He didn't misspeak...

“Especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

“In each case, they [the Obama administration] were very generous in what they gave to those groups,”

 “With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift, free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,”

“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

These were Mitt Romney’s statements in a recorded conference call with his big donors post-election. This is the reason that he is stating that he lost. And you know what, he’s right. You add up women (not just young women, but any woman who cares about making her own choices in life), young people, Latinos, and African Americans, you have most of the electorate (Obama also got an overwhelmingly large percentage of the Asian-American vote) accounted for, except for white men.

So essentially what Mitt Romney is saying in this statement is that the Obama administration didn't cater as well to white men as every other administration that has ever existed. While I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement (old white men got plenty of “gifts” from the Obama administration), I don’t think that we as a country should be lamenting the decreased influence of white men in our politics, our boardrooms, or anywhere else in society. Old white men have had their run - it’s been long and deleterious to pretty much every other social group – and it’s time that we as a nation begin to embrace the original concept of this country, inclusion.

Romney’s statement, while misguided in its use of the word “gifts”, actually makes a lot of sense. People would vote in their best interest. While Romney is lying in saying that Obamacare provides free health care for people, it is understandable that people would embrace a change to the healthcare system that would positively benefit them and their family. He’s make it possible for people with existing conditions to get health care, he’s removed the lifetime caps, he’s allowed children up to 26 years of age to stay on their parent’s plan, and most of all he’s created the mandate that forces everyone into the market (think “skin in the game”), which in the long run will be able to decrease cost, and hopefully encourage more competition.

And why would a woman vote for Mitt Romney? He and his running mate have shown support for policies that would drastically diminish the ability of a woman to make healthcare choices about her own body. I’m not sure why that would be such a mystery that a woman who wants to control her own health, even getting (*gasp*) birth control if she wanted/needed it, to vote for the person that actually espouses a view in support of women’s rights.

As far as Latinos are concerned, the Republican Party has done nothing but patronizingly pander to them in an effort to win votes. When it comes time to actually create policy that benefits Latinos, Republicans are nowhere to be found. It’s interesting, however, to note that Latinos should be a key demographic for Republicans. Republicans espouse to believe in hard work, family, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; these seem to be characteristic traits of Latinos (not to try and put anyone into a general category) and, in fact, most immigrant groups, and yet immigrants are spit on by the Republican Party and turned off by their jingoist, white is right, mentality.

Finally, African Americans. On the whole, I cannot see why the Republican Party thinks that they have a chance to win the black vote. Not to say that black people vote as a bloc, but Republicans have made every effort they can to gerrymander this country into segregated districts, doing their best to push black people into districts with only other black people. Was not the “southern strategy” an overt effort to create fear of black people in this country, by appealing to white voters misperceptions and stereotypes? Have republicans changed their strategy at all? Not really. Newt Gingrich throughout the Republican primary called Barack Obama a “food stamp president”, and republicans talk of black people in this country as if every single one is on welfare. They’re living in the past, and they want to keep it that way. Their past is where the white man is superior, and the black man has to respect the white man; they want to hold onto that for dear life.

Republicans after Obama’s first victory always referred to an unspoken “they” that had taken the country away from “true Americans”. And while we can’t be sure who exactly “they” are, we can surmise from the comments of Republicans, from the tea party to Mitt Romney, that they were speaking of African-Americans, Latinos, minorities in general, women, young people, LGBT people, religious minorities, Muslims, immigrants, and basically anyone else that was not white, was not married, was not heterosexual, was not born in this country, was not Christian (hopefully Protestant, but they’d give you a little wiggle room as long as you believed in Jesus), or was not a “job creator”. Republicans fundamental belief is that this country was built by and for white people, and everyone else is just “they” that are living here on “our” land on “our” dime. I guess every group except for white people forgot that, and decided to vote for the guy that actually considered them citizens of this country, and therefore as important people and groups in our society.

I can't believe this is not a bigger issue...

Look, I know that there are many religious conservatives that disagree with gay marriage. However, the fact that a vice presidential nominee has the balls to say something like what he said below is just galling. We live in a country that purports to support equality and provide equal protection under the law. Now this asshole comes along and says...nah.

