11/2/12: Are You Better Off Now?: An Election Response

It's a question that Romney supporters are fond of throwing around smugly, one of those supposedly undeniable truth statements that are supposed to stop you in your tracks because there is no way to answer it without admitting that the person asking is correct in their assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that Obama hasn't made anything better in America. It's a weird about-face, as it is usually the incumbent asking the question as way of underlining how good they've been at their job.

Since we are only days away from the 2012 Presidential Elections, I'm feeling rather motivated to actually answer this question. The last four years haven't been especially easy for anybody not in the top 10% (you know, the people who own the country, it seems), but I think it's fair to answer the question on an individual bases, considering that the question is meant to motivate my individual vote.

Anyway, comparing November 2008 with November 2012, am I better off now than I was four years ago?

Four years ago, I was:

*Laid off after fifteen years with the same company, because the sudden economic downturn crippled the entire industry in a matter of months.

*Subsequently laid up with the Swine Flu for a month (Happy Holidays!) with no medical insurance.

*Suddenly stuck with not being able to afford classes after having started attending college night classes again the previous year.

*Living in a house suddenly worth $30,000 less than it was two years ago.

Today, I am:

*Working for a new small business owner that isn't squeamish about hiring new employees during an Obama presidency, despite all Right Wing claims to the contrary.

*Still in possession of my house, thanks in part to extended federal unemployment benefits that helped me to stay afloat for the year and a half I was unemployed, and helped me stay financially intact enough so that I was prepared to survive the year and a half I was forced to work for an exploitative business owner who denied his employees federally-protected overtime pay and made Labor Day a non-payed holiday.

*One class away from obtaining my degree, thanks to Obama's improvements to the Pell Grant system, including allowing Unemployment benefits to be disregarded when calculating Pell Grant eligibility.

*Living in a state that was ravaged by a hurricane (ironically sharing the name of the employer that laid me off four years ago), and seeing my state survive and recover from the disaster with the help of immediately received support from FEMA, the organization that Romney has gleefully contemplated defunding in past interviews.

Is everything 100% better or back to normal four years later? Of course not. I'm still without medical insurance, and the medical insurance I will be eligible for soon will undoubtedly cost me more than it did when I last had it. Also, I love my new job, but I'm still not close to restoring my financial situation to what it once was, and real estate values still haven't recovered enough for my mortgage lose its underwater status.

But am I better off than I was four years ago, unemployed at the beginning of the worst recession since the Great Depression, licked to the curb by my career occupation at a time in which College Graduates and Six-Figure-Salary professionals were already begging for entry-level positions, sick with an as-of-yet undiagnosed pig disease as I watched Obama being sworn into office?

You bet your ass I am.

Related articles

• The REAL Reason Behind Romney's Fake Donation Drive
• Anti-obama Filmmaker Embroiled In Scandal
• October jobless rate is 7.9 percent: 171,000 jobs created. Good news for Obama
• Pay for College - What Is a Pell Grant?
• Romney's Seven Biggest Debate Lies
• Preconceived Notions and Police Brutality

4/25/12 - Ann Romney Just Doesn't Get It

Photo of Ann Romney at the Reagan Dinner in Des Moines on October 27, 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And the Romney Gaffe Train just keeps on rolling.

Ann Romney has been riding high on the "War on Moms" idiocy being pushed by Republicans ever since Hillary Rosen criticized Ann Romney for weighing in on labor issues when "she has never worked a day in her life." Since then, she and the GOP have been pretending that Rosen's criticism was an attack on her being a stay-at-home-mother, instead of questioning her authority on workplace-related political issues, and taking every possible chance to remind people that she and Mitt squeezed out five kids, because Republicans love large families with lots of kids (as long as they aren't poor black families, mind you).

In her latest "I'm a Mom" interview, Ann started espousing the greatness that is her, and attempted to translate that into a knowledge of how the rest of the country exists, a sore spot for the Romney clan. Sure enough, instead of just keeping the point short and simple, Ann kept rattling in and blurted out this little gem:

“My hats off to the men in this room too that are raising kids — I love that, and I love the fact that there are also women out there that don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids.”

Ignoring the ludicrous implication that Ann Romney just LOVES the idea that some women are forced by economic hardship to both work full time and raise their children, one has to wonder if her LOVE of full-time employed men and women raising their children extends to single parents, whom the GOP has been attacking lately both verbally and politically, going as far as to propose legislation that would categorize single-parent households as a form of child abuse. Maybe she's just in LOVE with the romantic notion of a devoted parent having to work full-time in order to support their family while also raising it, but that more or less underlines the fact that the reason she might LOVE such a romanticized ideal of the working parent is that she's never actually had to be one herself.

