Saturday, September 1, 2012

Another 30 lies by Mitt Romney Documented

Steve Benen records another 30 lies by Mitt Romney in his 32nd installment of the weekly series, "Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity." Benen writes:

"Love Romney or hate him, it's an experiment of sorts -- we're seeing the first real-world test of a post-truth campaign. Team Romney lies, without shame, because it's certain the line between fact and fiction has been blurred out of existence, and if lies will give Romney vast power, the ends justify the means.

"But for those who still like to think reality has some meaning, I hope they'll take some time to consider the 32nd installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity. (For the record, this week, I'm only including falsehoods from Romney himself. Including every lie told at the convention would have caused a mendacity overdose.)"

With this edition, Benen has documented 602 lies* by Romney this past year as Romney leads the Republican War on Facts.

See previous editions of Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity: Vol. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII,XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI

* Note: This post was updated 9/7/12 with a new count of the lies through the 32nd week. As of 9/7/12, with Mitt's Mendacity XXXIII, the count of Mitt Romney's lies actually is up to 618.

Friday, August 31, 2012

Romney will do a good job at implementing whatever plan his masters give him

By Marc Jampole
 
Mitt Romney comes to the American people with business acumen as his best selling point.

No doubt about it: Mitt Romney has demonstrated that he is a highly successful business executive. He made hundreds of millions for his company when he headed Bain, and then did a competent job as the leader of the business called the Olympics. As governor of Massachusetts, he had no great ideas, but he competently administered and implemented the ideas of others—including the healthcare reform system that was the model for Obamacare (see Paul Starr’s Remedy and Reaction for details).

But while admiring Romney’s success in business, we should also remain aware of the drawbacks and baggage that expertise brings.

First and foremost, business executives are amoral and emotional—they’re taught to be that way in business school and business seminars.  As Michael Corleone, the fictional leader of the mythic American family business once put it, “It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.”   Business executives who don’t cultivate this attitude can’t lay off people, deny someone a raise, take a sneaky loophole out of a contract, shut down manufacturing facilities in one-plant towns, hotly pursue the business of despicable individuals, steal accounts from competitors, or play hardball with unions.

That’s why it’s so easy for a successful business executive such as Lou Gerstner to go from one industry to another and keep achieving business success.

What that means is that Mitt Romney will do a competent job implementing the program of whoever is pulling his strings.  Kind of like Albert Speer, Hitler’s talented Nazi architect and executive.  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not conflating Romney with the Nazis. That would be like labeling as a Socialist a Democrat slightly to the right of Dwight Eisenhower—say, Barack Obama.

Although it is true that Romney’s current masters want to end a woman’s right to have an abortion, severely limit her access to birth control, turn back the clock on gay rights and end the teaching of science in the schools. The Nazis did believe in most if not all of these ideas.

Another thing to remember about the business executive is that the definition of success is nothing more nor less than return of maximum value to the investors. A company may pollute, create unsafe conditions for employees, pay its workers low wages and create social problems wherever it establishes operations, e.g. Walmart, and still be considered successful because the investors all get rich.

Romney is used to defining success as creating wealth for the few, and that’s exactly what you want in a business leader, even if you are enlightened enough to include the employees among the happy few. Mitt’s admitted economic program suggests that he will continue to follow that basic strategy as president.

But the objective of a country is to protect and provide opportunities for all its citizens.  This idea is inherent in our important early documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one can read the history of the United States as a great struggle to extend rights, protection and opportunities to more and more of our people.

Sometimes the issue in an election is competence. That was certainly the case in 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy, when both sides shared exactly the same foreign policy and were coalescing around the same set of ideas to address domestic challenges. The same can be said about the election of 1976 between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

But in 2012 the issue is ideology, which is a bit ironic, since one of the candidates has demonstrated that he has none.  All he wants to do is do the best job he possibly can for whoever is paying the bill.  In the case of Romney, it’s the extreme social and economic right, which wants to send the country back to medieval times.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Six Worst Lies in Paul Ryan's Speech Only the Beginning...

Aviva Shen at ThinkProgress.org lists the Six Worst Lies in Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night, noting that, "His speech was riddled with false claims, so much so that even Fox News wrote:
"To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."
But disregard for the truth seems to be standard operating procedure for the Romney-Ryan campaign whose pollster said Tuesday the campaign is not concerned with being labeled false by independent fact-checkers. “Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a forum hosted by ABC News and Yahoo! News.

Indeed, Steve Benen of MaddowBlog.com has documented 533 lies told by Mitt Romney in the past 30 weeks in his continuing series on "Mitt's Mendacity," Fred Clark noted at Patheos.com. (See Benen's most recent update.) That gives Romney claim to the title of the most shameless liar in US politics — a considerable feat, given the competition. With secretive corporate-funded "super PACs" as well as campaigns able to repeat these lies with advertisements despite the fact-checkers' refutations, James Fallows of The Atlantic sees the media moving into the "Post-Truth Age."

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Talking Sense May Be Hazardous to Your Health Plan

By Charles Cullen


Dr. Alice Chen is a Yale graduate, received her medical degree from Cornell, and now splits her time between being an "internal medicine hospitalist," and working as an assistant professor at UCLA. She also happens to be the executive director of "Doctors for America," an activist website and group sporting the slogan "Patients Over Politics." So I think it's safe to say that she's a pretty smart cookie.


I had the pleasure of a brief interview with Dr. Chen, whose primary professional concern, when not working in internal medicine or manning her post at UCLA, is making sure that everyone is covered for medical care.


She seems genuinely perturbed by the number of people in the United States lacking real access to medical treatment. So she and many of her colleagues have rented a bus and embarked on a trip from the Republican National Convention to the Democratic National Convention. The trip is jokingly called "Docs Gone Wild." Though a quick perusal of her website leads me to believe that the official name of the trip is the "Patients Over Politics Bus Tour." I rather think the former name is catchier, but as long as they're out fighting the good fight, I couldn't care less what they're called.


