... it made him look like Mr. Bean." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney-london-olympics-gaffe-live?newsfeed=true #London2012 #Romneyshambles

  The Daily Edge ‏@TheDailyEdge

You can tell @MittRomney's doing badly when he starts getting booed by rich white people #RomneyShambles #AmericanBorat

  Matt Ortega ‏@MattOrtega

Mitt Romney is now, officially, an international embarrassment. Our policy of containment has failed. #RomneyShambles

VANITY FAIR ‏@VanityFair

Romney couldn't possibly offend England right before the #Olympics. Oh, he did http://vnty.fr/N5XbUx #RomneyShambles

Barracks O'Bama ‏@P0TUS

RT @brx0: Next up: Driving around London with the queen's corgis on the roof. #RomneyShambles

  Adam Gabbatt ‏@AdamGabbatt

I've rounded up Romney's gaffes, all in one place. It's been quite a day http://bit.ly/N0bCuj #romneyshambles

  P M ‏@Pawelmorski

Americans: This Mitt person is some sort of American Borat, right? #romneyshambles

  Eileen Sarett-Cuasay ‏@leenie909

Dear Great Britain: Yeah. We know. Sorry. Welcome to our world. --Signed, America.

This is not my usual style of post, but then you don't want me to be predictable do you?

[UPDATE July 27:  While Romneyshambles might be cute for Americans, it appears for people in the UK it has a special ring.  The term omnishambles is already in use in the UK.  The R gives an already good word even more spin.  From an article called "The Omnishambles and the Power of Political Language" in the Daily Telegraph:

"Omnishambles is a hybrid too, and the words “shambles” has come to mean simply a mess or muddle, and has more or less lost its more vivid meaning of a fleshmarket, slaughterhouse, or place of carnage. But omnishambles is OK. It says neatly what most of us think of most governments. The only wonder is that Ed Miliband dares to use it, thus inviting the suggestion that he should look in the mirror."   (There's more at the link.)]