How could somebody say such a ludicrous thing, that the LOVE the idea that people are working twice as hard to make ends meet? By the same logic, you might respond to criticism about having never suffered through chemotherapy yourself by saying that you LOVE that there are people out there fighting cancer. That can't be right, can it? Maybe we can give Ann the benefit of the doubt and just assume that she isn't really pandering to her husband's political base with every breath she takes. Then again, considering her track record of gaffes and unfortunate quotes, it's easier to assume that Ann is just as emotionally unattached as Mitt is to the real world that the majority of Americans live in.

The entire "War on Moms," of course, is a huge fabrication. The Republicans have spent months fighting back against the "War on Women" they were accused of waging, and accusation backed by their continued attempts to roll back abortion rights by demanding vaginal ultrasounds for potential patients, prevent medical coverage of contraception, and block legislation designed to ensure equal pay in the workforce. Their attempt to push the label back on the Dems in a classic "I'm Rubber/You're Glue" defense failed miserable

The key human element that the Romneys seem to be missing is humility. Any person with an ounce or two of humility or self awareness would know how to handle the growing implications that they are too rich to be in touch with Middle America. When confronted with this "Class Gap," Ann, for example, could have answered questions about their wealth as a barrier between them and Middle America by admitting that yes, they are extremely wealthy, but that they still have the same concerns about the government's policies that middle and lower class families have, and even though they haven't faced the same struggles as others having during this lengthy recession, they are still aware of these problems and want to solve them. Instead, she blurts out the inane rationalization "You know, we can be poor in spirit. I don't even consider myself as wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today and gone tomorrow." You can also be poor in basic comprehension of how you sound to others, which seems to be a malady shared by both Ann and Mitt, as they continue to whine to a population caught in stagnating wages and plummeting real estate values about hard it is to be so wealthy that you forget how many homes you own and need to have a costly elevator installed in your garage to accommodate your wife's fleet of Cadillacs. Life can be so hard, can't it?

Instead, they and other Republicans keep attempting to claim victim status, arguing that rich people are a minority being persecuted and discriminated against by the Occupy Movement and news coverage focusing on the wealthy. This defense must have sounded completely rational when it was brainstormed around a big conference table by people with six and seven-figure salaries, but it ignores the fact that persecution and discrimination are typically power-based actions leveled against the powerless by the powerful, so claiming that a minority of the population that owns a majority of the nation's wealth and resources is being victimized rings a bit hollow, especially when heard by people who have actually had to struggle against institutionalized persecution and discrimination throughout their lives.

Maybe that's why Ann LOVES working mothers and doesn't consider herself rich: because like Rosen pointed out, she hasn't had to work a single day in her life, and has no idea how hard it is to work full time and raise a family when money isn't an endless commodity for you.

Ann Romney Talks Motherhood, 'Emotionally Draining' Campaign:

'via Blog this'

Related articles

• Ann Romney: 'I Love The Fact That There Are Women Out There Who Don't Have A Choice' And 'Must Go To Work'
• "Life Isn't Easy for Any of Us": Ann Romney's Speech Raises Peril for Both Sides
• Rosen Attack On Ann Romney Not About Motherhood, But About Actual Jobs
• Romney: Welfare Moms Need 'Dignity of Work'
• "So Much For The Phony Outrage": Ann Romney Says Rosen's Attack Was A 'Gift,' 'I Loved It'

3/19/12 - Young Voters, Political Blogging, ASAP, and the War on Women

HUffpost: Mitt Romney Doesn't See How Young Voters 'Could Vote For A Democrat'

So, Mitt can't even begin to conceive how a young person in this day and age could consider voting for a Democratic Candidate. And you know what? I have to agree with him. Let's face it, the Democrats are completely out of touch with America's modern youth to such an extent that it is practically inconceivable that a young adult of voting age would somehow feel that the Democrats have their best interests in mind. That is, of course, unless that young person can't afford health care because of skyrocketing insurance premiums, can't afford to go to college due to skyrocketing tuition costs, has recently been called a slut an a whore by a GOP mouthpiece for using birth control, wants to retain their reproductive rights, is gay or has a friend or parent who is gay, masturbates to pornography, are non-Christian or Muslim, believes in Evolution, knows somebody who is unemployed, are still living with their parents, or has a family member or friend who is currently dependent on one of the many social programs that Republicans keep trying to abolish. But really, what are the odds of that?