Below is Paul Ryan's response in a discussion about marriage, to Focus on the Family president Jim Daly.

Ryan: It’s [marriage] the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves.

Fuck you, Paul Ryan.

Wow, isn't he the greatest...

Let me start by saying that by all appearances, Mitt Romney won Wednesday’s (10.3.12) debate. I wouldn’t say that he blew the president away, but he was more confident, had his numbers ready to go, and overall seemed a lot more comfortable attacking the president than the president did defending himself.

That being said, Romney’s presentation was full of a lot more vigor than substance. And it’s not that vigor doesn’t matter, but I think that it’s important to point out this fact before saying that the first debate completely changes the direction of this election. Regarding his tax policy, Romney was evasive, and presently a view that was starkly in contrast to that he has been presenting since the beginning of his campaign. The president pointed this fact out, but Romney shifted and said that he would do nothing that would add to the deficit; well Mr. Romney, unfortunately you can’t have one without the other. Either you plan to cut taxes and raise the deficit, or you plan to cut the deficit and raise taxes. And he scoffed at the president’s characterization of his tax plan as a windfall for rich people, but Romney – in typical fashion – went on some diatribe about the president raising taxes on the middle class and how he [Romney] wants to cut corporate and business taxes to help spur business. These two facts have nothing to do with one another. Obama’s tax plan would not raise taxes on small businesses, unless they’ve become large enough to where they should be paying a higher rate, or they pay corporate income taxes; either way, this would have no effect on such a high percentage of businesses, that pointing to the few that would be affected is ridiculous.

In addition, Mr. Romney continued to hammer the president on the Affordable Care Act, but failed to offer any alternatives to the president’s plan, or outline what was wrong with it, except to say that President Obama would be stealing over $700 billion from Medicare, which is a lie. The $700 billion dollars is how much less Medicare will be funded over the next ten years, but that will have no impact on how much seniors will spend, but will only impact the providers in how much they will receive (should be noted that this is what providers agreed to). Romney tried to tout his plan, while distancing himself from it; a strange position to be in for a person whose party considers the ACA a “government takeover of healthcare” and “socialist”. But Romney says that it was a good policy for the state, but not a good national policy; which is hard to understand why it isn’t. Wouldn’t the federal government be better of negotiating with giant insurance companies, rather than local government? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Finally, Mitt Romney and the president went round and round about Social Security. Romney kept pushing the Ryan plan for Social Security, basically trying to pander to older voters and those already retired by saying that THEY won’t be affected by his policy, neglecting to mention the fact that those 55 and younger will have their Social Security prey to the open market under the Romney/Ryan plan. Certainly, Social Security in its current form is untenable long term, but policy-makers need to come up with a comprehensive strategy for creating a system that works, because millions and millions of seniors depend upon Social Security to live, and that fact is not likely to change anytime soon. But creating the voucher system where people will have to decide what they want to do with their SSA money is not the solution, and is more likely to create a system similar to the retirement system where some people will lose everything they have in the event of a major crash. It’s bad policy for a social safety net.

Bottom line: Romney may have won the debate, but that doesn’t mean that he did it honestly, or that it will translate to anything other than an email to send to supporters. His message is muddled, his policies are poor (and unclear), and he can’t seem to find any firm ground under which to stand, other than saying that we should elect him for the simple fact that he isn’t Barack Obama.

A man above the people...

Mitt Romney is going to lose this election. There, I’ve made a bold prediction, but one that I’ve held since the Republican primary process started weeding out the fanatics, and went with the safe, boring candidate. Not that picking “safe” means that you’re going to win. It just means that you’re not setting yourself up to lose.

But Romney has managed to completely bungle this campaign. By all accounts he should be winning in the polls, and should be a shoe-in for president. The president [and the country] continues to be let down with disastrous unemployment numbers, and an economy that just won’t seem to pick up. But Romney has failed to make two arguments that I believe are very important to people when they enter that voting both; 1) why do you want to be president?, and 2) what specific policies will you implement that will make the economy better than the current president.

