Inauspicious Scuttlebutt

I don't know what to make of this blog anymore. What was originally intended to be a random smattering of news and interesting stories I'd found online became a political blog after the shooting of Gabby Giffords in January 2011. This frustration at what I felt at the time to be the unhinging of "the American way"  has since only descended further into a wretched mess of polarity in the country today.

From a personal perspective, this blog became an outlet for my subconscious, a place to rant in the midst of unemployment, underemployment, and a distant, detached relationship with my ex-wife. In short, it preserved my sanity, slowly built up my ability to write and edit, then became an albatross during the 2012 Election. There's no doubt I reveled in all of it, yet I just don't care to do it anymore. I no longer need to write about politics to channel my frustration, nor am I as absorbed in it as I once was.

Further, I found that my hope to populate this space with the under-covered stories of the day, that weren't finding traction in this messed up world of corporate sponsored media outlets - things like the environment, marriage equality, the advance of progressive movements and the things that get lost in the shuffle, just wasn't happening. Today, these stories are finally getting the traction and media attention they've long deserved, which is awesome. As for my own writing, it rarely turned out that way, too often finding myself reveling in the media I claimed to loathe, sucked in like the rest by the intensity of the moment, the nastiness of political debate and my own tendencies to lapse into long, professorial analyses. Yes, I began to bore even myself.

With Congress' intransigence and purely political mission to regain power, the president's inability to better assert his own political will, the whole system's corrupt approach to elections, lobbying and corporate focus, plus the overall feeling that justice is a fleeting ideal that only the monied can afford, my faith in the American system of democracy has been shaken. To be honest, more than anything, I'd just rather spend my time doing more constructive things than lament the frivolous, media driven, ideologues that dominate a government that's supposed to be informed and guided by the will of the people.

There may come a day, movement or election year that may change this perspective and reignite my motivation for such pursuits. I don't see that happening in the immediate future, especially since I'd prefer to spend my free time writing about  more positive things like music (how I first started writing) and the growth of craft beer, which has grown into it's own animal since I arrived in Portland a few years back. In fact, I just started writing for a small craft beer magazine based in Japan, that's starting up in June. So I'm thankful that my time will be better spent doing that, likely providing resources for a larger, more specific readership that's looking for such content.

I'm sure I'll continue to post interesting articles via the Auspicious Scuttlebutt facebook page, which directly populates my twitter feed and I see no reason why I wouldn't at least take a stab at stories from time to time, including 2016, which has the potential to turn into a full blown clown show, even beyond the Circus Of The Absurd we saw in 2012.

In the meantime, be sure to treat the ones you love with full blown patience, compassion and understanding.  And please don't forget to keep talking, it's the most important part, for if we stop doing that, well then... we deserve what's coming to us.

Be well and may your world keep giving you reasons to seek out the Auspicious.

Politics vs Action

via popsci.com

I was enheartened by our president's inaugural address today, definitely more than I was four years ago. There were a number of excellent passages that specifically addressed LGBT issues, climate change, immigration and human rights. But I was most struck by one particular passage:

Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle century’s long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time. For now, decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act. We must act knowing that our work will be imperfect.

We do not all agree on everything, but we acknowledge the founders vision, begat to us and refined over generations, that our leaders collective purpose is to maintain that vision by promoting the best outcomes for all our citizens. And above all we must act to maintain that vision, to manage what we can to improve that which is imperfect.

We cannot let those who lie at the extremes subterfuge the collective well being of our state for the sake of their own specific causes. The ideological intransigence of the few cannot be allowed to thwart the will of the  greater populace who often wish to be unfettered of such concerns.

Yes, we need to speak our minds and promote the best options our country requires to find success, yet our aims will only be accepted by the body politic if they promote the greater good for all, not just for those in power, the monied or special interests.

We all have a stake and thus, all must participate and do their part to make our union something that lives up to it's definition: a country for all, ruled by no one man or woman, willing to champion the causes of all who participate and strive to be heard.

Make your voices heard. Write your congress men and women. Speak your mind. We must acknowledge that each ingredient in this greater recipe will ultimately nourish us all. For to not do so, we forfeit our privilege and will yearn for sustenance, growing hungry without knowing why.

Our country will not flourish unless we provide the nourishment for it to sustain.

And sustain we must.

Reflecting on Gun Violence and Mental Health in America

I didn't want to write about this. I told myself I wouldn't, but my conscience won't let me be. I'm tired of hearing about people being killed. I'm tired of living in a culture that views and glorifies military action, fighting, retribution and violent resolutions to our human condition. I'm tired of hearing about soldiers being killed in Afghanistan, of innocents being killed as a result of drone strikes in middle-eastern countries and of innocent children being killed in classrooms in America and in Pakistan.

I'm tired of reading about death, period

I'm tired of hearing people say that to talk the way I'm talking is "politicizing the situation." To not talk about it is politicizing the situation. To sit numbly staring at the television is to accept the political matter before us, to absorb the glorification of a troubled youth who should not have had access to semi-automatic weapons of which his parents apparently had at least 5 as has been reported.

28 people, 20 of which were 6 or 7 year old first graders, were killed because a troubled teen had access to firearms. Were that not the case, I doubt any of this would have occurred.

I'm am not a parent. I have yet to be blessed with children in my life, but I cannot imagine what any parent has had to deal with over the past 48 hours. What I do know is that parents love their children and want to protect their children, so, I hope, in this vain, all those who own weapons of any kind, who have children, especially young ones or teenagers, have taken the steps to secure their weapons or better yet, not have them located inside your home.

I live in a metropolitan area. There is far more crime where I live than in the places where many people own multiple guns per person, yet there are far more gun deaths in those more sparsely populated and gun friendly states (of which Oregon is one). This shooting occurred in a neighborhood where there is very little violence. These are recreational guns, unlikely to ever be used for self defense, so why were they unsecured or easily accessed by a 20 year old?

This year has seen the most mass-shooting fatalities in 30 years. According to Mother Jones and the New Republic...

...there have been 70 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, leaving 543 people dead (assuming the reports of 27 fatalities from [yesterday's] shootings are correct.) Seven of those 70 shootings occurred this year. Sixty-eight of those 543 victims were killed this year. If the scenes of horror and heartbreak are now familiar, it's because the past six years have been particularly bloody. Fully 45% of the victims of mass shootings in America over the past three decades were killed since 2007. That is a crisis.

These are numerical facts. As a country, we are nearly about to have as many gun deaths in a year as automobile deaths and we have far more automobiles, with hundreds of safety measures for them.

I've heard a lot of talk about how we shouldn't be talking about gun control and how instead we should be talking about mental health. I've heard a lot of talk about how we need to abolish the 2nd Amendment. I've also heard a lot of people talk over this past year about how these are isolated incidents done only by troubled people. I've heard about 22 people stabbed by a man in China, all of whom survived. These arguments, on their own, won't solve our problems.