*

In the past, I've done my best not too spend too much time on only politics. This is partly because this is not a political blog, and partly because I have so many interests other than politics. However, it is getting harder and harder to focus on anything else these days. Not only are we in a very politically volatile moment in our country's history (due in no small part to the biggest recession since the Great Depression while orchestrating wars in multiple countries with no clear strategy to speak of), but we are also in a weird era in which politics is rapidly becoming a parody itself. Honestly, how can an rational human being watch such jaw-dropping theatrics and not pause to remark on them? The Republican Party has decided to double down on its efforts to take back the White House by adopting political platforms that sound like Archie Bunker Soliloquies, while the Democratic White House spends most of its time doing its best to not look too liberal, which is no small feat in of itself.

Seriously, how am I expected not to comment on this stuff?

*

And now, a few words from Lee Camp.

*

If you use the term ASAP, be it in an email or on a post-it note, no matter what the circumstances, you are a complete and utter douche. Stop it.

*

The GOP has become an exercise in how not to carry on a logical debate. Take what many people are starting to frame as the Republican War on Women. Republican lawmakers have been stirring up their minority base of angry white men this election cycle (and attempting to distract from the slowly losing economic arguments against Obama) by focusing on anti-women legislation that feels like a retread of everything we've already gone through during the first half of the twentieth century. If they aren't demanding that women receive medically unnecessary ultrasounds before being allowed to have legally protected abortions in order to show them the error of their ways, they're fighting for the right of their employers to decide whether or not their medical insurance should include birth control coverage, and telling them to keep their legs closed if they don't like it.

Then, a law student who was blocked from testifying at a Republican-run Dog & Pony Show that birth control coverage is necessary by sharing a personal anecdote in which a fellow student died from her inability to afford prescription birth control medicines was called a slutty little whore who should film her sexual escapades for men to leer at if she expects them to pay for her sex pills by Republican mouth piece Rush Limbaugh. Needless to say, this (and the refusal of any Republican candidates or politicians to openly repudiate Rush's comments) proved to be the final straw for a lot of people who hadn't yet been drawn into the argument.

Naturally, the resulting claims that the GOP is waging a "War on Women" began to irritate the Right, and so they responded to the justified and wholly demonstrable label the same way that they always do: single out a Democrat who has done something vaguely similar and cry "But they did it, too!" Of course, it's kind of hard to find a Democratic politician who acts like a stereotypical misogynist from the 1940's, so the closest they could come was to complain that controversial political comedian Bill Maher, who recently donated one million dollars to the Democratic Campaign, called Sarah Palin naughty words not once, but twice!

Ignoring the fact that Maher's name-calling and Limbaugh's slander are incomparable (mainly because explaining the logic of this to Limbaugh Ditto-heads and Right Wing Loyalists is both exhausting and pointless), it's also plain to see that hanging their defense of a systematic attack on Women's Rights that have already been fought for and won in the past century on one comedian's foul mouth is a rather flimsy defense. So, what does the GOP do? They double-down on it in hopes of winning back female voters.

There! The Democrat Party is the true enemy of the lady folk! Bill Maher called Sarah Palin names and then donated money them, and somebody called Obama's White House a Boy's Club! That's far worse then our attempts to systematically erode a women's right to make decisions regarding her body without the government or her employer giving her permission to do so! Honest!

This is the kind of defense that only makes sense to you if you are desperate to find validation for your indefensible views.

Related articles

• David Axelrod To Erin Burnett: Maher Doesn't Play Same Role As GOP 'De Facto Boss' Rush Limbaugh (mediaite.com)
• CNN's Erin Burnett criticizes RNC ad (politico.com)
• The Bogus Rush Limbaugh / Bill Maher Comparison (polentical.com)

Intellectual Elitism, or Just Plain Smarter Than You?

Cover of Smart People

This country took a strange path over the past couple of decades, a road leading towards an inherent distrust in what many like to refer to as "Intellectual Elitism." Slowly, gradually, an ever-increasing number of Americans have become more and more wary of those who claim advance knowledge in specific fields of study. In short, more and more people are afraid of smart people.

Why could this possibly be? We could blame the politicians who sell this fear, or the news media that helps support it, or even the entertainment industry for turning ignorance into a noble character trait. But what it really comes down to is that many Americans fear smart people simply because they are, themselves, rather stupid.

Of course, this isn't the kind of thing you're supposed to say. It upsets people because they instantly assume that you are referring to them specifically, and lends support to the claims of Intellectual Elitism by the arrogant and snobbish nature of the statement. "You can't really mean that, can you? I guess you think you're smarter than most people." Actually, I do. Considering that the Average IQ of the American citizen rests between 90 and 100 (depending on who you ask), I feel very comfortable with the assumption that I am smarter than most of the people I come in contact with on a daily basis. It isn't smug elitism, just simple math. As a wise man once suggested, if you imagine how stupid the average person is, then realize that statistically half of the population is even dumber than that, you can get a real sense of how smart the majority truly is.

