;)
The Commentariat -- Oct. 26, 2012
Rerun from Yesterday Afternoon's Commentariat: My column in the New York Times eXaminer is on Steven Pinker's NYT post "Why Are States So Red and Blue?" Another column, by a professor of religious studies, Ira Chernus, also disagrees with Pinker, though Chernus is meaner than I am. I actually disagree with Chernus, too.
Presidential Race
Nate Silver: "Mitt Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate. However, the FiveThirtyEight forecast finds a slightly favorable trend for President Obama over the past 10 days."
We're Not Racists, But We're Voting for the White Guy. Jon Cohen & Rosalind Helderman of the Washington Post: "The 2012 election is shaping up to be more polarized along racial lines than any presidential contest since 1988, with President Obama experiencing a steep drop in support among white voters from four years ago. At this stage in 2008, Obama trailed Republican John McCain by seven percentage points among white voters. Even in victory, Obama ended up losing white voters by 12 percentage points.... But now, Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll." ...
... Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.... I think when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being President of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him. -- John Sununu, Romney surrogate campaign chair
Yes, because "when you take a look at Colin Powell," the former Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs & a fellow Republican, all you can see is a black man. -- Constant Weader
Four years ago, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh led the charge, accusing Powell of only supporting the Democrat because of race. In 2012, the same argument is being pushed by the national chairman of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. -- Steve Benen
Washington Post Editors endorse President Obama for re-election:
... there is no way to know what Mr. Romney really believes. His unguarded expression of contempt for 47 percent of the population seems as sincere as anything else we've heard.... At times he has advocated a muscular, John McCain-style foreign policy, but in the final presidential debate he positioned himself as a dove. Before he passionately supported a fetus's right to life, he supported a woman's right to abortion. His swings have been dramatic on gay rights, gun rights, health care, climate change and immigration. His ugly embrace of 'self-deportation' during the Republican primary campaign, and his demolition of a primary opponent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for having left open a door of opportunity for illegal-immigrant children, bespeaks a willingness to say just about anything to win.... Rarely has a politician gotten so far with only one evident immutable belief: his conviction in his own fitness for higher office.
So voters are left with the centerpiece of Mr. Romney's campaign: promised tax cuts that would blow a much bigger hole in the federal budget while worsening economic inequality. His claims that he could avoid those negative effects, which defy math and which he refuses to back up with actual proposals, are more insulting than reassuring.
By contrast, the president understands the urgency of the problems as well as anyone in the country and is committed to solving them in a balanced way. In a second term, working with an opposition that we hope would be chastened by the failure of its scorched-earth campaign against him, he is far more likely than his opponent to succeed. That makes Mr. Obama by far the superior choice.
Douglas Brinkley interviews President Obama for Rolling Stone. ...
... Brinkley recounts a conversation between Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates & President Obama that took place after the interview wrapped up. In part, it went like this: "'Thought about lowering the voting age?' Bates joked. 'You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. 'They look at the other guy and say, "Well, that's a bullshitter, I can tell."'" The Bullshitter Romney campaign is totally pissed. ...
... BTW, according to Paul Krugman, Romney is promising us a pony. I guess Obama misrepresented the source of the shit. Here's what else Krugman says: "... a slow job is better than a snow job. Mr. Obama may not be as bold as we'd like, but he isn't actively misleading voters the way Mr. Romney is. Furthermore, if we ask what Mr. Romney would probably do in practice, including sharp cuts in programs that aid the less well-off and the imposition of hard-money orthodoxy on the Federal Reserve, it looks like a program that might well derail the recovery and send us back into recession."
Horror Story. Tim Egan foretells how a Romney presidency would go.