The two issues people point to the most, mental health and gun laws, are not mutually exclusive. They are both reasons for this terrible tragedy. They both cannot go unrecognized and we must find solutions to them both. I don't have the answers to these problems, but it's clearer today than it's been in decades that this is a national issue, that our governments (national, state and local) must act in a reasoned fashion to protect the safety of our citizens via measures that specifically address gun safety and health care.

Ezra Klein had a must read article in the Washington Post yesterday about gun ownership in our country. In today's NY Times, Nicholas Kristof talks about what other countries have done:

In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns.The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands. The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings. In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half. Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them. For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

It is clear that there are solutions to the gun safety issue. On the health care issue, I think that not cutting federal funding for health care, as a result of "fiscal cliff" discussions is the first place to start. I think that pushing states to allow the Affordable Care Act to do what it was created to do will go a long way to help all Americans as well. For many of the middle to low income citizens in this country it is far more expensive and far less fun or sexy to own health care than it is to own a gun.

So begin the process Mr. President and Congress. Write up some bills and present them to the American people, then have the debate about how we want these bills to work, without the threat of filibuster. We can't afford to hem and haw around the edges of this issue any longer. It is time for action. Now.


If you are concerned about a loved one or are concerned about your own mental health, talk to someone you love or find resources online to help those you love.

Revelations on Reality

No, don't worry. I'm not about to go off on some tirade about the Bible or the end times, though that Mayan  landmark date will be upon us shortly. I spent the better part of my childhood reading and learning about the Bible, yet I never read most of the book of Revelation. For me, Christianity was never about Fear or Hellfire, so I guess it never piqued my interest.

What did pique my interests though, as a young boy, was the flicking images on the big screen. The first film I ever saw was Annie in 1982 at the age of 5. I promptly came home and told my parents the whole story. I was hypnotized, but like all things, in time it faded away... I don't think I've seen Annie in over 25 years.

Ever since, film has always had an impact on me. Sure, there was a lot of crap made in the 80's and the 90's, but still, every so often, I see a film that bends my perspective on the world. Just as characters in a film overcome obstacles in the arc of the story based upon revelations, so too are we shaped by reality. Sometimes, regardless of the film, I see something that strikes me as the perfect solve, at that time and place in my life, for whatever it is I'm going through in my life.

In 1991 there was a film called Defending Your Life (an Albert Brooks film) that really was the right film for me to watch at that time in my life. I was 14 and dealing with anxiety/depression, as teenagers are known to do and the point of the film, not letting your fears keep you from living life, really struck a chord in me. I was just finishing up the only counseling I've ever really had with a therapist, and the feeling I had, upon the film's completion, was one of exhilaration, freedom, strength and self-esteem.

I such a moment this evening.

I was watching Skyfall, the latest in the Bond franchise and arguably one of the best ever made, or at least the best over the past 20 years or so. I don't know what it was about the film that gave me such a not-so-revolutionary-epiphany but it came to me before the climax of the film as the main characters first enter the Skyfall estate.

I felt a sudden sense of self-awareness, that I hadn't been living in reality over the past 6 months. I guess such a self-assessment isn't surprising when you've lost your father and your wife within the past year, both occurring within the same week.

Tonight's revelation was about living in reality itself. About not succumbing to the comfortable, to the expected, to not fall into the mundane of day-to-day life. Ultimately, it was about not taking this life for granted. My life over the past 5 years has occasionally felt imprisoned by the invisible iron bars of the internet. Reality wasn't doing it for me, so I hid here, but I now feel stronger, wiser, freer and more confident.

You may not know that I studied film in college or that I've only made one film. I had hoped to make an impact on the world with a mass-media format that can change peoples lives in the span of 2 hours, all done in a comfortable chair, in the dark. Instead I found that I'm better at helping others in the first-person and it's what I hope to continue doing, in one form or another, for the rest of my days.

What I've learned is that if you hit one of these hurdles in life, you cannot stop and argue with the hurdle, it'll do you no good. You keep running, preparing for the next hurdle, clearing it as you're supposed to.

We lead cynical lives in this here 21st Century. These times are trying and sometimes it feels difficult to carry on, but we must. We carry on because the one who says that the only person you can trust in is yourself, and the person who says you can only accomplish your goals with the assistance of others are both wrong.

We can't afford to be so cynical to think that there are absolute answers. Nothing in our world is this black and white. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, is trying to sell you something, or is only concerned with saving their own neck.

So please, go out and DO. Live this life. Ask questions. Substitute anger and hate with acceptance and love.  Try to overcome the cynical with optimism and light. Let us be dazzled by the small things. Let reality wash over us. Lets get on with it, keeping a watchful eye on that next hurdle.

And inspiration? Thank god for that.

Election 2012: The Real Reason the GOP Lost

via Zap2It

Tuesday was an exciting evening, but actually surprising considering how close all the media made it out to be. It was especially shocking if you'd been peddled this lie that Romney was going to win, even by a landslide, according to some prognostications. If you haven't seen it, Rachel Maddow's rant Wednesday night, detailing the deception of the conservative media and the lies they continue to perpetuate, is worth viewing:

In the days since the election, many on the conservative right and in the media, have tried to explain why the GOP got "shellacked."  You may have heard some interesting interpretations, just as I have, so here just a few of the excuses I've heard, none of which add up.

Hurricane Sandy killed Romney's Momentum.

Romney had no momentum when Sandy hit. He could have dispelled the notion everybody had that he's against FEMA, he didn't. He could have stopped campaigning, gotten his hands dirty and helped communities, instead of still holding a campaign rally, posing as a faux can drive. He could have tried to buck the general public's notion that all he wanted to do was win, stopping his official campaign for the same duration Obama did, but he didn't. Sometimes being presidential is about not being political and I don't know if Romney understands this.

They Weren't Conservative Enough

The one thing that hurt Romney more than anything was his late pivot back to the middle. He's historically been a moderate and went conservative to win the primary, but if he had pivoted back to the middle before his convention, maybe he'd been better able to handle the 47% charge that was levied against him. The only time he had momentum was the week after the first debate, right after he pivoted and seemed sensible, knocking Obama on his heels. It's the independent, moderate voters that decide elections, not just turning out the base.

Because Those Who Voted For Obama Want "Stuff"

First, a majority of the states that receive more aid per-capita than they pay in taxes tend to vote Republican.  So this fallacy that was foisted upon us by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney prior to the election, is now being used as an excuse for why Obama won by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Second, it's an absurd statement when most of the "takers" (as they call them) are their own electorate, with many of that 47% being soldiers, veterans, senior citizens, students and the very poor. If you're trying to find ways to win by courting the votes of minorities, women and young voters, it might make more sense to offer positive reasons to join your ranks, instead of putting down people who already rely on government in situations beyond their control. Maybe they were considering voting for you until you decided to put them down. This whole "makers vs. takers" debate is a fraud, especially when one considers how the "makers" earn their money ( often by the hard work of the very people they call "takers").  Further, many of these so called "makers" often work for or own companies that are receiving corporate welfare (federal subsidies), making them "takers" as well.