 The first question should be easy, but instead of connecting to voters and letting them know that he cares deeply about this country and that he’s worried about the economy and the people, he just comes off as an out-of-touch rich guy that wants to be president so that he can hang it around his neck like a badge of honor. He wants people to like and respect him, but he doesn’t seem that likeable and it’s hard to respect someone who seems to care nothing about anyone but himself. I honestly don’t think Romney, the man, is a bad guy (I don’t know him personally, so I can’t say), but his campaign has done a terrible job of humanizing him, and therefore nobody feels like they know him, or want to get a beer with him (George Bush II had that going for him). Not that I need my president to be my best buddy, but I think it’s important that he at least attempts to make a connection to the majority of the people.

Which actually brings me to the point of this piece – I’ll come back to question #2 later. A video was leaked this week of Mitt Romney speaking to some high value donors back in May, in which he makes the outrageous claim that “There are 47 percent who are with him [President Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it,”. First of all, this claim is untrue. It has been debunked by several fact checking organizations, and has ironically shown that many of those that Romney considers free loaders are actually (if they’re working) paying a higher percentage of income tax than Mitt Romney. Add to that the fact that Romney is essentially saying that all poor and lower middle class Americans are Obama supporters, so he’s just going to write them off. And if he’s campaigning with that message to wealthy donors, what do you think he’d do during his presidency…?

But let’s take the statement at face value; let’s say that it is a true statement. I still don’t understand what is so abhorrent about people living in the wealthiest nation in the world expecting to be provided with health care, food, or housing. I mean, it’s not like people are expecting multiple houses and car elevators; they expect that those lavish items are reserved for the super-rich in this country. Those are basic necessities, which we should be providing to everyone anyway, regardless of whether they’re productive, unproductive, working, not working, active, lazy…it doesn’t matter. Asking for health care, food, and shelter, is essentially asking to continue to live, that’s all. I guess the so-called compassionate conservatives don’t have compassion when it comes to poor people; or maybe it’s just rich, out-of-touch, liberal/conservative, flip-flopping Republicans that don’t have compassion or empathy for poor people.

The second important question that Romney has failed to answer is what specific policies he will implement to turn around the economy. He says that he will end "Obamacare", but that really doesn't account for much. Most of his other fiscal policies resemble those of the Bush administration; tax cuts, deregulation, etc., along with cutting in "entitlement" spending and closing loopholes. But his cuts in entitlement spending and closing loopholes have been completely nonspecific, and therefore have lead to a lot of speculation as to where and what will be cut. The romney campaign has decried all of these speculations as way off the mark, but has yet to disclose comprehensive policy ideas that would actually have a change of cutting the deficit and debt, or spur economic growth in any way. Basically we're looking at a candidate who just thinks he can be elected as the anti-Obama. Former president Bill Clinton said it best in his speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention, referring to the Republicans and the Romney campaign; "We left him a total mess. he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in." Helluva campaign slogan for Romeny.

They've lost their minds...

While I recognize that I, as a man, do not have a lot of insight into what it is like to be sexually assaulted or raped, I think the furor over the politics surrounding the topic over the last several months necessitates a post.

I think President Obama yesterday gave probably the best response a man can give regarding rape, and the politicizing of it; “The idea that we should be parsing, qualifying, and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me,” and followed by “What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians – a majority of whom are men – making healthcare decisions on behalf of women.” Exactly.

And while I don’t necessarily agree that conservatives are waging a “war on women”, I think their problem is that they’re politicizing issues that are inherently personal, not political. Republicans support the status quo in most respects, and this includes the continued subjugation and control of women by men and policy. That is why Roe vs. Wade was so abhorrent to conservatives, it revoked male control over a women’s right to choose what she wanted to do with her body, and instead gave the right to choose to the person who has the most insight into what is best for her…herself. Conservatives are still clinging to these antiquated ideas of meek women who need guidance from their knowledgeable husbands, fathers, brothers, male friends…politicians. And instead of raging a cultural war on the issue, which at least makes more sense - attempting to sway the majority of the public to feel a certain way – they’re waging a cultural war by proxy, the proxy being an ultra-conservative party platform and implementation of ultra-conservative policies.