"Winners & Losers." Would Mitt Romney really make better choices than President Obama has? --
... Oh, There's This. Callum Borchers of the Boston Globe: "Mitt Romney testified under oath in 1991 that the ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg got a fair deal in the couple's 1988 divorce, even though the company shares Maureen Sullivan Stemberg received were valued at a tenth of Staples' stock price on the day of its initial public offering only a year later.... 'In my opinion, [$2.25 was] a good price to sell the securities at,' Romney ... testified in June 1991. But on April 28, 1989, barely a year after Sullivan Stemberg sold more than half of her shares on the premise that they were worth less than $2.50 apiece, the company made its initial public offering at $19 per share and ended its first day at $22.50." ...
... Elizabeth Amon of Bloomberg News: "... Mitt Romney, as a board member of Staples Inc., voted to set a low price on the stock and create a new class of shares as a 'favor' to its co-founder who was involved in a divorce. Romney, in testimony in 1991 in the divorce case of Staples co-founder Tom Stemberg, said the special class of Staple shares was created because Stemberg 'needed a settlement with his wife.'" ...
... Julie Pace & Steve Peoples of the AP: "... Mitt Romney is ... facing continued pressure to break his silence on a GOP Senate candidate's statement that any pregnancy resulting from rape is 'something God intended.' ... [Romney] is also trying to move past new questions about his role in a key supporter's divorce. Court documents released Thursday reveal that Romney created a special class of company stock for Staples founder Tom Stemberg's then-wife as a 'favor.'"
New York Times Editors: during the final two weeks of the campaign, "Mr. Romney is providing nostrums instead of policies.... By comparison, Mr. Obama, though he waited too long to begin providing specifics on his second-term agenda, has decided to spend the last two weeks describing them."
Nicholas Confessore & Derek Willis of the New York Times: "President Obama and Mitt Romney are both on pace to raise more than $1 billion with their parties by Election Day, according to figures released by the campaigns on Thursday."
Karl Rove, Social Welfare Missionary. S. V. Date of NPR: "Karl Rove's tax-exempt Crossroads GPS group just months ago said it was only interested in advancing issues, not engaging in electoral politics. This week, it began running a minute-long ad telling viewers to vote for Republican Mitt Romney -- and it doesn't mention at all those very issues it had been saying were central to its mission." CW: Read the whole post; sounds like the IRS may have some bad news for Brother Karl and his secret mega-donors. Thanks to contributor Diane for the link. ...
... BUT none of his lyin' ads is as terrific as this one. Thanks to contributor Lisa for the link:
... AND The End of Virginity. Filmmaker/actor Lena Dunham tells about her "first time":
Greg Sargent has a useful piece on early voting & why the Obama campaign is urging its supporters to vote early. Early voting starts in Florida Saturday, & we just got our sample ballots Thursday. My husband & I will be voting during the next week. Especially if you live in a Voter Suppression state (like mine), I think it's a good idea to try to vote early in case you encounter an impediment & need time to clear it up. ...
... President Obama voted Thursday in Chicago:
** Writing in the New York Times, Joe Stiglitz, Dean of the Dismal Science, gives depressing a lecture on income inequality in the U.S. & why Mitt Romney will make it even worse. CW: most Reality Chex readers already know all this, but it's helpful to see the story summed up in one piece.
About Those Battleships. David Axe of Wired: "A bigger maritime force has the possibility of personally enriching one of [Mitt Romney]'s top advisers. In fact, it already has.... For one of Romney's most important advisers on Navy issues, a man who oversaw a massive naval expansion for Pres. Ronald Reagan, there's more at stake than U.S. national security. John Lehman, an investment banker and former secretary of the Navy, has strong and complex personal financial ties to the naval shipbuilding industry. He has profited hugely from the Navy's slow growth in recent years -- raising the prospect that he could make even more if Romney takes his advice on expanding the fleet." Thanks to reader Kay S. for the link.
Michelle Obama appeared on Jimmy Kimmel's show last night. You can watch her appearance, divvied into 93 segments, here.
Congressional Races
Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times: "The Indiana Senate candidate Richard E. Mourdock's reintroduction of rape and abortion into the political dialogue this week is the latest in a series of political missteps that have made the Republican quest to seize control of the Senate a steeper climb. Once viewed as likely to win the Senate, Republicans are now in jeopardy of losing seats in Massachusetts and Maine." CW: yes, indeedy, it's just a "misstep" to accidentally reveal you're a misogynist loon. ...