Instead of pointing fingers, accusing others of being lazy or welfare queens, they could work on the 28% of the electorate that isn't white, that they (for some reason) have again struggled to bring into the tent. The reason why they're struggling isn't because they don't have enough leaders of color in their ranks (which they still don't), but it's because of policy, it's the quality of the leaders they're nominating, it's their own damn party platform. Don't blame other people for your own shortcomings; take ownership of your loss, identify your shortcomings and work to become a better party.

In the end, it wasn't the fault of hurricane Sandy, or not being conservative enough, or "people wanting stuff", or not having enough minority leaders, or not catering to minorities needs. You lost because your party is devoid of ideas. There are many Americans in this country, myself included, that vote based on empirical evidence. We vote for leaders that can identify the issues of the day, know how to address them and actually fight to get them fixed. We voted the way we did in 2012 because all the republican candidates offered were a pledge to remove all the things the president put in place to improve our economy, which, go figure, continues to improve. Get back to us when you decide that you want to help our economy by providing real solutions, not just a plan to win elections by stonewalling the president and the will of the people.

The End Days of Election 2012

via Rolling Stone

It's funny, I was planning to write this whole long analysis, potentially spread out over 4 posts, about why Obama deserves re-election and why Romney is likely the worst Republican candidate ever. Yet here we stand, 3.5 days from the election and I'd like to hope that 95% of those planning to vote Tuesday have already made up their minds.  There's no need to retrace the narrative we've all heard from Obama's lips a thousand times nor do I feel the need to continue pounding my head against the lies and deceits of Romney's vacuous campaign rhetoric. I'm over it.

So, what now then?

I think the best way to go about this is provide for you the starkest examples of why this decision should be so much easier for the country than it's been presented thus far. I mean really. The past two months have felt like the middling days of the Republican primary season when 5 different candidates each held a lead at one point, except that during this general election it's been defined by our instant reactions to the debates, it's been powered by the catchy and timely memes (while fun, they end up being a sugary dessert distracting from the meat of the main course) and of course the never ending polling.

In truth though, what we've really witnessed is the direct result of one bump in the road, Romney's huge switch from conservative darling to the moderate Mitt of Massachusetts. This obvious set of calculated reversals should, on it's own merit, cause voters to stop and assess the sheer, compromised nature of Willard's political existence. Obama was dominating the polls after Romney's flailing gambit of an overseas tour of confusion, after the GOP's mediocre convention which was apparently upstaged by Honey Boo Boo and the strong Democratic convention.  Then, in what appeared to be Romney's death knell, we were given a fly-on-the-wall peak into a Romney fundraiser for fat cats via a secret tape that focused on his view of the 47% of Americans he claims don't pay taxes, that view themselves as "victims" which he'd never be able to convince.

That huge lead was obliterated after Obama failed to show up at the first debate, yet as we head into the final days of the 2012 election, Democrats have nearly returned to the high water mark just before that turn of events.  First, Joe Biden ripped apart Paul Ryan in what should be viewed as one of the best, if not the most entertaining debates ever, and the Republican ticket has been knocked back on it's heels ever since. Obama showed up for the second debate, looking stronger and more determined, then scored another win in the final debate which focused on one of his strongest attributes over the past 4 years, foreign policy.

While Obama's foreign policy has been strong (except for what many consider to be an excessive reliance on a drone strike kill list) it's our domestic policy that should the biggest focus. Only recently have Obama and Biden been willing to even say the word "stimulus," which probably felt like safer ground to inhabit after Clinton's stirring speech at the DNC.

So, for sake of brevity, clarity and efficacy, for all those questioning Obama's abilities as president, here is a compilation of graphics, quotes and links that should be sufficient evidence of why Barack Obama has earned re-election.

Visual Evidence

First, in four years, our country has been able to recover from one of the most catastrophic economic situations in our history.  While the rise of low paying, part-time, service industry jobs continue, we have also seen a scaling back of public sector jobs (reducing federal expenditures), debunking this myth of Obama's prioritizing Big Government and an emphasis on reduced federal expenditures...

...we have also seen the creation of 750,000 private sector jobs in Obama's 4 years. Interesting considering the 1,168,000 jobs lost in W. Bush's first term. This private sector job growth has been going on for 32 consecutive months. Do we want to continue this upward trend or do we want to elect a candidate who's staff is largely made up of the same people that lost us all those jobs?  Should we again empower those who wish to direct money to those who're already thriving at the top instead of enabling the middle class, the central driving force that's always strengthened our economy in the past?

via barackobama.com

One thing Romney's "5 Point Plan," which focuses first on the creation of 12 million new jobs (something Moody's has projected to happen regardless of who becomes president), doesn't possess is real, feasible details. The president's plan for a second term has been laid out clearly and I highly recommend checking it out here.

Now as far as foreign policy goes, the choice here seems obvious. We know what the president has done and that is continuing to move our country away from war. Mitt Romney has advocated in the past an aggressive, militaristic approach to Iran, then recently said he'd do the same as Obama has done. Just like his assertions on the economy, we just don't know what to expect from Romney, except that he wants to spend 2 trillion more on the military, which makes no sense especially considering our debt, no realistic plan to increase revenue and no willingness to return to a tax code that will stimulate growth.

via blareshare

While it has often been documented by the media over the past 4 years, the intractable obstructionism of the Republican congress has truly has been the biggest reason our economy hasn't seen greater successes sooner, we haven't heard about it much lately. They've blocked numerous job acts, pushed the once automatic increase of the debt ceiling to the point of default, resulting in a downgrade of our country's credit rating, created a potential fiscal cliff in January and have done it all with the sole purpose of making Obama a one term president. Instead of trying to fix what ails our nation, many in congress and in state houses across the country have pursued a record number of bills attempting to curb access to abortion and contraceptive services.

via Laci Green

This last graphic I feel is the most important in spotlighting the details of just how bad it could have been. While we are still recovering, we're recovering faster than has been done historically and as a result, are in better shape than most European and Asian nations today.

via Oregon Office of Economic Analysis

To briefly mention the record of Mitt Romney. There are really only two things he can brag about in his history as a leader. The first would be his emergency posting as CEO and president. There is no doubt about the success of the Salt Lake City Winter games of 2002, yet how they came to have success is important to analyse since it wouldn't have gone so well without federal government aid.  The olympics received $400 to $600 millions dollars in federal aid as a result of Romney's lobbying the government. Sure, it's commendable that he was able to get this done, yet it completely flies in the face of his assertion that he's against Big Government.

The other big accomplishment in the political life of Mitt Romney is his biggest achievement as governor of Massachusetts, the implementation of the individual mandate version of near universal healthcare. As a result, 95% of Mass. residents now have health care and it is very popular in the state. Amongst the 20 things Romney claims he'd do on his first day as president, ending Obamacare, the basis of which is the health care system he helped create, would arguably top the list.