I asked Dr. Chen about her thoughts regarding the current political climate. She responded by referring me to political commercials based on poor science that would make it more difficult for people to receive medical care.


"Honestly," she said, "what I think to myself is this ad is going to kill people if the person behind it gets their way." I couldn't help but agree. She spoke more about political and medical hot-button issues, eventually landing on contraception. "With the contraception debate everything seemed to be getting blown out of proportion," she told me, "We learned that many people were using contraception, like the pill, for a different reason." While she was reluctant to wade into the deep end of the political muck with me, I sensed that she was trying, in a roundabout way, to say that these contraceptive users were using contraception to maintain general health; whether through family planning or other health related concerns. In other words, no one was trying to anger god, folks were just trying to be healthier. She did mention the role of religion in the health care debate, saying "You see the Catholic Church and all these other people getting involved and it's just a mess."


At the end of our conversation I couldn't help myself and asked her to comment on the Rep. Todd Akin stir. "Mr. Akin," she said, laughing, "that's why it's important to have people who actually see patients and who [she searched for the right words] know science."


I was very impressed by Dr. Chen. And as impressed as I was, I couldn't help but notice that all of her positions were held by most Democrats and opposed by most of the Republicans. I realize that having "Patients Over Politics" as a motto is useful when running an organization that, by and large, seeks to include fairly wealthy people. I am in no way upset with, or dissappointed by Dr. Chen; she has a very specific, and very valid concern: healthcare in the United States. But when all of your positions seem in line with the Democrats and at great odds with the Republican platform, it seems unusual to take a non-political stand. Even if acknowledging that Democrats are much, much more in sync with the idea of affordable healthcare means angering some of the people who support you.


“We built it” doesn’t mean much when the “it” depends on so many things built by society

By Marc Jampole

The people carrying the “We built it” signs on the floor of the Republican Convention are not referring to the same “thing” to which President Obama referred when he rhetorically said “You didn’t build that” to business owners in a speech weeks ago.

The “We built it” standard bearers are talking about their businesses and wealth.

What Obama means are the roads and airports that transport goods and services to and from the businesses; the electrical grids delivering electrical power to run the lights; the public education system that trained most of the employees; the police force and army that protect the business from civil disturbances; the system of laws and business customs that ensure marketplace consistency and a stable economic environment. He also meant that some businesses depend on special grants of government property such as land and airwaves; others depend on advantageous tax codes and tariff laws.

As I have written before, building on philosopher Daniel N. Robinson’s Praise and Blame: Moral Realism and Its Application, the people who built their “its” don’t even deserve that much credit for their work, whether the “it” is Apple or a mom-and-pop provider of IT services.  A lot, and maybe most, of their success stems more from luck than anything else.

Here's some of what that luck comprises:
  • Mental or physical talent with which one is born. If you have it, you will be able to do something naturally that most others have to struggle to learn. Even if you work hard to hone that talent, remember that someone with less talent could work just as hard and not accomplish as much. Wouldn’t he or she be just as deserving of reward?
  • Social-economic standing of your family: Over the 200+ year history of the United States there has been very little social mobility—which means people moving up or down from the class in which they were born—and recent studies show that we have less mobility today than ever before. As a brief look at Mitt Romney and his family substantiates, rich families can pay for lessons, send kids to specialty camps, pay for private tutors and educational consultants, contribute sums to prestigious schools, call friends of friends of friends to introduce children to influential people in their chosen careers and finance business or artistic ventures. Middle class families can do some of these things and poor families very few, if any.
  • Family’s emotional situation: The individual has no say in whether she or he ends up in a loving, stable family or in a family of drug addicts.
  • Secular conditions, referring to the social and economic conditions of the era: My favorite example of the impact of social conditions on individual success is Willie Mays, on everyone’s short list of the greatest baseball player of all time, who would have been a field slave if born 100 years earlier.
  • The value society puts on your talent: Bankers, attorneys, neurosurgeons, professional athletes, business owners—all these people get paid more than high school teachers, players in classical symphony orchestras and plumbers, who may work as hard and be just as talented in their field. A plumber could work just as hard as an investment banker does and make far less money. Does that make the plumber less praiseworthy than the banker?
  • Just plain old “luck” luck, such as the luck to be in an intersection 10 seconds before or after an accident or for your professor to bring you onto his long-term research team.
The argument behind “You didn’t build that” answers the Republican claim that we shouldn’t tax so-called wealth creators because it shows how little their efforts really contributed to creating the wealth that they are enjoying.

Another way to look at the issue is to consider the value of protection and stability that government provides to each individual.  If your house is worth $150,000, you are getting protection and stability (and water, sewer service and other utilities) to support $150,000.  If your house is worth $500,000, the protection and security is worth more and so you should be paying higher taxes.

The “We built it” crowd likes to confuse the issue by falsely saying we have a high tax rate (we don’t—it’s historically low) and then blaming that rate and our deficit on programs for the undeserving.  This argument confuses two distinct issues:
  1. What constitutes the minimum standard of living, education and healthcare that every person deserves by virtue of being a human being in an advanced civilization?
  2. Who will pay for the goods and services that government provides?
No matter where one stands on the first issue, keep in mind that the major plank in the economic program of Mitt Romney and the Republicans is to make the poor and middle class pay even more for government than they already do, while the wealthy pay even less. 