With the support of the Republican Party lying mostly with old people, wealthy people, and religious people, all of whom have an interest in the continued subjugation of women, it’s no wonder that they continue to pander to those crowds. But what they’re missing is that regardless of how they feel, or what they say, women are not going to sit idly by while conservative assholes push harder and harder to go back to a time when their rights were limited to what their husbands allowed them to do. We’re in a new era (and have been for decades) where women will stand up for their rights; protesting, voting, running for office, donating to politicians and parties that support their rights. And with old people dying, and their antiquated ideas dying with them, eventually these radical conservatives will realize that they were and are on the wrong side of history. The culture wars WILL BE LOST by conservatives.

Onto the actual comments made by Rep. Akin. The guy represents the party; what he said is what they believe. They put complete intolerance to abortion, regardless of rape or incest, as part of their party platform for the Republican convention. It’s kind of difficult to throw one of your members under the bus for saying something that is part of the open party platform.

But that is where Republicans are these days. They’re clandestinely (or at least they wish they were) pushing for radical right-wing legislation, while pretending they’re moderate. There is NOTHING moderate about “parsing” rape into different categories. Rape is rape. It’s tragic when it happens, and awful that our society is constantly questioning and blaming victims, instead of asking why there are so many rapes that are occurring. The questioning after a rape becomes a woman’s burden to bear, instead of questioning the person who was responsible for the rape. The questions that are asked are ludicrous; what were you wearing? Had you been drinking? Had you been using drugs? Did you know the person? Had you had sex with anyone else recently? These questions are moot. We don’t ask someone who owns a jewelry store that gets robbed why they keep their valuable items on the counter, instead of locked away in a safe. A crime is a crime, and we should not subject the victim to further anguish and diminution by grilling them on what THEY could have done differently.

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and the Republican Party support legislation to outlaw a woman’s right to choose what is right for her, even in cases of rape and/or incest. This needs to be known, and Republicans need to be shamed. This is not a political issue, but because Republicans are using politics as a cudgel in the culture wars, Democrats need to strike back by destroying (politically-speaking) the Republican Party.

But they're more important, aren't they...

Mitt Romney has thus far been unwilling to release more than two years of his tax returns. It’s not that he has to release his returns, but what Romney doesn’t understand is that while no one is going to actually force him to do so, not releasing them keeps the question in the air and will ultimately be answered by the American people during the election. Romney doesn’t get it. He’s whining, as if it’s the Obama campaign that is demanding the release. The Obama campaign knows he doesn’t want to release them, so having someone else like Harry Reid continue to press the issue is brilliant, because as long as people are suspect about why Romney doesn’t want to release them, they’re not thinking about the fledgling economy.

However, Romney’s reticence to release more than two years’ returns is not what I want to take about, it’s more about Romney’s general philosophy on taxation. Romney just released a statement today (unsubstantiated by documentation) that he has paid no less than 13% taxes over the past 10 years. Okay, let’s take that statement at face value; that would mean that Harry Reid’s “source” was lying, and that Mitt Romney had in fact paid taxes. However, 13% taxes is a MUCH lower rate than the majority of Americans pay, especially working Americans.

The standard rate is about 35%. Fair or not, that is what it is. However, most wealthy people pay much less that than, typically between 15 – 25%, if not less. The current Republican position is that capital gains and inheritance should be taxed at a much lower rate than income. Flat – that’s their position. So essentially what they’re saying is that they think that people who make money from doing nothing (and already have a substantial amount of money) should be taxed at dramatically lower rates (or nothing at all) than people who actually work. If I make $10,000 a year, I would pay roughly $3,500 in taxes. However, if I made $100,000,000 from investment income, I would only pay $13,000,000 in taxes (taking home $87,000,000), or none at all under they Romney/Ryan plan.

Romney says that the reason for the lower tax rate is because those people with vast sums of money invested are “job creators”; but Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, makes the argument that people make investments to make money, not based upon what tax they will be paying. The reason the so-called “job creators” are not investing in the current economy is because it’s in the tank and they will not see a return on their investment.

Ultimately, this is an issue of supporting the country that supported you (Obama’s argument). Wealthy people have made vast sums of money over the past 3+ decades because of policies that cut their tax rates dramatically and allowed them to park their money in foreign countries. Also, a lot of their money has been made in investments that did little or nothing to actually create jobs, but instead were specifically made to create wealth (hedge funds, investment firms, etc.). Therefore, while their incomes and wealth have risen dramatically (nearly 400%), the real incomes of the upper middle, middle, and lower classes have either stagnated or even fallen. Literally fallen. The average income has fallen from about $36,000 in 1970 to $32,000 in 2010.