Both of his strongest accomplishment further add to the greater narrative... who is Mitt Romney and what does he stand for?

Before You Vote

Chances are, many of you out there have already voted as I have. If you haven't or if you simply want to learn more about the candidates, I highly recommend the following articles and videos.

If you have two hours, I highly recommend Frontline's unbiased look at both candidates, worts and all.

                                            

The best written defense of Obama's first four years was written this week by New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait.  If you don't have the time to read the whole thing, here's his closing argument:

What can be said without equivocation is that Obama has proven himself morally, intellectually, temperamentally, and strategically. In my lifetime, or my parents’, he is easily the best president. On his own terms, and not merely as a contrast to an unacceptable alternative, he overwhelmingly deserves reelection.

Matt Taibbi, one of the best political writers today, provides an excellent look at the myths surrounding Big vs. Small government debate. His article centers around the aftermath of Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy and that government aid isn't just for the poor or elderly, government plays an important role in all of our lives.

No doubt Lawrence O'Donnell is prone to hyperbole, but his Rewrite commentary last night was an excellent look at how important government is in enabling business to function, again in the context of Sandy, but with added focus on the false "You Didn't Build That" talking point.

    

Lastly, conservative leaning magazine The Economist may not have given the president the most ringing endorsement, it may very well be seen by many fence dwellers as a cogent argument for why Romney should not be president.

The Closing Argument

The best thing I can say about Mitt Romney today is that, with the exception of Jon Huntsman who was drubbed from the start, he is the best candidate Republicans could have chosen of the lot. Otherwise, as I wrote 10 months ago, Mitt Romney simply cannot be trusted. His assertions have been vague and filled more with grand ideological talking points than with ANY substantial or realistic plans. He caters every word he says to the ears that are absorbing them and possesses no backbone. Lastly, why should we ever elect a leader from a party that doesn't believe in the central tenets of our founders vision: that we are a government of the people. Corporations are not people. Ideologies should not supplant the needs of the people and a Romney administration would put the needs of business and ideology before the needs of the citizenry.

I've noted above, as I did 7 months ago, that Obama deserves a second term. Further reasons include the fact that he still wants to close Guantanamo, is still pursuing policies that look to reduce our reliance on oil, wants to solve the issue of immigration and has put forward clear plans to improve our system of education, and increase spending on research and development. Certainly Obama's first term has not been perfect, yet his biggest failings have been a result of communication and congressional obstructionism. If he can rekindle the bi-partisan message, potentially with a more balanced and less partisan House, Obama would have a far more successful second term than Romney would a first.

Our future will not be built on tired ideas that our economy will grow based on military spending, tax cuts and deregulation. These ideas have worked in specific contexts in our history (WWII, Reagan's first term, etc.), but have otherwise failed when put into action over the past 30 years. One news item that came up this week detailed how the GOP withdrew a request from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.  This report determined that tax cuts for the top 1% have not historically accounted for sustained economic growth. They've attempted to suppress this data because it is the central thesis of 30 years of conservative economic governance. For them it's not about shared success, it's about success for their wealthy political contributors. It's about taking care of their own, not the middle class, not the worker or those wishing to pursue the American Dream.

The biggest hoax the mass media has perpetuated, especially since the advent of cable news, is that every story has two sides. Yes, there are many opinions on every facet of our civilization, but facts should remain constant. There are never two sides to every fact. There are facts and there are falsehoods or lies.

We need to focus our priorities on the basis of facts. If we elect Mitt Romney, who has run a campaign devoid of facts, we will perpetuate the notion that our leaders don't have to be honest with us, instead, they'll remain shrouded behind the curtain, uncertain about our future and thus, weakening our standing in a global economy. Conversely, the president has reasserted our position in the world, put in motion reforms that continue to strengthen our economy and is by far the more moderate of the two candidates. With Obama there is no mystery as to what he wants us to accomplish as a country; with Governor Romney there are far too many question marks, with a far greater likelihood that we'll return to the same policies that created our debt, weakened our economy and established our poor standing overseas, all of which could again result in economic calamity.

The choice should seem pretty clear; I can only hope we choose wisely.

Presidential Debate #2: Do the Polls Move?

via twitter

I'm gonna keep this short since it was a late night, following a long day, capped by a reinvigorating performance by the president.

Two points that should impact the movement of the polls over the next few days:

1) After Obama's dismal performance in the first debate, right leaning moderates and conservatives rallied around their candidate as evidenced by the tightening of national polls and the lack of movement in the swing states. Of the swing states up for grabs (Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia and Florida) Romney took clear leads in only three (Colorado, Virginia and Florida), meaning that most of his gains were in states he's already solidified... the red states. With Obama's performance Tuesday night, the liberal base will obviously be fired up, likely those in the swing states who weren't terribly swayed by Romney's first performance.

2) Some of Obama's biggest strengths last night, beyond owning his record and further sullying his challenger's purported record on jobs, was his ability to bring clear, rational explanations supporting women's reproductive health and in handling the ongoing issue of undocumented immigrants. Both of these demographics were central to Romney's rebound the past two weeks and with the president hitting it out of the park on these two topics, I see him not only improving his numbers with these groups.  He should also gain among veterans, blue-collar workers and undecided voters in general, based on the strength of his overall performance.

What impressed me most was his ability to bring succinct, interesting details where all of Romney's stats only supported his increasingly preposterous assertions about Obama's failed economic policies. Numbers that ultimately reflect more on 8 years of Bush's failed policies and less on Obama's attempts to get jobs bills passed in an ever obstructionist Congress. If there was one thing I'd like to hear more of from Obama, it's about the intransigence we've seen from a Congress that's gone out of it's way to thwart any government action.

So, I see widening leads in the states that Obama is barely leading in, a big boost in Ohio, a complete recapturing of Colorado and a potential retaking of Florida. Yes, Romney had momentum, but he had it mostly in states that do nothing to bolster his electoral college numbers, the one's he's already winning handily.  Sure, he gained in the national horserace, but recent polls, since the VP debate, have shown that momentum his momentum has stopped and the tide's about to roll back.

Halfway Through the Debates: Is the Best Yet to Come?

                                                                                 Fear                                                 via Business Insider

The first two debates could be easily categorized as falling within the Dennis Green philosphy, "they are who we thought they were."  Romney has been a historically good debater, check. Obama has been a historically bad debater, check. The challenger usually wins the first debate, check. Biden is the elder, more experienced debater, check. Ryan is less experienced, but looks good on tv, check.

Yes, Obama falling flat on his face was a surprise to most everybody, including me, but otherwise I'd say the debate season, often the most thrilling part of election season, has stayed pretty much on script based on historic precedent. Romney came out guns blazing as many expected and Obama, who didn't refute some obviously misguided (to put it nicely) statements, rarely took the offensive, instead going wonky and verbose, something he's prone to do.