... CW: Sorry to O.D. on Stewart today, but this is why satire & "fake news" is more informative than the New York Times (and of course Joe Scarborough):
Other Stuff
Mark Clayton of the Christian Science Monitor: "In four key battleground states -- Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado -- glitches in e-voting machines could produce incorrect or incomplete tallies that would be difficult to detect and all but impossible to correct because the machines have no paper record for officials to go back and check." CW: I suppose Chuck Todd thinks the Christian Science Monitor is spreading crazy conspiracy theories.
File This Under "Things You Don't Expect to Find on the Front Page of the New York Times." Joseph Goldstein: "In one of the most disturbing and unusual arrests involving a police officer, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents took Officer ... Gilberto Valle, a six-year veteran of the New York Police Department..., into custody on Wednesday, after they uncovered several of his plots to kidnap, rape, cook and eat women. 'I was thinking of tying her body onto some kind of apparatus,' he wrote to a co-conspirator in one electronic communication intercepted by law enforcement authorities. 'Cook her over a low heat, keep her alive as long as possible.'"
How to Fire a CEO. Jessica Silver-Greenberg & Susanne Craig of the New York Times: "Vikram Pandit's last day at Citigroup swung from celebratory to devastating in a matter of minutes. Having fielded congratulatory e-mails about the earnings report in the morning that suggested the bank was finally on more solid ground, Mr. Pandit strode into the office of the chairman [of the board] at day's end on Oct. 15 for what he considered just another of their frequent meetings.... Instead, Mr. Pandit ... was told three news releases were ready. One stated that Mr. Pandit had resigned, effective immediately. Another that he would resign, effective at the end of the year. The third release stated Mr. Pandit had been fired without cause. The choice was his."
Keith Bradsher of the New York Times: "The Chinese government swiftly blocked access early Friday morning to the Chinese-language Web site of The New York Times from computers in mainland China and intermittently halted most access to the English-language site as well after the news organization posted an article in both languages describing wealth accumulated by the family of the country's prime minister."
News Ledes
AP: "Just two days after announcing he won't run in spring elections, former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi was convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to four years in prison Friday in a verdict that could see him barred from public office for five years.... The court, which began hearing the case in 2006, also said Berlusconi could not hold public office for five years or manage any company for three years.... In a statement, Berlusconi's lawyers ... said they would appeal."
AP: "'Frankenstorm' is looking more ominous by the hour for the East Coast, and utilities and local governments are getting ready. Meteorologists expect a natural horror show of high wind, heavy rain, extreme tides and maybe snow to the west beginning early Sunday, peaking with the arrival of Hurricane Sandy on Tuesday and lingering past Halloween on Wednesday."
AP: "The U.S. economy grew at a slightly faster 2 percent annual rate from July through September, buoyed by more spending by consumers and the federal government."
Washington Post: "The 'fiscal cliff' is still two months off, but ... is already reverberating through the U.S. economy, hampering growth and, according to a new study, wiping out nearly 1 million jobs this year alone. The report, scheduled for release Friday by the National Association of Manufacturers, predicts that the economic damage would deepen considerably if Congress fails to avert the cliff, destroying nearly 6 million jobs through 2014 and sending the unemployment rate soaring to near 12 percent." CW: so if the government is superfluous to the vaunted market economy, why do manufacturers claim the so-called fiscal cliff would wreak havoc?
AP: "In a stirring tribute Thursday to former Sen. George McGovern, Vice President Joe Biden hailed the onetime presidential nominee as the 'father of the modern Democratic Party' for his forceful stand against the Vietnam War and for helping open the party to more women, young people and minorities."
Reuters: Fighting in Syria killed several people on Friday as a ceasefire brokered by international peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to mark a holy Muslim day frayed almost before it had begun."