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Notes from Tampa

By Charles Cullen


Nothing unusual is going on in Florida. Most speakers today seem content (so far) to stick to the script of dog-whistle politics and desperate attempts to blame the President for all the economic woes the Republicans should be taking responsibility for. But Sean Duffy, congressman from Wisconsin, just levelled one of the weirdest attacks on any politician I've ever heard. He accused Obama of orchestrating "one of the worst recoveries" ever. I'm not sure what to make of this ... is it a new talking point? Romney would have done better, say? Was it a slip of the tongue? Is he just off script? I was under the impression that Republicans were obligated to resist admitting that any kind of recovery had taken place anywhere, for anyone, unless absolutely cornered. Only then could they acknowledge that Obama pulled us from the brink of a second Great Depression. They were still expected to bend the truth and the job numbers, and at all costs avoid a comparison to Obama's tenure v. Bush's. But Duffy seemed to miss that memo.


Accusing someone of engineering a bad recovery insists that one ask why we needed to recover in the first place. Who made the mess we're recovering from? Who engineered the crash? Considering the brevity of Duffy's speech, I have to think that it's just one congressmen's bizzaro-world-view rather than a trial run for a new political meme.


Strike that. Something unusual is going on in Florida; the Ron Paul folks have made their move with boos and shouting. They actually had to be gavelled down so that Zoriada Fonalledas could speak. RNC chairman Reince Priebus continues to sneer and wink, in an apparent attempt to maintain good humor with the Ron Paul Contingent — some of whom have attached clothes pins to their noses as if to say "this stinks," and none of whom seem to have any problem yelling at the speakers — be they Fonalledas, John Boehner, Sununu, or McDonnell. The Republican speakers continue to announce "without objection the motion passes," and "the aye's have it." But there seems to be considerable and vocal objection along with quite a few "nays." This is by no means a true uprising (I don't think) but Republicans are generally much more averse to debate, especially when the cameras are rolling.


Most of the boos and booers have now been silenced, but this can't be a good sign for Romney. He needs to run a very precise, very organized campaign if he's going to upset a sitting President who just so happens to be ahead, is a fantastic orator, mops the floor with debate opponents, and, among other things, ordered the raid that killed Bin Laden.


Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Maybe the Democrats will run a terrible campaign (I've seen it happen before), maybe Romney has a real ace in the hole and he's just been pretending to be boring, distant, and out of touch. But somehow I don't think so. This is the Mitt we know. He'll hope for continuing economic difficulty, and pray that Obama's ethnicity is enough to frighten people into voting for Romney. Seems like a risky and nauseating political strategy.


In the spirit of journalistic honesty, I must say that I am too young or was too distracted to remember when Republican conventions were much more than candidate-coronation ceremonies heading into the general election. I know that Ron Paul has always had a devoted following, but I was surprised by the tenacity of his supporters this time around and by the number of states that allocated him a significant portion of the their delegates BEFORE Romney was "Over the Top." Quite a few states were giving a portion of delegates to Santorum, others had delegates abstaining from the vote. This tells me that even in the red states (Texas), the swing states, where it would have looked really good for Romney to get all the delegates (Iowa), he just couldn't pull it off.

Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself

By Charles Cullen

It had to be this way -- perfection in a Shakespearian-tragedy sense. Of course my first trip to a Republican National Convention would start out with mortal terror...not of Republicans, though they're plenty frightening, but of the weather itself. Rain lashed the car as I drove down to Tampa. Gusts of wind pushed my and other vehicles around a bit. When I managed to make my way into deep western Florida the rain stopped, but the wind picked up enough to throw a few palmetto plants my way. And now everything seems to have died down. It's just raining. Nothing torrential, just bad weather.


I'm beginning to think that my trip down is a fairly spot-on allegory for the Republican race itself: all sound and fury but no real substance. No lasting ideas. There does of course seem to be an up-tick in voter suppression schemes, hatred of women, the poor, and minorities in general, but nothing we haven't seen before...


Unless you count Ron Paul. We've seen him before, but never quite like this. It may be nothing but I've already resisted conversion attempts from several members of the Ron Paul Nation, and I've only been in Tampa for a few hours. Ron Paul's acolytes shuffle out of nowhere with their Ron Paul T-shirts, and instantly recognize that you have not yet accepted Ron Paul into your heart as your political lord and savior. And they are very eager to spread the good word.


What baffles me is how they know. I've already been mistaken as a Republican (easy mistake to make considering I'm a grumpy looking white guy in a collared shirt and slacks) and recognized as a liberal, but the Ron Paul folks are batting a thousand. They never miss. Their political pitch is always roughly the same with Democrats; they know I'm a liberal but want to explain to me just why and how government is the root of all evil. I'd shrug this off if they weren't pulling the same trick with Republicans. The pitch to Republicans has more to do with a mild scolding for saying one is in favor of small government (a favorite pastime for many on the right) only to massively increase the government's size, spending, and scope. I was even accosted by a Ron Paul supporter in the lobby of my hotel. Sandals, sweatpants, a Ron Paul T-shirt, and the instant knowledge that I was a liberal Democrat.


Please keep in mind that all of this has happened outside the convention. I'll keep an eye on this brand of weirdness and all the other stories as they arise when the convention kicks off in full. Though I must say, if I encounter anything as impressive/unsettling a Ron Paul mind-readers, I'll be surprised.


(Editor's Note: Charles is in Tampa covering the Republican National Convention for The Progressive Populist.)


Saturday, August 25, 2012

Editorial: Granny Starvers Attack

Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate looks to Democrats like a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.” Ryan is a right-wing ideologue who, in tandem with Romney, helps President Obama and Democrats draw a clear line between what the two sides stand for. In that matchup, Obama stands for the centrist liberals who, with limited federal intervention, stabilized the economy and saved General Motors, Chrysler (and probably Ford, as well). Romney and Ryan stand for the radical Republicans who want to double down on the Reagan-Bush economic principles of more tax cuts and deregulation guided by “free-market” principles of “let the buyer beware.” But now, with that line drawn, the Dems had better win the election.