Biden turned the tables in this week's debate, yet not only is it unheard of to score a knockout blow in a VP debate (historically, until the past few years, the least memorable of the debates), they are also not the standard bearers of their respective parties nor the face of each ticket. Sure, we've heard plenty from the right about how Biden acted like a drunk, grinned too much, was rude or cut off Paul Ryan.  Yes, his performance was a little over the top, but it worked. He kept a perceptibly calm Ryan off balance in his responses, caught him in a lie about stimulus requests, was stronger on foreign policy, actively fact-checked Ryan's statements and was definitively the more confident of the two.  A few of the highlights...

What I found to be Biden's most effective portion of the evening, talking about unemployment, taxes and the 47% claim:

With the challengers taking the first debate and the incumbent taking the second, the next debate (at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY) comes to us in a town hall format which tends to be the least combative format available. Each candidate takes their turn answering a question from the audience, without immediate rebuttal, as Biden relished on Thursday.

Considering the general consensus that the first debate was pretty much an ass-whipping for Obama, I don't think anyone expects him not to come up short this time and since it won't be in the traditional debate format, this may work to his advantage, that is if he doesn't drone on too long. Romney, if he can keep the same composure he had for the first debate, should also be strong.

The key in this debate, as it is for most any other, is to see how each candidate answers the question.  Do they take the answer head on, then present facts that effectively refute their opponents position?  Or do they provide vague platitudes in response, then pivot to a positive answer they're better prepared to give?

I have a feeling that this third debate will be the most pivotal. If Romney wins decidedly, Obama will then really be on the ropes for the last two weeks. If Obama wins, his campaign will not only stop the downward trend in polls since the first debate, but also set up a potential reversal of fortunes in the last debate. If there's no clear winner at the town hall this Tuesday, then things get even more interesting as we head in the final debate.

As far as substance goes, what to watch for in the coming debate is to see if Obama takes a page from Biden and actively fact-checks and provides the correct answers to Romney's scripted fantasy responses or if he'll just stick with his own message. Will Massachusetts Mitt show up again, as he did in the first debate, or will he get stuck in a position between pandering to his party instead of wooing undecideds?

While the race is far closer than I'd expected at this point and while I still think Obama has a distinct advantage based on the continued improvement of the economy and being the incumbent, it still is anyone's race. Now it's just a matter of whether it will be down to the wire or if a knockout can be landed by either camp in one of the last two debates.

Previewing the 2012 Presidential Debates

via abc news

Being that I don't regularly post stuff on this here blog, ergo, when I do, it's a huge post with too much information going on, I figured it'd make sense to briefly preview the last month of the election season, namely the debates. I, like many Americans, look forward to the presidential debates and I think it has something to do with our competitive nature and a desire to witness that true head-to-head, unfiltered and "honest" battle that's intended to ultimately sway the voting public. Maybe there was a time when this may have been true, yet nowadays with early voting, the 24hr news cycle and the internet, it seems more like a spin session, with the candidates not exactly answering the questions, more evading them, then providing a positive finishing statement to redirect any negative mojo the original question or assertion may have engendered.

Thinking about the debates in this fashion should provide us a keener insight into who stands to gain from the debates. There has already been a lot of talk about expectations, with Obama seeming to want them lowered and Romney raising them a bit since it's been pretty clear of late that he's behind at this point, with even Fox News projecting Obama as having a 5 point advantage. Be sure to check out the best analysis of polling today, if you like "into the weeds" analysis of this stuff, which is Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog.

The interesting angle going into the stretch run here is whether or not the debates will make an impact on polling. What has been clear for the bulk of this election season is that the polls didn't move much until the conclusion of the Democratic Convention, then once the wheels on the Romney camp came off (see rushed response to the killings in Libya, the hidden video-47% comments, releasing his politically manipulated 2011 tax returns, etc.) it's become an uphill battle for the beleaguered champion of the elites. What's even more telling are his feeble attempts to re-brand himself as supportive of the middle class by effectively continuing the branding of Obama as the food stamp president who's taken the work requirement out of welfare reform - the former an assertion more indicative of his predecessors handy work and the latter a baldfaced lie.

So with many states already voting and the bulk of the electorate apparently decided on whom they wish to support, it will be interesting to see the stances Romney takes. Obama has stayed pretty true to the same policies he's espoused in his state of the union addresses and stump speeches - jobs/tax reform, energy, education and debt reduction, yet there continue to be no new specifics from the Romney camp. He's already said he's going to "describe very clearly what [he] will do to get America working again" at the debates, but if his plans differ from the expected framework of either the Ryan or Romney budget, he'll live up to his flip-flop/etch-a-sketch persona, alienating the far-right vote he's spent a year trying to convince his conservative chops to. Conversely, if he doubles down on the vague platitudes he's already presented in the past with hard data that would essentially paint a picture of how the richest will be the greatest to gain from their policies, with the middle class and poor further weakened by tax increases, including the removal of deductions from the tax code, then he loses the independent vote.

Of course it won't be this black and white. The only way Romney can possibly win this election is by coming off as more personable, providing really effective policy details and putting Obama on his heels. While many claim that Romney is the better debater (besting his far weaker GOP opponents in the circus-like debates last fall is hardly a confirmation of his abilities), he certainly is a well versed slinger of improvisational bullshit.  Obama's weakness is his tendency to ramble, being slow and deliberative in his responses. Yet these assessments are based on his early 2008 debates, a series in which he improved markedly over 6 months. Further, he has the advantage of actually living with and dealing with current events and policy, putting them into practice every day of his life over the past 4 years, yet a candidate, such as Romney, like Obama in '08, merely learns what he's supposed to say and has to conjure responses based primarily on memorization only.

Many on the left think Romney will be toasted to a crisp once the debates have run their course. While in the end I think Obama will make a better case for his re-election than Romney will, to think this will be an easy win for Obama would be short-sighted.  When all is said and done, Romney will most likely do as he did in the GOP debates: stick with vague policies and provide red meat to the right, thus neither winning nor losing, but keeping the status quo. Obama will have some lapses and have to spin his way out of attacks on his economic record and if he has to answer questions on his drone strategies then he could stumble there as well. I doubt Romney will net a big enough bounce from the debates considering the hole he finds himself in today and Obama should maintain his lead or even further cement the undecided and independent vote.

If things continue as they have for the Romney/Ryan ticket, Obama has a strong chance to surpass the margin that he won by in 2008, with the possibly of a 60-40 result come November. If Romney can put Obama on the defensive, make him look weak and shock the nation by actually coming across as likable to the middle class, then we could have a very close result come election day. At this point, that seems very unlikely.