Reuters: "A suicide bomber killed at least 40 people in a mosque in Afghanistan's relatively peaceful north on Friday as worshippers gathered for prayers marking the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday.... The attack in Maimana, capital of Faryab province, also wounded 40...."
Reuters: "President Vladimir Putin flatly rejected on Thursday Western criticism of the imprisonment of the Pussy Riot punk protest band, saying its three female members deserved their fate because they threatened the moral foundations of Russia."
Share Article
Reader Comments (23)
I found a site which predicts a house with 194 Democrats and a senate with 54. At least in 2009/10 Democrats had a workable majority for 5 months but this time it will be stalemate from the gitgo. Depressing. Worse, Republicans win 3 more governorships and thus more voter suppression and union busting and fewer abortion clinics etc.
Assuming the prediction is correct, is this another advance for the darkside or is there a glimmer of light I am missing?
@cowichan. So... what's the site?
Re the gender gap closing, and why would women vote for Romney. Here's something I didn't write, but I think sums up the problem:
"I’ve heard women who seem to support Romney say that he won’t do all those terrible things to women that he’s promised to do for the last 18 months. The questions I have for you are are 1. If he’s going to break those promises, why would you vote for such a liar? Or do you think he’s going to keep only the promises he made to YOU? 2. Why won’t you believe him? Chamberlain didn’t want to believe Hitler, look where that got him."
@Kate, I guess I didn't tell the whole story. The real problem is not the Supremes protecting women's rights. The real problem is that their is no leadership dealing with the reality of the collapse of America. Maybe you noticed the NYT article that neither candidate has touched global warming. So I don't think that equal pay for women will be an issue when half the country is cooked dry and the other half is under water. Their is no real plan for deficit reduction, controlling health costs, dealing with the real problems in education and nothing on the chaos in the rest of the world. No, we just deal with the little crap that gets voters attention. Serious leadership, a real effort to deal with the real problems? Nothing, absolutely nothing. And if a miracle happens and we wind up with a POTUS who actually has the balls to stand up and take charge of Americas future, there is zero chance of Congress letting it happen. All that is required is a nice lunch from some lobbyist representing a company putting profits before lives and we know where the vote is going.
So yes, I am politically depressed. I look at the big, long term picture and I see hell. Will Mitt get us there sooner than Obama, probably. So the the nation will collapse in 40 years instead of 50. Wow, what a deal! The bottom line is this. Fifty percent of America is living is a delusional state. In other words that very idea that we are having a close election tells it all. In any other western country, Mitt would get 20%. And last but not least, 40% of women will vote for Romney. Talk about delusion!!!
Why is there so much domestic violence in this country? Because a great number of women can not bring themselves to believe a great looking guy would do evil things to them, and if he does , he won't do it again. Willard the Rat can't be SO bad cause he looks and talks SO good. I know a great number of women who DON'T fit this description, whom I love, respect and revere. So flame me for being sexist if you must, but shallow knows no sex boundaries.
And thank you Paul Krugman whose column today states that neither Romney or Obama have a serious plan to fix our economic mess. Is Obama better, yes. Is he great, no. And since the Republicans will continue their control of the House, does it matter?
@Marvin S. What Krugman said is that Romney has NO plan and Obama's announced 27 point plan is good as far as it goes but doesn't address long term issues of sustainability and progress. Krugman ended on this note: "And you should never forget the broader policy context. Mr. Obama may not have an exciting economic plan, but, if he is re-elected, he will get to implement a health reform that is the biggest improvement in America’s safety net since Medicare. Mr. Romney doesn’t have an economic plan at all, but he is determined not just to repeal Obamacare but to impose savage cuts in Medicaid. So never mind all those bullet points. Think instead about the 45 million Americans who either will or won’t receive essential health care, depending on who wins on Nov. 6. "
@Marvin S-
I cannot disagree with you. I think MORE than 50% of our country are narced out on grape Kool-Aid, and unable to think critically. I am not a big Obama fan, but I do think it is possible as a lame duck he will speak to global warming, especially with public pressure. I have long thought that we are fucked on climate change, and will have to see the entire East Coastline under water before the guvnmint takes action, and/or the skeptics get over their denial. And--of course--it will be too late by then.