President Obama took office during the worst economic downturn in a generation. We now know that Republican leaders met on the evening of his inauguration and agreed not to cooperate with Obama or the Democrats in any meaningful way. They hoped the economy would deteriorate so Republicans would have an easy time unseating Obama this fall and retaking control after the 2012 election. Democrats in 2009 had a majority in the House and were able to pass progressive bills there, but they started with 58 votes in the Senate — a clear majority but two votes short of the number needed to clear the filibuster hurdle, which the obstructionist Republicans used at an unprecedented level.

When Obama got Congress to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which saved or created 3.6 million jobs, he was forced to accept tax breaks as part of the package, because he needed at least two Republican votes. Republican pressure on Sen. Arlen Specter finally convinced the moderate Pennsylvania Republican to switch parties, and when Al Franken’s election finally was certified and the Minnesota Democrat was seated in July 2009, the Dems finally had their 60th vote to break the filibusters. That cleared the way for health insurance reform — as long as the Democrats held their conservatives in line and ailing Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were able to make procedural votes as they attempted to move the Affordable Care Act through the Senate. That is why a single payer plan was out of the question — and even an option to let the public buy into Medicare proved to be outside their grasp. It also is why Wall Street reforms got watered down, with the strongest reforms largely shot down in the Senate along corporatist lines.

The Democrats treated the banks better than they deserved but the banksters give them no thanks. They saw that they can get a better deal from the Republicans who are willing to give them the benefit of every doubt, and Wall Street is investing in Romney and other Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin. Democrats might as well make a virtue of their poverty and go after the plutocrats who, it is becoming increasingly obvious, want to destroy what remains of the New Deal and Great Society and return us to the days of the Gilded Age.

Into the mix Romney has thrust Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Budget chairman whose 2012 budget, approved in the House on an almost party-line vote, would have cut domestic spending for aid to the working poor and proposed to turn Medicare into a voucher program for future retirees in order to provide more tax cuts for the wealthy. That budget, while admired by respectable pundits in D.C., earned Ryan the title “the zombie-eyed granny starver” from Charles Pierce of Esquire.com.

Nothing underscores the difference between the two parties more than the debate over Medicare. Republicans have been fighting against national health insurance ever since Teddy Roosevelt proposed it in 1912. Lyndon Johnson took advantage of the opportunity when the 1964 election handed him a Democratic Congress with two-thirds supermajorities in the House and Senate that passed the health care program for seniors in 1965. Republicans have been trying to undermine Medicare ever since then.

Romney has been claiming that Obama stole $716 billion from Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act, but the truth, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is that the health reform bill saves $716 billion over the next 10 years through reductions in subsidies paid to insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage plans, reductions in the rate of growth in provider payments and efforts to make Medicare programs more efficient. In other words, the cuts are to reduce waste fraud and abuse of the programs and should result in savings of an average of $3,500 for beneficiaries through lower copayments and premiums and better benefits over the next 10 years.

In fact, the ACA improves benefits for senior citizens. It has expanded coverage of preventive care while improving quality and it has reduced the “donut hole” between limits on “Part D” coverage of prescription drugs and the cap on out-of-pocket spending by an average of $2,000 per year. It keeps Medicare Advantage, but places limits on out-of-pocket costs for in-network care for enrollees. Meanwhile, Medicare Part B and D premiums were restructured to reduce costs for most people while raising contributions from the wealthiest people with Medicare.

Ryan’s budget kept the $716 billion in cuts to Medicare. But instead of using those savings to provide other benefits for seniors, Ryan and Romney would use that money to provide more tax cuts for the wealthy and/or add a trillion dollars to the defense budget. Meanwhile, Obama cuts defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, raises about $1.5 trillion by letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire and puts that money into deficit reduction, which makes the need for future Medicare cuts less likely. Lately, Romney has said he would restore the funding to Medicare, which further reduces his credibility.

Ryan took his mother with him as protection when he visited a Florida retirement community Aug 18, as if his mom’s endorsement proved Ryan wouldn’t do anything to hurt senior voters. Using mothers for cover is an increasingly popular refuge for Republican congressional scoundrels who voted for Ryan’s Medicare privatization in 2011. But just because they care about their mothers doesn’t mean they care about your mothers — or your children, who might wonder how they will take care of your nursing home costs if Republicans manage to get rid of Medicaid.

The real scandal is that Republicans not only don’t see anything wrong with 50 million Americans being uninsured and another 25 million underinsured. Now they want to do away with the guaranteed benefits of Medicare and divert future retirees to the private insurance market with an offer of discount coupons. The CBO reported that Ryan’s voucher plan would cost the typical Medicare beneficiary $6,500 a year. But Republicans, with the help of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio talkers, have convinced half of the electorate that Obamacare will ration their health care. And in key states, Republican legislators have rushed into place voter suppression laws, including new voter ID requirements and limits on early voting, that they hope will keep a substantial portion of Democratic voters from actually casting ballots in November.

One of our readers suggests that evangelical Christians consider the words of Isaiah 32:5-8, which in the King James Version reads: “The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practice hypocrisy, and to utter error against the Lord, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.” (Some other versions of the Bible, including the Catholic, translate “liberal” as “noble.”)

I’ll leave it to our readers to figure out who is the liberal or noble leader, and who is vile or foolish, in the parable of Obama vs. Romney. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, September 15, 2012


Populist.com

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links

About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Selections from the September 15, 2012 issue

COVER/Robert B. Reich
The Ryan choice: ‘Fix’ Medicare

EDITORIAL
Granny starvers attack


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Resistant weeds force weed killers to get aggressive

DISPATCHES
GOP panic over rape gaffe in Mo. Senate race;
Romney, Ryan see delays in Medicare coverage;
Branding Rep. Ryan;
Biden: no Social Security cuts;
Mitt’s tax forms may hide felonies;
What is poverty?;
Obama lags on judge picks;
Ryan flexible on economic stimulus;
Republicans indignant at slave rhetoric that they use;
Ohio election official: We shouldn't accommodate urban (black) voters;
Siegelman ordered back to prison;
Bain busted pilots union;
Roseanne still running for president ...