Further Resources

2012 Presidential Debate Schedule

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight Blog

60 Minutes Debate Preview

Andrew Sullivan, The Dish

Real Clear Politics

2012 Convention Wrap-Up

After three days of the Republican convention, then three more days of the Democratic convention, I have to say, first and foremost, I'm glad they're over. The reason I haven't really written much about these generally vapid demonstrations of Americanism is because they're mostly just a big pep-rally for each party's respective base and a choreographed appeal to independent types. Here's your red meat, here's your gender specific reference, here's a minority who overcame all odds to prove his/her value as an American. And yes, a number of those who spoke were inspiring and many were even noteworthy (the first illegal immigrant to speak at a convention, Clinton's speech, Mr. Eastwood, etc.) but in the end it seems to be about bringing a disney-eque sheen to the face of each party, while slipping in one liners about how the other guy is wrong and we are right.

While there were some interesting speeches today to watch and listen to, before I get to that, I was thinking about how cool it would be if there was a way to fuse both of these affairs. That each party could handle their business proceedings separately (the party platforms, the delegate roll calls, the regalia and ceremony) then have a collective gathering that would be open to both party's delegates and independents.  A collective call to civility in politics. In imagining it as a chance for all sides to lay down their arms and embrace what we agree upon and wish to accomplish together, I quickly realize that such a scene could never exist in our polarized political culture of finger-pointing, division and ideological crosses to bear.  Oh well, it could have been one for the ages, so I guess we'll have to settle for this, for now...

The contrast between what I saw at each convention was greater than normal. Usually it ends up being a week of "we think this as Republicans" then a week of "we think this as Democrats" with the rest of each event pretty much filling the time with USA chants, awkward looking people who look even freakier when you put a camera on them and a whole lot of BS filler. The difference I saw between the two gatherings this year was far more stark than in years past. Republicans most talked about moment was a cameo by Clint Eastwood which turned into a quasi-nightmare for Romney as it pretty much overshadowed his own message 30 minutes later. At least Obama had a full day for everyone to gush about Clinton's performance before he was almost muted by reverb from the two-term president's mesmerizing performance.

Each night at the RNC was a crap shoot.  Ann Romney's speech was one of the few greats given over the entire week.  The VP-nominee Ryan provided an error filled message, in a tense, robotic way that gave Romney's style a run for it's money.  Marco Rubio apparently gave the best speech of the week, but I have yet to get around to it watching it. Then Romney gave a decent speech as the nominee but came off to me as so "Hall of Presidents" animatronic with all his goofy, fake head canting that I began to wonder if even he knew whether he was running for president or Miss America. Unfortunately for them, Hurricane Issac and Mr. Eastwood made bigger headlines than their uninspiring ideological banter. It all seemed message-less, unless you count their tired motto based on another out-of-context jab at Obama.  Plus there was the failure to acknowledge Afghanistan or the troops by Romney, nor any real mention of Bush #2. In the end, if felt like more of a vacuous mess than usual and I sincerely felt bad for moderate Republicans and Independents who may have been looking for answers;  instead, all they got were a couple of robots and a crazy old man arguing with a chair.

To be fair, I did watch more of the DNC because I actually don't completely feel like jabbing my eyes out while watching it, but for the most part did watch the prime-time hours for both and the notable speeches each week (except for poor Rubio). I really enjoyed Michelle Obama's speech because I believed her story and knew she spoke from the heart. That and she spent a month writing her own speech, which for anyone to speak to a national audience with their own words in their hand AND be praised for it is impressive. My third favorite speech of the week had to be Deval Patrick's.  His speech not only called out the GOP on lies and half-truths, but he also brought fire to the podium as he catalogued Romney's gubernatorial record.  He gave the audience a little "backbone" too.

  

I only caught part of Biden's speech but what I saw of it was great. Everyone knows the guy speaks from the hip and from the heart, which is exactly why I enjoy watching him rant and emote. Tonight's speech by the president was solid, yet even for him, a man who's had a number of memorable speeches just in the past 8 years (2004 convention, the "Race Speech", 2008 acceptance speech, 2008 election night), it was relatively mild in it's presentation and it's pedestrian vibe. Yes, there were some excellent policy points and a general calm reserved for State of the Union oratory. I enjoyed it, especially the parts about dealing with climate change, the concept of citizenship and his overall positive tone. He took few risks, often covering the same ground he has over the past 3 years at the podium, but played things pretty honest with admissions of letting even himself down over his term in office.  I felt that Ezra Klein of the Washington Post summed it up best:

"If you looked past the rhetoric and focused just on the policy, this was a modest speech. It was a more humble vision. What President Obama offered the country on the final night of the Democratic convention was reminiscent of what Warren G. Harding offered almost a century ago: A return to normalcy after a long period of emergency."

Of course, by most everyone's standards, the best speech over both weeks had to be Bill Clinton's, last night.  It's difficult to find a more charismatic speaker who can talk about political policy in a language crafted for absorption by the everyman and still go long by ab-libbing through a 50 minute speech. I've never seen anyone else do it before - it was astounding.  So, when all was said and done, it didn't matter if Clinton killed and Obama did "ok" (for him), Clinton created a blueprint for dems running in contests all over the country, bolstered his party's visibility with real ideas (not empty chairs), ways to refute false claims from the other side and he consequently blew away the competition, for at least one more night. I must say that overall I was very impressed by the variety of messages, from varied speakers and all walks of life, that took the stage in Charlotte.

I can't remember another convention where the best speakers available were willing to step up to speak also performed well and did so consistently throughout the whole week.  Sure, you could say that I enjoyed the DNC more than the RNC because I'm a Democrat and you'd probably be right. Then I want you to look at the feeble bounce (about +2) Romney got as a result of last week after his convention, then watch what Obama receives over the next week, then we'll see what's what.  It was quite a convention.... as far as fake-ass poltical beauty pageants go.

One more month till the debates...

Night Two of the 2012 DNC

via The Dish

Tonight was impressive display of political firepower. I was lucky enough to catch all of the last three speeches tonight. The biggest surprise was the impressive performance by Sandra Fluke. A solid speech highlighting the disconnect between the Republican party and women's reproductive rights. Elizabeth Warren followed her with an excellent rebuttal of the "We Built It", anti-financial regulation and individualist approach seen last week in Tampa. Her speech was more tempered than I expected, as I feared she might get a little carried away with too much anti-free-market rhetoric, but it was fair and evenly balanced.  Unfortunately for Warren, and for everyone whom preceded her, they were all overshadowed by one of the best speeches President Bill Clinton has ever given. It was filled with emotion, with more details than any other political speech this year and effectively debunked each and every argument the Republican party espoused and has advertised for over the past 6 months. It felt like a modern television version of what I imagined FDR's fireside chats to be like: a conversation with the entire country about the important matters of our country, without withholding the truth and ensuring he provides all the facts. It was quite impressive and a tough act to follow tomorrow night, though I have a feeling the President will find a way...