That said, I do think Obama is a much more decent and honest person than MittWitt. He is not as effective as we would hope, and certainly he is in bed with corporations. Not so much with Wall Street any more. But I will take him and Joe any day over that lying shithead and his Randian cohort, Paulie Ryan. And I think you are speculating that the entire country will fall apart in 50 years if Obama is elected--vs. 40 years if it is Rawmoney. That is despair talking. Chicken Little time. Things do not look good, I grant you, but all we can do is the next right thing! And mentor our young people.
@PD Pepe-
Yikes! Your brother sounds as nuts as mine. How did these guyz get so angry and paranoid? I admire you for going toe to toe with him! Even if it changes nothing, it shows you will stand up for your convictions. I do not have the energy to confront my brother at this point. Maybe I never will. Past efforts have been fruitless and depressing for me. I know where HE stands, and he thinks I am a communist. Sigh.
I am so glad to have our little cyber-family here on RealityChex. We may not always agree, but I think we are almost all soul brothers and sisters. And Marie keeps us honest! I am grateful for each of you. Thank you.
@kate:
regarding the consequences of standing up to a brother who believes he has "done it on his own" and who is a low information voter, here is what has happened with his offspring and me:
His daughter has begun to have amazing thoughtful discussions with me about how bad Romney's politics really are. It's been wonderful to hear her talk.
To boost your spirits regarding how some women are responding to the republican platform, watch "You Don't Own Me PSA" on Youtube.
Keep on talking: "little people have big ears"
@Victoria D. I think about those millions who don't receive care every day. It is a huge part of my professional life. But again, I can't help looking at the long term. OK, so everyone has insurance. That helps, but who pays? Who decides what care to provide? Where do we find the primary care doctors to take care of the added 45 million? Insurance or not, most are going to wind up in the ER.
The 'exceptional' part of American healthcare is defined by one word that I am sure no other country has. INDUSTRY. We have a fundamentally immoral system whose sole purpose is to make money. If a life is saved it is only a nice coincidence. There is nothing in Obamacare that seriously addresses the real problems. Huge waste of money on a functionally worthless insurance industry, 40% of 'healthcare' whose purpose is to make money not provide 'care', and a healthcare education system designed to promote waste. So regardless of improvements from the ACA, the healthcare system will continue to kill lots of people and wreck the US economy. And no one, not one politician in the entire country has the nerve to address this.
Or to put it another way, when someone almost drowns from rising sea water the medical response will be a hip replacement.
I just finished reading Marie's excellent essay on the Pinker problem and then read Chernus. I am reminded of the War of 1812 which had to do with hijinks on those high seas and when embargoes didn't work Madison went to war. The vote for that war, however, puzzled historians ( who came up with all sorts of complicated reasons) for decades because the coastal states that would be most affected voted nay while the inland states that wouldn't be voted yea. Seems it all had to do with party politics which pretty much plays out today.
I was also thinking that once cars made movement easier from one place to another people, too, became mobile in the sense that they left their hometown/region/state/ and put up their tents elsewhere. So when we talk of regional differences we need to take into account that within that particular region there dwells people from all over the map.
Recently I was in conversation with a friend who is leaving his wife and going back to his home base, Texas. He said he was relieved to finally say farewell to cold New England (he was not referring to the weather) and going back to back-slapping, good ole boy kind of hot Tex-Mix. I told him I had lived in the Midwest, the Southwest, the South, and now here, in Ct. and found more "warm" people than "cold" in all the places I planted my feet and within those places many of the people I knew were from other places. Perhaps, I said, you find what you want to find.
And speaking of regions: Watched part of the New Mexico Senate debate between (R) Heather Wilson and (D) Martin Heinrich. The latter is a young, handsome man whose delivery, although lacking a bit in assertiveness, was concise and good at presenting the Democratic message; the former was an almost perfect replica of "Our Miss Brooks" Eve Arden. Not only does she resemble Arden in looks, but her delivery is a pretty good match. Catch her if you can and see if you agree.