Since the wealthy have benefitted so nicely from these rates and policies over the last three decades, and since their wildcat investments drove our economy over a cliff, it’s time they started paying back. Even making the tax rate even across income/investment levels would be more fair than what we currently have. But what we really should do is cut out tax breaks and loopholes specifically designed for the wealthy, and create a graduated wealth and income tax that forces the wealthy to put in their fair share of income to this country that has benefitted them so much. If they don’t like the tax policies, they can leave. The country could use LESS people who are making vast sums of money toying with the market, but then paying nothing into the public coffers once they get their big payoff. Our country is hurting, and it’s obvious that Mitt Romney and those of his ilk care nothing for this country or the economy, but instead are still looking out for themselves and their wealthy friends.

Newt Gingrich charged Obama with stoking the flames of “class warfare”; and you know what, he was right. But the class warfare is not being waged by the poor against the rich, it’s being waged by the rich against the poor, and has been for generations. It’s about time a leader, and especially a president, highlight this issue and try and open the eyes of the majority of the people in this country who are being swindled by a bagful of citizens.

It doesn't seem so, but it is important...

Paul Ryan is a hack. Mitt Romney is a weather vane. Together they lack both experience and substance at a very important time for our country. Certainly I won’t raise the specter that this is “the most important election of our lifetime”, because frankly, I don’t think it is. Even with Romney being a boring, take-no-stance candidate, and Paul Ryan being a fake budget hawk, there is probably not a huge difference (in the short term) in how a Romney presidency would run the country versus how the Obama administration has run the country.

Now, that is not to say that there would be no difference. And when it comes to fiscal and foreign policy, nuance is very important. The lack of foreign policy experience for both Romney and Ryan is troubling, especially considering their hawkish views with little to back it up. In fact, part of Ryan’s “budget plan” is to continue increasing the military budget, while slashing funding for the State Department and diplomacy. While the State Department might be somewhat more low profile than the DOD or War Department, it’s role in foreign policy is paramount to walking the delicate line in international diplomacy. We’ve already seen how effective “gunboat diplomacy” is, as displayed during the Bush administration. Two unsuccessful wars with no diplomatic efforts, lead to continued fighting and strife with virtually no end in sight. And Republicans are still talking about making a move against Iran (or at least supporting Israel in doing so); reminiscent of the definition of insanity…

Anyway, back to Romney and Ryan. While I actually do think that Romney as a person is a moderate, his political winds (or constituent winds) strategy of politicking scares me. Romney will say and do whatever he has to to get elected (which actually makes the Ryan choice a bit odd), and therefore while he himself may be a moderate, he would kowtow to the hard core Republican base as president, nominating far right ideologues to cabinet positions, and pushing ultra conservative legislation, much of which he himself personally does not espouse.

That is the difference in this election. While certainly most Democrats and liberals will allow that President Obama has been hit or miss, the fact is he’s trying to do right. He’s a pragmatist, and as a pragmatist he’s not going to make everyone happy; and occasionally is going to piss people off – even his own supporters. But also as a pragmatist, that means that he’s principled enough to realize the realities of a situation and look for rational, well thought decisions. He doesn’t bend the wills of his party’s extreme every time a tough question comes up. He instead will make the decision he believes to be right (and by right here I mean what he believes to be best for the country), and then pays the political price for it afterward.

This president has been very good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) at using his political capital. He doesn’t keep a lot in reserve. He’s constantly make concessions that will make one group happy, just to turn around and piss them off with his next decision. But what is great about this is that it shows his ultimate goal is to get things done, even if he’s not leading all of the polls. A great gauge of this is that even while poll numbers might show that a particular policy of the president, or how he’s dealing with a particular issue, may be low, overall his approval ratings remain very high (relative to the myriad of problems that our country currently faces).