Sandra Fluke

Senator-Elect Elizabeth Warren - Massachusetts

President William Jefferson Clinton

In Case You Missed It... Highlights from Night One of the 2012 DNC.

via Daily Beast

Having spent the better part of the past year writing about the Republican primary season and everything that led to Romney's coronation, it's a breath of fresh air to watch speeches and personalities that I can relate to. I can't maintain this blog as a full-time job, so I didn't catch all those who spoke tonight as I was on my way home from work, but from everything I've read and heard thus far, the three speeches below were the best of the first night of the Democratic National Convention. It feels good to revel in the humanity below, for it certainly sounds a lot more positive than what I heard last week... so far.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick

San Antonio Major Julian Castro 

First Lady Michelle Obama

The Selfish Planks of the GOP Platform

Historically, Republicans have prided themselves in being the party that represents the moral heart of America. It chiefly started with the rise of the Moral Majority under Reagan - the notion that our country had a deficit when it came to religious values, economic policy, an over reliance on government vs. private investment, foreign power, etc. As a result Reagan built huge deficits (reduced tax rates and a wealth of military spending), providing short term economic gains at the top which ended years of stagflation, yet his term culminated in a Savings and Loan scandal, the Iran-Contra scandal, arguably the largest deregulation of industry ever, a foreign policy of international police actions, 4 years of recession, and ultimately creating a climate of "me first" in Washington D.C., in the marketplace and among the general population as a whole.

The short-term successes of Reaganomics and the Moral Majority have powered the Republican party for the past 30 years. They effectively put in place a federal culture of money over morals (see K Street and Citizens United), enabled Gingrich's Contract With America and a subsequent series of government shutdowns, and in the end, created an emphasis on corporate/financial deregulation that in turn created our worst financial crisis since 1929, a bevy of foreclosures, and our worst median adjusted incomes since1968.

The overarching mantra, that has always captured the ear of middle-class Americans who've fallen victim, time and again, to these policies that many voted to endorse, is the cause of freedom. If you're a small business owner, if you hate paying your share in taxes, if you'd rather build a deficit to launch foreign wars that serve no purpose but to fill the pockets of war profiteers than to level the playing field so all Americans can enjoy this concept of freedom, if you put your religious beliefs ahead of the rights of your fellow citizens, you might be a Republican. Here's what our "conservative" American leaders stand for, in turn making them look like a bunch of self-serving jerks...

Freedom
For a party that can't shut up about freedom, they sure aren't concerned about the freedom of others. The right's notion of freedom clearly isn't about providing equal access to the tools (education, job training, health care, etc.) that can create economic freedom via middle-class jobs, fixing those missing ladder rungs which could enable every American the freedom to find success. Our country's emphasis on freedom stems from that founding principle of being free from the tyranny of foreign control, you know, ending taxation without representation (sorry D.C.). Now that we have our own country, where we tax our own citizens so that we can all utilize services that allow chances for each individual to succeed, why would any self-respecting middle-class American vote against creating infrastructure, investing in our schools and thus putting money in the pockets of the very people who drive the economy toward success? Freedom is not free, clearly paid for with the lives our own citizens and loved ones we've lost in war over the years, but also in an economic approach to government that requires investment in our own people. If we do otherwise, the freedom of our population will further decline as corporate interests continue to amass financial fortunes that will perpetually shut the rest of us out of the political process.

via washington post

Economics and Taxation
The policies and positions espoused by today's GOP aren't based on what's needed for the greater good of our country, but on what's best for the richest among us, those who've already acquired status, money and power. They carry on about how elitist the media and democrats are, but who's trying to evade taxes, impose crony capitalism on our government by buying up lobbyists to manipulate our laws, and who's using said funds to promote economic methods that have, time and time again, gone bust?

If there's one point I want to get across, more than any other, it's that our history of success as a country can be singularly evidenced by taxation over the years. in the Nineteen-teens and twenties, when our tax code was antiquated and our fiscal policy was minimal, a vast amount of wealth and a lack of widespread regulation created our worst economic conditions ever from 1929 through 1942. Our tax code fluctuated wildly in the early 20th century, with the top nominal tax rate starting at 7% in 1913, then 77% during World War I, then 26% in 1928, with the minimal income for top rates changing from $500K to $1 million to $100K, respectively. As our country recovered, primarily via work programs, social programs and a general improvement in quality of life, our strongest period of growth and financial success then occurred between the years 1944 and 1986. During those years the top tax rates were as high as 94% in 1944 and as low as 50% in 1986.  With the exception of a period of justified stagflation in the late 70's through the mid 80's, when the rate hadn't changed since 1965 (70%), our economic growth was unprecedented. And it continued again in the late 90's when top rates were raised up to 39.6% in '93 after a low of 28% in '88 (source).

Now those at the top can quibble all they want about paying too much in taxes, even though they've been paying at historically lower levels of 35% and even lower (15%) for those claiming dividends and capital gains since 2004. Then there are those who're even more clever, evading their share of taxes by clever accounting and off-shoring their finances in foreign tax havens, such as Mitt Romney (14% in 2010), instead paying an effect rate of anywhere between 5% and 20%. The pattern I see is that when our taxes on highest incomes (on those who make far more than millions of Americans combined) are higher, our economy has flourished because those in the middle, who can then buy goods and services since they aren't being weighed down by taxation. When our richest citizens are paying less (see 1986 to 1993 and 2003 to present) our economy has languished in slow growth, smaller wages, but also increased profits and income at the very top. Now if only those of us in the middle could be paid a living wage... that's a whole other issue that needs to be addressed as well.

via barackobama.com

Religion
Oh sure, the right is all about freedom of religion until a purported Muslim get's elected. GASP! We live in one of the freest cultures in the world, so even if Obama was a Muslim, why should it matter?  Since when does personal freedom get overrun by religiously ideological individuals who wish to restrict access to birth control or define rape as "legitimate" or use their own beliefs to determine whether a woman can have a safe and healthy abortion? We are a nation of laws purposefully created to be vague of religious doctrine. We are a people of diverse, celebrated beliefs, not dogmatic rule based on extreme, politically fueled religiosity. If anything, I'd like to see the Republican party spend a little more time focusing on their own spiritual side instead of imposing their own belief systems on a country of free individuals. If there's anything we can learn from the Christian religion, it's that Jesus was a believer in doing good deeds, sharing our collective resources for the greater good, not to ostracize but provide actual help to the weakest among us, forgiving those who've been the victims of injustice and keeping open hearts and minds in accepting those who are different than us. You may have seen surrogates and the leaders of the GOP espouse such values this week in Tampa, but it's rarely reflected in their voting records, their policy proposals and in their budgetary priorities. For me, if Jesus were alive today to see what's been done in his name over the past 30 years, I doubt he'd be very happy and I'm certain more than a few merchant's tables would be tossed as a result.

Education
Of late, political and corporate power appears to be reserved for those who're born with a foot in the door. Manicured and shaped like a delicate piece of topiary, the children of the well-to-do have the added benefit of going to the best schools and being socially connected to people who may be richer than their own family. So you want to go to school at Harvard but can't because you were raised with the everyday tasks of having to babysit your 5 other sibling, working a part-time job because there's no one else in your family who can, having no personal transportation, with no additional funds to take preparatory courses for college placement exams?  What's the elite response to this?  You apparently didn't pull yourself up by your bootstaps!  Or "stop being so lazy, stealing money from your fellow citizens by taking foodstamps and bringing down the property values in my town." These tired lines of reasoning are bullshit.