DON ROLLINS
Oregon’s biggest daily paper sits election out


JOSEPH B. ATKINS
UAW unveils Southern strategy


WENONAH HAUTER
Water company squeezes woman for last drop


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Intellectual dust-heap of health myths

SAM URETSKY
What’s good for business?

MARK ANDERSON
Postal banks could save mail service


WAYNE O’LEARY
Into the abyss

ART CULLEN
Heaven forbid that the farmer should eat

GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Ethanol feeds food crisis


ALLAN BRAWLEY
Break up the big banks

BOOK REVIEW/Donald McCarthy
The hidden side of capitalism

POPULIST PICKS
Experience America

ROB PATTERSON
Not your pop’s pop music

and more ...

Friday, August 24, 2012

Romney’s energy plan: it’s déjà vu again for regressive energy policies

By Marc Jampole

I was expecting to read that Cassandra Peterson, AKA Elvira Mistress of the Night, helped Mitt Romney with his many props as he explained his energy plan yesterday, because it was, as Cassandra in her low-cut, high thigh-slit gown,  used to say,  It’s déjà vu again…and again…and again.

Romney’s plan is the same plan proposed by John McCain and the same plan pursued by Bush II-Cheney. It was Dole’s plan and it was Daddy Bush’s plan. And it was Ronald Reagan’s plan as well: promote and support non-renewable and typically polluting energy sources and withdraw support and promotion from renewable energy sources.

These policies help the behemoth energy companies that are major political donors, and they inconvenience the American public the least over the short term—except for the gradually rising price of energy and average temperatures, and the imperceptible rise in the number of cases of asthma, COPD and other breathing ailments.

There is a hidden method in their madness: once the price of fossil fuels gets high enough, it will eventually become economically feasible for businesses to develop alternative energy without government interference.

Unless of course society breaks down first, as it has so many times in the past, in ancient Crete, Rome, China on several occasions, Cahokia and the Easter Islands, for example. This time, however, social breakdown will likely be assisted by an increase in weather disasters caused by global warming and pandemics breaking out as the diseases of southern climes creep north.

I prefer for the human race to take its fate into its own hands, which, when it comes to energy policy, means focusing on developing and subsidizing solar, wind and viable biofuel energy sources while driving up the cost of fossil fuels by increasing environmental regulations and taxing carbon emissions, all of which will help to slow climate change.


****

I continue to get a comment or two a day in response to my column stating that the definition of legitimate rape was when a woman says “no.” The commentators rightly pointed out that sometimes a woman can’t say “no” to a rape: passed out, too afraid, a child with a parent; and what of the “yes” of a 12-year-old to the proposition of a 25-year-old, called statutory rape?  Of course these are rapes, too, and no one has any trouble seeing them as rapes except a handful of some very sick people. 

My remarks responded to the obnoxious concept of “legitimate rape,” which clearly reflects a condemnation of the freedom of contemporary women by conjuring the “illegitimate” rapes theoretically brought on by women wearing certain clothes, teasing, engaging in promiscuous behavior (whatever that is) and other bugaboos.  In no way did I mean to imply that rape required the victim to utter the word, “no,” and I am sorry a few people inferred that meaning.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Those wanting more individual freedom and economic equity must vote for Obama this November


By Marc Jampole

As it turns out, when you put the voters leaning one way or another in the respective columns of President Obama and Mitt Romney (I am reluctant to call him governor, since he has repudiated everything he did as a Governor of Massachusetts), there are only 3-5% of likely voters who are undecided.  Thus, all the hundreds of millions that the candidates are spending have the goal to capture the votes of very few people, plus, of course, to rally the loyal troops to actually step into a voting booth and push the appropriate buttons.

This relatively small number of people still undecided underscores how polarized our politics and our country have become.  What’s most interesting is how the polarization tends to play out consistently. On social issues Republicans want to control private life, while Democrats don’t want to intrude; whereas on economic issues, it’s the exact opposite, with Democrats wanting to intrude on marketplace relationships and interactions, with Republicans wanting a laissez faire approach.

The polarization takes place along a wide range of issues, as the following handy-dandy chart encapsulates:

Social Issue
Republicans
Democrats
Abortion
Intrude on private lives
Don’t intrude
Gay marriage
Intrude on private lives
Don’t intrude
Birth control for women
Intrude on private lives
Don’t intrude
Promotion of one religion
Intrude on private lives
Don’t intrude
Rewriting science & history
Intrude on truth
Don’t intrude


Economic Issue
Republicans
Democrats
Environmental regulations
Don’t intrude
Intrude on marketplace
Labor and employment regulations
Don’t intrude
Intrude on marketplace
Minimum wage
Don’t intrude
Intrude on marketplace
Support of emerging industries, e.g., solar and wind power, nanotechnology and space research
Don’t intrude
Intrude on marketplace
Support for schools, healthcare and the poor
Don’t intrude
Intrude on marketplace
Privatization of government functions
Don’t intrude on free market
Intrude: Let government do it


The only ways in which the polarization is not consistent with this pattern are the two big money issues: 1) Who will pay for the services and benefits that government does provide its citizens, or in the privatization scheme of things, finance? 2) In paying for our debt, how will the money flow, from the poor and middle class as it has for the past 30 years I dyspeptically call the Reagan Era, or from the wealthy to the poor and middle class until we return to the mix of wealth we had in from about 1945-1975?

The really strange thing about the deep political division in the country is that most of the people who believe fervently in the Republican positions on key social issues suffer from the Republican position on economic issues, and are among the biggest losers if the Republican positions on taxation and government spending prevail.

Why would these Republican for social issues put up with policies that lead to their own economic decline?  If they just tended to their own communities and families instead of trying to impose their religious views on others, then everyone could do what they wanted. They could then vote Democratic for economic issues and have more money to live their own lives or give to their church.