Does this mean I think I'm better than most people? Of course not. That's the same arrogance that allows some people to estimate their worth as an individual based on how much money they earn, or how big their house is, or how strong they are. At 6'4" I am also taller than most people, but that statement doesn't enrage people as much. Except really short people, of course.

The problem with this anti-intellectual attitude is that it has slowly made its way into the public discourse, and has taken over topics that in the past have been reserved for more intelligent consideration. With the growing amount of available media streaming into our eyes and ears, debates and discussions on serious issues of grave importance are being pondered and discussed by people with no real credentials. Some of the biggest names in talk radio, for example, spend hours discussing advanced political, economic and legal issues while having never obtained a college degree of any kind. Now, does not having a college degree make someone stupid? No, people are more than capable than obtaining knowledge on their own. However, most people prefer to get medical advice from a certified doctor with framed degrees on the wall, and not just a nice guy with a well-worn library card.

This acceptance of the untrained and unqualified as experts worth listening to has had a negative effect on the way matters of importance are considered. Take, for example, the state of political discourse in America today. Spend enough time reading the posts and messages of your average politically active individual (or, God forbid, get stuck in a conversation with one), and you will be utterly amazed at how ridiculous the most outspoken of them sound. if this is truly a nation of intelligent people, then why do most people with anything even remotely resembling a political agenda seem unable to engage in a cogent and logical argument? Follow any news site message board, and you'll be convinced that you are eavesdropping on schoolyard during recess. People spend more time defending individuals and organizations than they do ideas or philosophies, and most of the debate degenerates into labeling and name-calling.

Actually, the real reason I'm dragging politics into this is that this year's Republican Primaries stand as a perfect example of this strange reluctance to accept wisdom from the wise. The Republican Party has spent the last decade or two espousing financial success as the indicator of personal greatness, while simultaneously discrediting intelligent people scientists and college professors (who also just happen to regularly speak out against Republican policies) as "out of touch" and "too smart for their own good." The end result turns out to be a Presidential Primary composed entirely of extremely rich candidates who appear to be collectively dumber than a box of hammers.

Yeah, I know, it was hilarious when we got to poke fun at Sarah Palin for being stupid. But you could always blame her participation in the election process on John McCain's self-destructive flight of fancy, and at least she had enough common sense (barely, it seems) to drop out of public office altogether and rake in that sweet, sweet political pundit cash. But now there's nobody to blame. We're stuck with debate after debate featuring a stage full of disgustingly rich successful businessmen who repeatedly prove themselves to be less intellectually adept than a teenage Denny's waitress. The object of these debates has ceased to be deciding which candidate is best equipped to lead a nation, and is now nothing more than a sad game of seeing who can say the least amount of stupid shit in a specific time frame. What's even worse, the audiences keep upstaging the idiots in the spotlight by periodically applauding government-sanctioned murder, cheering the death of an uninsured man, booing an American soldier for

Maybe I'm being harsh, but I'm slowly resigning myself to living in a country in which a candidate for the role of Supreme Leader (more or less) declares a to have created a list of three important items that need to be addressed, fails to remember what the third item was, and doesn't immediately drop out of the race in shame. Rick Perry hasn't been the only one taking pride in ignorance, either. The historical mistakes, policy blunders and poorly phrased sentences exposing an increasing insular existence have been a daily occurrence, with each painful error brushed of or explained away by the candidates as the results of strenuous campaigning or "gotchya questions" served up by a hostile press. If these are the results of gotchya questions, the least the telejournalists could do is point and laugh when they finally trip somebody up with difficult brain teasers such as "What do you read?"

Where am I going with all of this? I'm not sure, really. If I had any kind of solution or overall explanation is to why Mike Judge's Idiocracy keeps looking more and more like a grim eventuality, this is where I'd lay it all out. I guess I don't have all of the answers after all. Hey, I said I was smart. I didn't say I was THAT smart.

Related articles

• How political affiliation can influence intelligence analysis (iago18335.wordpress.com)
• The Stupid Party (thedailybeast.com)
• The Myth of the American Political Intelligence Gap (esquire.com)

Rachel Maddow Tears Into Mitt Romney, Does Epic Segment From 'Man Cave' (VIDEO)

Maddow's rant runs the risk of feeling a bit like an overreacti­on. Until, that is, you remember that state Rep. Scott Randolph was actually chastised by the Florida GOP earlier this year for uttering the word "uterus" on the house floor.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Related articles

• Mitt Romney: Welcome To The Man Cave, Where Rachel Maddow Will Teach You How A Uterus Works (mediaite.com)
• Anti-Nanny of the Month: Florida State GOP Representative Ritch Workman (doubleplusundead.com)
• Florida GOP To Move Up Presidential Primary, Defying National Party (npr.org)