Want to respond to Marvin's concern about the lack of concentration on Global Warming. I, too, have envisioned our world shot to hell with frantic wars over water, land and food. There is, as you are aware, great swaths of institutions fighting this and in the Congress the people who head the committees on this are climate change deniers. Who is going to save us from ourselves? someone said long ago. We'll muddle along until, as you said, it's too late and maybe by that time you and I will be dead along with all those who did nothing and nothing will be what the future generations will get.
The Stemberg divorce settlement story may illustrate how Gov. Romney's IRA came to be worth over $100 million, even though annual contribution limits to an IRA are much, much lower than would normally allow such accumulation.
In one of the reports on the divorce, it appears that Gov. Romney and Mr. Stemberg (Staples board members) were able to ensure that the share value was 1/10 cent (Hey, I just realized my keyboard has no "cent symbol." What does that tell us?), before the stock was publicly offered. When the Staples stock was later offered to the public, it sold in the $20 range. So if Gov. Romney put in his IRA (say) 50,000 shares @ 1/10 cent, they would be valued at $50 for that entire lot of shares, well below any IRA annual contribution limit. But after the stock went public, those 50K shares would be valued at $1 million (@$20/share).
This is just illustrative, and inference, but it seems logical that if a Board Chairman, with a board majority, can do such a thing, he would. He'd be crazy not to do so.
@ Patrick. Michael J. Graetz, a professor of tax law at Columbia & a former Bush I Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, agrees with you. In a NYT op-ed he wrote in July, Graetz noted, "Given the extraordinary size of his I.R.A., we have to presume that Mr. Romney valued the assets he put in his retirement account at far less than he would have sold them for." So here, Romney was doing a "favor" not for a friend in a messy divorce case but for himself & his family.
It's not much different from your declaring on your tax returns that your taxable income was only a tenth or so of what it actually was. The effect is the same; the only itty-bitty difference is your false declaration would be a felony & Romney's was -- according to Mitt -- all perfectly legal. The rich are different from you and me, all right. They don't have to play by the rules we do.
Marie
Global Warming never made it into the presidential debates. And there are reasons why not.
First, from the Rat’s point of view, few registered Republicans will state publicly, whether they believe it or not, that global warming even exists. Most goose-step right along with right-wing big thinkers and climate change deniers like Medieval Jim Inhofe and Rick “What was I saying now?” Perry. Who even knows what Romney thinks? If there’s no cash value in believing in global warming, he likely has no use for it.
Obama, no doubt, understands the risks we’re running. But he has made a calculated decision not to talk too much about it during the campaign with the exception of addressing the need for green sources of energy. Perhaps he thinks there are already too many other big issues he needs to discuss in order to be re-elected. But none of the moderators brought it up either. Perhaps because it’s not sexy enough or because it hasn’t been much on the radar for the entire campaign except as a cudgel on the part of Republican anti-science climate deniers who have used the president's interest in alternative energy to beat him over the head.
But the subject has received just enough (meaning a gigantic shitload) of obfuscation, calling it a “theory” or rejecting it outright, to ensure that a large enough percentage of the population see it as a headache that, if real, is someone else’s problem. And that’s exactly the outcome the right desires. Stalemate. No one does anything.
The problem is, at least according to a growing number of climatologists, that it may already be too late. Climate change is like a giant locomotive going 1,000 miles an hour. If you want to stop it, you pull the brake but it will take a long time and a lot of braking power to stop this runaway train. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t do anything. Likely every little bit will help, but in order for there to be a huge difference, a coalition of business groups, industry, the public, government, and major energy producers will have to agree to serious modifications and changes in direction. Even if we could do that in this country and Europe, we have the China problem to deal with. China relies on expanding coal plants for an enormous amount of energy, and contrary to what mental midget Rand Paul claims, coal is a pretty dirty energy source. China, according to some sources, spews tons of carbon into the atmosphere every second.