The economic-issue Republicans such as Romney and Ryan cynically support the efforts of the social-issue Republicans in a kind of grand bargain with the devil, or should I say angel.

We know the economic-issue Republicans have to make the bargain, because if they didn’t, they would be severely outvoted in every election. Even with voter suppression tactics, it’s pretty hard for 1% to beat 99% at the polls.

But why do the social-issue Republicans make the bargain?

I think it’s for one reason and one reason alone: racism. The social right wing believes that all the social and government investment programs primarily help minorities, whom many still hate or fear, even if they currently tend to mask these emotions with the kind of code language proliferated by the new sophisticated breed of race-baiters such as Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. They tend to like the benefits they receive, such as social security and Medicare, but demonize other government benefits such as food stamps by incorrectly putting a black or immigrant face on them. 

The economic right wing has been spewing its laissez faire economics and economic Darwinism since the Gilded Age of the middle of the 19th century. But uneducated urban and rural whites began to listen to and agree with the economic far right only when government benefits were opened to African-Americans (and women) in the 1960’s. Goldwater was considered a dangerous extremist figure. A mere 16 years later, years of civil rights strides, Ronald Reagan defeated an incumbent president with the support of the angry white working class and the then incipient evangelical movement.

Is it worth it to social conservatives to allow their allies to perpetrate a financial rape on 99% of the population of the country? Do they think of it as a purifying scourge of extreme poverty and hardship, as the wealthy continue to collect and hoard money thanks to low taxes, little government wealth redistribution, privatization and wage policies that suppress the income of most?  Instead of dragging heavy chains, wearing scratching barbed clothing and carrying heavy crosses as in late medieval times, maybe the Christian right wants our society and most of the people in it to just gradually get poorer and poorer, while the plutocrats bid up the prices of fine art and baseball cards.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

The real definition of legitimate rape: if a woman says “no”


By Marc Jampole

I’m not sure what Missouri Republican candidate to the U.S. Senate Todd Akin and other social conservatives mean by the term “legitimate rape.”

When considering new terms or idiomatic expressions, the Urban Dictionary issometimes useful. It just came out with a definition of legitimate rape: “Rape between one man and one woman who are not married or even acquainted; the only rape sanctioned by the Republican Party.” Since the Urban Dictionary uses crowd sourcing, that may not be the precise definition or exactly what social conservatives mean.

According to Katie J. M. Baker, who traces the history of this obnoxious concept onJezebel.com, social conservatives have believed for many years that it’s almost impossible for a woman to get pregnant from a “legitimate rape,” because the body produces secretions that suppress pregnancy when a woman is so violated.  This absurd theory of course enables them to oppose abortion in all cases, since, by implication, if a woman gets pregnant it couldn’t be “legitimate rape.”

Abortion politics and false science aside, I have my own definition of legitimate rape that I hope becomes widely used.

Legitimate rape is when a woman says “no.” One time.

If she has said “yes” 50 times before during the evening, but says “no” one time, it’s a legitimate rape (unless the people involved have explicitly agreed to some kinky role-playing).

If the man—husband, fiancé or whatever—who wants to penetrate her has done so a thousand times in the past and she says “no,” it’s legitimate rape.

If a woman of her own free will and not under the influence of foreign substances has decided to have sex with 8 men in a row, with the other males watching while she is engaged with each man (what is crudely called a “gang bang” or “pulling the chain”) and she has completed her business with 7 of the men and the 8th is about to take his turn and she changes her mind and says “no” and he continues, it’s legitimate rape.

Marital status doesn’t matter. A prior or ongoing relationship doesn’t matter. The fact that the woman in question has had many lovers doesn’t matter. The fact that the woman has engaged in heavy erotic teasing with the perpetrator doesn’t matter.

The only thing that matters is if a woman indicates that she does not want to engage in intercourse.  If she says “no,” it’s rape.

If you want to add the word “legitimate,” fine.

But “no” means “no.”

That police departments, prosecutors, judges, juries, frat boys and social conservatives don’t always see it that way is a continuing travesty of justice and makes a mockery of our concepts of freedom and free will.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Money Race

Graphics by Kevin Kreneck. Click on images to enlarge.

Ayn Rand: The Right's Weirdest Idol of All


(From the Aug. 1, 2011, issue of The Progressive Populist, Hal Crowther takes down Ayn Rand, the atheist Russian emigre who inspired young Paul Ryan, among others, to become a right-wing Republican.)

By Hal Crowther

The Republican Party’s slapstick search for a leader would be heartwarming and sidesplitting, but for the tragic knowledge that one of these scrambling midgets will collect tens of millions of votes in the presidential election of 2012. Never have so many amounted to so little, talked so much rubbish, dreamed of an office so far above their abilities. Blood pressures rose among party elders when Donald Trump, marginally Republican and one of the greatest fools in the solar system, momentarily tossed his hairpiece into the ring and became the instant favorite.

The GOP dilemma — a golden opportunity to rule but nothing to say and no one to say it — is so desperate that my instinct is to help them sort it out. Could we make a start, at least, by dismissing candidates who called for President Obama’s birth certificate or raised the specter of Sharia law in America, followed briskly off the stage by lunatics who dismiss global warming as a socialist plot?

That would leave plenty of unbalanced extremists still in the running, yet reduce the stench of sheer evil and madness. The “birther” and Sharia cults reek of cheesy talk-radio racism; climate-change denial is a stranger faith yet, a political assault on basic science that insults a ground squirrel’s intelligence and casually threatens the survival of life on earth.

The party that produces birthers and global-warming deniers no doubt harbors End-of-the-Worlders, too, Christians who packed their bags for heaven with the senile prophet Harold Camping on May 21. Though none of them, I suppose, would commit to the time and expense of a presidential campaign just to preside over a nation of sinners expiring in fire and pestilence. Leo Rangell, the prominent Freudian analyst whose obituary is in this morning’s Times, once lamented that the American public is “gullible or easily seduced, and susceptible to leaders of questionable character.”