What about investing in your own community or greater metropolitan region? How about donating money to something more than your church's insular/missionary driven model of benevolence? How do you expect your companies to flourish and for our economy to be strong unless those youth who need to fill those positions are properly educated and given the opportunity to be productive members of society?  You making more money does not make us more money. It doesn't pay my rent or put gas in my tank  It creates more investments for you, which doesn't put money where it's needed most (the general population) but back into the hands of those perpetuating the same sadistic, selfish lifestyle your pompous neighbors share with you. Let's put that money into our schools and programs that enable everyone in the country to receive an education that we can be proud of.

via guttmacher.org

Women
With all the talk about freedom and ending big government, the biggest hypocrisy foisted upon our population by Republican leaders over the past few years has been a disproportionate amount of time spent on restricting abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood, combating the ACA's intention of providing free birth control and a number of other women's issues.  The interesting question to answer here, amidst record job loses and our economy in financial ruins, is why are they spending so much time on inhibiting the rights of women?  Well, when we look at the Republican heyday of Eisenhower and the days that most conservatives yearn for, the post WWII salad days of the 1950's, other than having the right to vote, most women were pretty restricted to the home, being asked to raise a family, not join the workforce and, of course, birth control was essentially non-existent.

One reason they might want to go back to these times is in the hopes of returning economic power to men, further weakening those who are most likely to be unable to afford birth control, effectively forcing more women out of the workforce and back into the home where they feel women belong. Can it be this crude a rationale?  It could be, but it's never that simple. It also has a lot to do with religious values - they want to protect the "life" of an unformed zygote, but simultaneously send a hundred thousand soldiers overseas to kill thousands and be killed by the thousands. You can call yourself pro-life all you want, but it's so hypocritical, to me, to claim that preventing the birth of an unwanted child or prevention of pregnancy is evil and that killing other humans is fine, as long as it's in the name of democracy.  Again, Jesus would be pissed.

Minorities
If you've noticed anything about this year's RNC, it's that they've brought to the stage as many minority leaders as they could find. It's funny to me because they've spent so little time attempting to curry the favor of America's plethora of non-white ethnic groups until this week. What's also been interesting is how the words said by these multi-cultural surrogates rarely mirror the expected policies of those they're claiming to support or even the greater Republican platform as a whole. To be fair, there are passages about enabling legal immigrants and giving those on student or work visas the ability to succeed, if they possess or earn collegiate degrees, which can provide much needed support to our economy. Yet in the same document, illegal immigrants are effectively equated to being potential terrorists and pose "grave risks to the safety and sovereignty of the United States."  Nothing like instilling a little fear into the population, to get them to root out the evil among us!

This sounds like such an antiquated way of dealing with immigration and, again, hypocritical considering that most all of us in the US today are descendants of immigrants who didn't have papers either. It's also so McCarthy-esque and hate driven that it's difficult to fathom that this crap was written only a few days ago. It appears to me, that the Republican stance on our country's minorities is to defund the programs they depend on most, deport illegals (and their children), increase taxes on the lowest wage earners (made up predominantly of minorities) as evidenced by Romney's tax plan (above), and stem their potential by doing nothing to further their ability to succeed.  It should be no surprise that the latest poll of African Americans finds that 0% plan to vote for Romney and only 28% of Latinos plan to support the Romney/Ryan ticket. I find their approach to the rights and needs of minorities severely lacking, further emboldening the selfish attitudes of many who scapegoat minorities and illegal immigrants as one cause of our economic woes.

Voting Rights
Quite possibly the issue that scares me the most, the disenfranchisement of millions Americans in the name of rarely seen voter fraud, is very real leading up to this year's elections. Roughly 10 to 11 percent of eligible voters would be affected by recently enacted voter identification laws that have been put in place by conservative led statehouses in roughly 26 states (some cases are still pending such as in Pennsylvania).  It's been clearly acknowledged, even by one of their own leaders, that the purpose of these laws is to enable conservatives to win in November.  By imposing such requirements, it clearly limits the number of senior citizens, minorities, students and other groups, that historically vote Democratic, to be disfranchised from voting. The selfishness of such actions are defended by invoking ACORN and/or the notion that we need to protect the vote from illegal immigrants. The idea that states can take away the right of their own citizens to vote is unfair and clearly being done to win by any means possible.

via The Christian Science Monitor

When all is said and done, the one thing that scares me the most is the ability for the richest in our country to skew our elections by funding mysterious super-PACs and funding the political lobby industry (something both parties are guilty of), which will in turn manipulate the laws that we live by, allowing unscrupulous pursuits that continue to undermine the middle-class, disenfranchise voters and corrupt the morals of our citizens. It's really an unvirtuous cycle that will be continued for years to come if we can't fix things like the Citizens United ruling, which grants corporations the same rights as individuals, has already been proven to weaken workers unions, further removing the general American electorate from the process of determining our path forward as a country.

If our country is to return to those years of prosperity we've enjoyed in years past, it will be because the leaders we elect, most importantly those who currently inhabit our broken Congress, will put down their partisan baggage and work together to find bipartisan solutions for what ails our country. This can only happen if groups like Americans for Tax Reform, with their notion that taxes can only be reduced never increased, are removed from the process. Our economic problems as a country aren't a result of over taxation but in poor law making, a lack of oversight or regulation, the destructive nature of persistent filibustering and too much credence being given to those standing to benefit most from the laws the richest among us are pushing through our government to further enable their own selfish pursuits.

For the record, I don't hate rich people. I am enraged by the notion that many who have wealth today are willing only to perpetuate their status by undercutting and giving little quarter to those whom they should be relying on to keep our economy strong - our workers, our teachers, our autoworkers, our everyday citizens who simply wish to participate on a more level playing field. No one is asking for socialism, no one is asking you to sacrifice your livelihood for the sake of big government. There is no doubt that government needs to be reformed and it actually has been, to some extent, if you haven't been paying attention the past few years.  Merely cutting taxes to grow our entire economy hasn't worked for the past 10 years, it didn't work from 1986 to1993 and it won't lead our country on a path to prosperity. Our choice this November: do we stifle innovation, education and middle-class purchasing power; or do we return to a time when we asked the richest to pay a larger proportion of taxes to enable growth and continue to rebuild a middle-class that can again power the wheels of our nation?  I can only hope that enough Americans can see through the lies and distortions of the Republican party, if only long enough to realize that the last thing we need to do is double-down on policies we should all plainly regard as destructive.

Recommended Reading

Chris Hayes, Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy

Rachel Maddow, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power

Robert Reich, Beyond Outrage: What has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy and how to fix it.