But the larger problem is the anti-intellectualism/anti-science force at work today. And not only in the US. Just this week in Italy, a jury sent seven scientists to prison for six years each for—get this—manslaughter, for not correctly predicting when and where an earthquake would strike. The quake, which they correctly predicted had a chance of hitting, but could not, obviously predict with any accuracy, killed 300 people. Now, scientists are going to prison for not being able to correctly read the runes and interpret the signs from examining the inner organs of fallen birds.
We shouldn't laugh, we’re not far from that in this country.
There are some, however, who are laughing. And how. These laughing boys get a two-fer with this one. The granddaddy of conservatism in this country, the National Review, has run a number of articles ripping the Italians for being so backward (always nice to be able to jump up and down on Europeans for not being as intellectually advanced as, say, your average Teabagger) but then they pin the blame for this debacle squarely on the backs of—guess who? The SCIENTISTS!
Yes! By the light of the right-wing moon, under which bug-eyed wingnuts perform all manner of unholy tattooing of each other's private parts with obscure political symbols, the scientists, and science itself, are to blame!
Why? Something called “scientism”, supposedly promoted by liberals and liberal scientists which states, at least according to the National Review, that scientists claim to know all and that science can fix everything. God plays no role, and you know what that means! Never mind that no scientist has ever even suggested any such thing or that any educated person I’ve ever met believes anything close to this.
So yet another stone rolled into the path of progress by scientific illiterates, followed by more stones rolled on top of those by right-wing troublemakers out to further muddy the water.
How we get out of this is anyone’s guess, but I do believe it starts with electing people who will take these things seriously. We might not be able to halt global warming any time soon but we need to start. AND we need to figure out what our plans will be if and when coastal regions start going under water. But that won't happen here, will it? Nooooo. American Exceptionalism (and god) will save us all.
More on that another time.
Excellent Jane Mayer New Yorker piece on the Bush hack who started the voter fraud myth and now helps to oversee thousands of jack-booted teabagger thugs ready to challenge your right to vote in November.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1
The interesting thing is that it doesn't matter if their challenges have any validity. They can say, as they did to one woman mentioned in the article, that your address is a vacant lot, after which you get an official letter telling you that your right to vote has been challenged and directing you to appear at a hearing. The fact that this is only done to Democrats and especially, in Ohio, to black Democrats is pretty much a giveaway of what's going on. This is just one more front in the GOP's drive to steal the election. And even better? There's complete immunity for the challenger. The teabagger Steal the Vote group has issued thousands of challenges, probably tens of thousands nationwide. In a close election, even a small percentage of those who decide it isn't worth the trouble to show up for a courtroom proceeding in which you have to prove who you are, can swing the election to the party of the jack boots.
This hack, Hans Von Spakovsky, claims that he has no racial or partisan motivation but he also claims not to remember a single civil rights problem in his home state while growing up. His state? Alabama.
Unbelievably stupid or just another GOP liar? You decide.
He repeatedly sites "investigations" by right-wingers and other reports long since proven false as justification for going after Democrats. He laughs at the notion of any right-wing conspiracy to steal elections and prevent legal Democratic voters from exercising their franchise (even though there have been reams of reports clearly demonstrating this fact, along with the incessant Fox drumbeat of voter fraud) but he firmly believes that there is a long-standing Democratic conspiracy to get dead people to vote. So how does that work? One Democratic voter pretends to be a dead Democratic voter? Why bother?
Anyway, more faux outrage from the right, accompanied by lying smirks and moralistic finger wagging about the sanctity of democracy and how Democrats are trying to kill it.
It's always a pretty good bet that one party who constantly accuses another party of certain bad acts is very likely engaged in those same bad acts. GOPers are constantly screaming about stolen elections because they routinely steal elections themselves.