Dr. Rangell wrote that in 1980, long before gullibility became such an epidemic that we began to doubt the value of our schools, before media demagogues made a billion-dollar industry of manipulating our most credulous citizens, before the Republican Party dedicated itself to gathering most of them into its fold. Before Rush Limbaugh, before Fox News, before the Tea Party.

“Finally, people’s stupidity will break your heart,” observed my father, a small-town politician and a loyal Republican of the moderate traditional strain that has been systematically exterminated by the radical Right.

My father lived long enough to vote for George McGovern and against Ronald Reagan, but the rhetoric GOP candidates churn out to charm this Tea Party would sound extraterrestrial to most Republicans of his generation.

The odious hypocrite Newt Gingrich, who considered himself a serious presidential candidate until his entire staff abandoned him in disgust, rests his appeal on his intellectual superiority to Sarah Palin and Rick Perry — a distinction much like being a faster runner than Dom DeLuise. In his obligatory pre-campaign book Gingrich claims that Barack Obama, a cautious centrist if there ever was one, drives a “secular-socialist machine” that “represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”

Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Father Coughlin, move over. Newt is just full of Shariah, among other things, and accuses Obama of “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior,” a blatant pitch for the racist vote the Tea Party has re-energized. A colossal irony — demonstrating how hopelessly divided America has become — is that the radical philosopher Cornel West, a black Princeton professor, calls Obama “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.” This is not helpful of Dr. West, nor even responsible. He and Newt Gingrich are equally useless if a calmer, more logical and coherent political culture is what we’re after. But if I had to say which of these two hostile portraits of our president is less preposterous, I’m sure I’d choose West’s. Virtually all the valid criticism of Barack Obama has come from the left.

When Tea-stained legislators gut environmental laws to protect corporate profits, when they sneer at climate change while America bakes in its bedrock like a big green casserole — when Republican educational reform means classrooms with fewer teachers and more guns — there’s a temptation for reasonable Americans to throw up their hands and succumb to despair. Is it a death wish or a scheme to kill the rest of us, when “conservatives” fight against clean air laws, or legislate to place a loaded pistol in every yahoo’s holster? I’ve reached the second half of my seventh decade, and I’ve never seen such an intimidating swarm of fanatics and fools marching under one banner. The election of a non-white president has brought out the worst in the worst of us. But who guessed that there were so many, or that their worst was so awful?

The late Albert Einstein, of my father’s persuasion if not of his party, once wrote despairingly, “The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time.” But the coalition that poisons this struggling republic is an unnatural one, made up of rich cynics who supply the money and poor ignoramuses who supply the votes. They have nothing in common, except that the cynics will say anything and the morons will believe it. There must be something, optimists insist, that could drive a wedge between the exploiters and the exploited — some irresistible revelation, some fraud or contradiction so flagrant that the most obtuse voter could see how callously and criminally he’s being used.

How about Ayn Rand? The latest Republican poster boy, congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, stole the media spotlight with a slash-to-the-bone budget proposal that Fox News heralded as the Magna Carta of fiscal responsibility in America. I lack the expertise to take on Rep. Ryan’s budget digit-for-digit, but I place considerable confidence in the opinion of the Times’ Paul Krugman, who won a Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008. “The proposal wasn’t serious at all,” Krugman wrote. “In fact, it was a sick joke. The only real things in it were savage cuts in aid to the needy and the uninsured, huge tax cuts for corporations and the rich, and Medicare privatization. All the alleged cost savings were pure fantasy.”

That sounds about par for the current Republican course, with fresh infusions of Tea Party belligerence and unreality. But what frightened me most about Rep. Ryan was the report that he is an avowed disciple of the writer/philosopher Ayn Rand, and has declared in public that Rand is “the reason I got involved in public service.” Good grief, she’s back. She died in 1982, but someone neglected to drive a stake through her heart.

A passion for the prose and philosophy of Ayn Rand tells us a great deal about an individual, none of it good. There are few surer signs of a poor reader, a poor thinker and an unpleasant person than a well-thumbed copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

In 2005, Rand’s acolytes gathered in Washington for a symposium to celebrate her 100th birthday — the occasion for Rep. Ryan’s disturbing confession — and I admit I’d give anything to see the seating chart. If there was some way to ban everyone in that room from holding public office, we could probably turn the United States of America back toward the generous light of reason.

She was to literature what Rod McKuen was to poetry, what Fabian was to rock n’ roll, what Guru Maharaj Ji was to religion. Look them up. Like them, she once enjoyed a huge audience of admirers. Unlike them, she was never harmless and she’s enjoying an alarming revival.

Since Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, it has sold seven million copies. It’s possibly the most polarizing book ever written. For every Paul Ryan who finds it life-shaping, a dozen readers are mystified and a dozen more appalled. Few actually finish the 1,200-page novel, which ends with the mysterious Galt drawing a dollar sign in the air with his finger. If you wade into this stuff up to your ankles — the hokey melodrama, the backlit macro-characters posed like Easter Island monoliths, the cruel and obvious message stamped on every page—-you begin to fear that you can never wash it off.

At times her critics oversimplify Rand’s beliefs, which embody any number of contradictions and opacities. But essentially she glorifies the will and celebrates Nietzsche’s Ubermensch, the superman whose blazing passage through the world need never be impeded by the interests or opinions of mediocrities like you and me. It’s the same string of arrogant assumptions that spawned the Master Race theories of Herr Hitler: ego-deification, social Darwinism, arbitrary stratification of human types. Adapted for capitalism, it becomes the divine right to plunder — a license for those who own nearly everything to take the rest, because they wish to, because they can. Because the weak don’t matter. Let the big dogs feed. This repulsive theology was the work of a fairly repulsive person.