I guess the point of my post is that while President Obama has not done exactly what I would do as president, his overall goal has been to improve the economy and make our country great again. Mitt Romney cares nothing for the country, and instead would govern by the  mantra that he’s lived by of “everyone for themselves”; which he’s blindly followed despite being assisted throughout his life by other people. "We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.” Because we all have parents that can just hand us $25,000 to start a business. Mitt Romney is a shell, nothing more. And once he’s attained the office that he feels he’s always deserved, he’ll move on to something else. The presidency is not Mitt Romney’s way of improving the country or the lives of the people in it, but another trophy to show everyone what an important person he is.

Busy times...

A lot has occurred over the last couple of weeks.
The Republican primary is over…thank god. Well, at least it’s realistically over, if not technically over. I think Mitt Romney’s victory in the Republican primary has cemented Barack Obama as a two-term president. Mitt is boring, stiff, and totally uncharismatic. He’s out of touch with most people, and it’s palpable. While Republicans will fall in line for the most part, Romney does not excite the base, and independents are not fooled by the back and forth (etch-a-sketch) stances on every issue; they see Romney as being hollow, and blowing with the political winds of popularity. While the election will probably be close – all modern day presidential elections are – President Obama will reinvigorate Democrats (and the nation as a whole) with a charismatic campaign (even while he’s been unable to excite us as president).

George Zimmerman has FINALLY been arrested and charged with a crime. The prosecutor has charged Mr. Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. It’s possible that this is an overcharge, because manslaughter would probably be easier to convict, but I have to assume that the prosecutor knows what she is doing. Regardless of the charge; and really, regardless of whether Mr. Zimmerman is ultimately found guilty or not guilty, the important thing is that the facts of the case will be presented in a court of law so that guilt or innocence can be determined based not on one person’s opinion, or the bias of the police, but instead based upon the facts. George Zimmerman needs to answer some questions about what was suspicious about Trayvon Martin. About why he thought Trayvon Martin was on drugs. These are questions that are important, not only in this case, but also on the national conscience about race.

This brings me to the next big update, which is that a piece of legislation has been presented in the Senate that would ban racial profiling. This piece of legislation is still in utero, but I think it’s important that this issue is being brought back into the national discourse. It’s sad that it takes the death of young black man, at the hands of white (he has also identified as Hispanic at different times) man, when there are countless examples every day of racial profiling, which, while they don’t end in death, still end in distrust and humiliation.

Finally, I have to say that I’ve been surprised (though I guess I shouldn’t be) by political television. Every time I watch political shows (it’s an indulgence that I wish I didn’t want), there are always some middle-of-the-road, independent journalists that are commenting on some particular issue, and the host is typically fairly moderate, but then there is always some wealthly, smug-looking white man or woman who completely rejects any idea that our country has issues with race, human rights, equality, or jingoism. Their (ridiculous) perspective is that the United States is God’s (big G important) gift to the planet, and it’s our manifest destiny to the “beacon of freedom” in the world, and that whatever we do, wherever we do it is completely just and right. And the idea that there is anything wrong is this country is completely absurd, because we have the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are created equal, and the post civil rights/post women’s rights era has been a society that has reached near complete equality. It’s just race/gender/etc.-bating to say otherwise. Ugh…

As if the natural world's been turned upside down...

I’ve got to give it to Newt Gingrich, the guy is savvy. He decries career politicians, while he has been the ultimate career politician. Even as a “businessman” and “consultant” he was still playing a political role by influencing policy through lobbying. His actual political career was only ended once he was thrown out of the Speakership by angry Republicans. He derides Mitt Romney for not being conservative enough, while himself has a spotty record of jumpy from side to side, depending up on the policy. To note: I don’t think this is a bad thing, but for hardcore conservatives, it is. He scorns Mitt Romney for his super PACs being funded and run by friends and former staffers, but the nature of super PACs being what they are anyone with super PACs in support of them can’t really talk. Romney’s super PACs are attacking Newt Gingrich (which Newt says is the reason for his big loss in Iowa), but Newt’s super PACs are attacking Romney right back. Thieves can’t point fingers at others calling them thieves; they’re all scumbags, and none of them deserve to be president. I will say this about Barack Obama, as well, if he decides to use super PACs during his re-election campaign. If we are to restore democracy, we need to get all money, but especially money coming from unnamed sources, to be completely removed. We should completely change the electoral process, both locally and nationally, embrace moderation over ideology and allow no campaign ads, but simply have publically-funded elections that use debates as the only campaign tools.