One of the biggest ironies facing this dilemma of global warming is that those who actually admit to the scientific data sit on their hands with the hope that Science will eventually save the day. We've become so overly reliant on scientific and technological 'breakthroughs' that they have now become part of our daily strategies for the future.
We're betting saving the future on currently unknown "scientific breakthroughs." So what if these scientific/technology breakthroughs don't show up on time (where's my flying car anyway)?
In Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society," this point is painted crystal clear. As a society, we've become enslaved to technological advances. Without the ability to resist these changes, we're forced to adapt for the better or the worse. The technical machine that is the world economy today is impossible to subvert because of the systemic machinations that hold it in place. So we're left to further technical advancements to get us out of this technical problem.
Environment, nature, humanity are all second-hand thoughts in the pursuit of capitalism.
On another note, when Marie put up the article about foreign monitors coming to the US to monitor the elections, my initial chuckle was about the inevitable American hubris that would shrine through as some "foreigner" shows up to make sure us 'Mericans know how a real democracy works. I imagined the conversations in the backrooms of the polling centers as the chauvenistic epithets flowed regarding whoever showed up to monitor the elections.
Well, good 'ol Tejas (surprise!) showed me I've still got it considering American culture. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot wrote a letter threatening arrest of whomever comes within 100 feet of a polling station, and even cordially invited them some other time to learn about how Tejas runs elections so they could take their democratic wisdom back to their respective countries and get the FUCK out!
http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-fury-abbot-warns-osce-election-monitors-they-aren-t-above-the-law
So why doesn't some angry librul start challenging all the teacakes' votes? Seems easy enough to do. Could even start with Hans Von Spakovsky, although Alabama's no prize and doesn't matter anyway.
James Singer: www.electionprojection.com
Today's projection is for 51 Democrat senators and 2 independents.Soo.....no bright points of hope? I have the impression that Republicans are more tightly enmeshed in the coils of the deluded who are going to be royally pissed if Obama ekes out a victory. If Obama has finally figured out that the opposition are not Harvard debating club members and toughens his approach it's over the budget cliff and on to a very rough 2 years: the last 2 years squared. Watched a Canadian CBC program interviewing voters in Ohio and Florida and am taken aback by the number of people who are indeed saying "Obama's had his 4 years, let's try the guys who got us into this mess again." It was all economics with no consideration of social issues. It's as tho many Americans have room for only 2 ideas at any one time. In 2001 it was security and revenge. In 2012 it's the debt and the economy.
Patrick,
To answer your question about why a board member like Romney, wouldn't allow share prices to be untruthfully and illegally reported if doing so allowed him to enrich himself or a fellow stockholder, I would suggest the possibility of one who wished to remain a moral, truthfilul, and ethical actor; one who saw the longterm and structural value of placing a premium on honest dealings. Clearly the Rat is not that person. As Marie declares, rightly, Romney is, always has been, and will continue to be someone who considers himself above honesty, rules, morality, ethics, the law, and correct behavior.
His sense of himself as a superior and special person allows him to lie about anything and is perhaps the primary reason he might be even worse than Little Georgie Bush, meaning a Rat presidency could be even worse than the worst administration in this nation's history. Not to mention what one might think of a lying ball licking misogynist who blithely fucked over the wife of a friend so the two of them could make money.
RAT.
The late Christopher Hitchens and the ever-faithful Dinesh D'Souza staged debates on theology and truth. I wish I had attended. I would have paid top dollar. Similarly, I would pay top dollar to attend a no-holds-barred cage match debate between Akhilleus and Ann Coulter. Just tell me where and when. I can get to the airport in 30 minutes.
Hey, Jack––can I hitch a ride to the airport? Akhilleus and Coulter–-an absolute dream couple going head to head with our guy chewing hers off little by little until at the very end of the debate there is only that skinny torso enclosed in her slinky black dress with golden tresses lining the floor. Akhilleus takes a bow, licks his chops, while loud applause fills the auditorium. Wunderbar!
PD,
After which I'd need about a gallon of ipecac. Wouldn't want to absorb that much sliminess all at once.
Sheesh!