For an eyewitness portrait of Ayn Rand in the flesh, in the prime of her celebrity, you can’t improve on the “Ubermensch” chapter in Tobias Wolff’s autobiographical novel Old School.

Invited to meet with the faculty and student writers at the narrator’s boarding school, Rand arrives with an entourage of chain-smoking idolaters in black and behaves so repellently that her audience of innocents gets a life lesson in what kind of adult to avoid, and to avoid becoming. Rude, dismissive, vain and self-infatuated to the point of obtuseness — she names Atlas Shrugged as the only great American novel — Rand and her hissing chorus in black manage to alienate the entire school, even the rich board member who had admired and invited her.

What strikes Wolff’s narrator most forcefully is her utter lack of charity or empathy, her transparent disgust with everything she views as disfiguring or disabling: a huge wen on the headmaster’s forehead, the narrator’s running head cold, the war injury that emasculated Hemingway’s Jake Barnes in The Sun Also Rises.

To the boy, she appears to be exactly the sort of merciless egotist who might have designed a fascist philosophy that exalts power and disparages altruism. Rand is wearing a gold pin in the shape of a dollar sign. After meeting her, he can no longer read a word of The Fountainhead, which as an adolescent romantic he had enjoyed.

This division of the human race into the elect few who are destiny’s darlings and the “second-rate” multitudes above whom they soar—-this Ubermensch nonsense—-is perilously thin ice on which to rest a philosophy (Nietzsche, you recall, went hopelessly mad.)

Since there’s no agency that rates human beings the way we rate bonds, the elect are always self-elected supermen and superwomen. Super, says who?

If it’s supposed to be intellect as much as will that sets them above us, I sense a critical problem. Whenever a person of superior intelligence begins to comprehend the human condition, the first fruits of his knowledge are humility and irony—-those two things Rand and her heroes most spectacularly lack.

Personally, I never feel more superior than when I see someone carrying a copy of Atlas Shrugged. What actually sets the self-styled super race apart is an unrepressed infantile id, a raging “I want” that defies socialization. These are damaged children, people of arrested development drawn to an ugly philosophy that legitimizes narcissism and socially unacceptable behavior. Donald Trump would be a perfect example. For an apostle of self-willed happiness, the goddess of greed led a troubled life, marked by depressions, amphetamine addiction, messy love affairs and betrayals. But you could say that she had a capacious mind, if not a healthy or an orderly one.

She was well educated, she had actually read Aristotle and Nietzsche before she hobbled them and hitched them to her wagon. Her unlikely 21st-century resurrection is the work of much smaller, often almost invisible minds that cherry-pick the vast creaking structure of her oeuvre for their own ends, just as they cherry-pick the Bible or The Wealth of Nations.

If corporate feudalism is your dream for America, she’s the prophet for you. Her naïve faith in capitalism and contempt for “the welfare state” are just what the right-wing doctor ordered.

Much of the rest, alas, will never fly in Alabama. Pundits have been delighted to note that the heroine of the new Republicans was a pacifist who opposed the Vietnam War, a feminist who supported abortion, an adulteress who preached free love, a bohemian who mocked family life and child-bearing, an elitist who sneered at the common man, and, after all her “nanny state” rhetoric, a recipient of Social Security and Medicare and a late, sick convert to the benefits of socialized medicine.

Worst of all, for tea-stained Christian Republicans, she was a militant atheist. In Rand’s ideology religious faith was the most abject form of weakness, a sniveling retreat from the hardheaded, self-centered “objectivism” her heroes impose on the world. She not only would have rejected Jesus and his gospels, she actually did—-repeatedly. Christ’s message that the poor are blessed and the meek will inherit the earth is antithetical to Rand’s belief that the poor and meek are no more than mulch where the dreams of the mighty take root.

So adamantly did she denounce the altruism and self-sacrifice at the center of the Christian message, it’s no exaggeration to call her the intellectual Antichrist.

It’s no great exaggeration to say that praising her is like spitting in Christ’s face.

How do Paul Ryan, Ron and Rand Paul and company manage to pass off this radical atheist, this subversive Russian Jew (born Elisa Rosenbaum) as an iconic role model for Christian conservatives?

Apparently they don’t think they need to get into the details, not with their particular constituency. Assuming that they know the details themselves. The careless condescension of their leaders is not yet a scandal to the tea-baggers of America’s unlettered hard Right. But Ayn Rand seems like the biggest joke of all, one that might yet blow up in the party’s face.

The plutocrats she worshiped are so few, the plebeians she scorned are so many. The GOP’s little people can’t all be totally illiterate, and Limbaugh and Glenn Beck actually urge them to read this woman’s books. It’s in-your-face deception that reminds me of the old stage villain, the silent-movie heavy with the waxed mustache, cackling behind his cloak and inviting the audience to share the cruelty he’s about to inflict on his innocent victims. It’s as if Wall Street is surreptitiously giving the finger to Main Street Republicans, laughing at the gullible recruits as they march to the polls to lower corporate taxes and deregulate markets. Ayn Rand, indeed. She would have applauded the big dogs’ ruthlessness but rolled her eyes at the Christian-family rhetoric they’re obliged to use for bait.

She wasn’t one of them, of course; she certainly wasn’t one of us. She was one of a kind, thank god. In her defense, you might argue that her love affair with capitalism was rooted in a Russian Jew’s horror of the totalitarian systems that devastated Europe in the 20th century.

That offers her a gravitas she doesn’t share with ultra-light Midwestern reactionaries like Paul Ryan or Michele Bachmann. But the more Americans read her books, the better for liberals and the worse, I think, for Republicans.

Her work illustrates conclusively what a few brave clergymen and a few ink-stained relics like me have been saying for years to anyone who would listen, and to Republicans who refuse to listen — that Christianity and the wolverine capitalism of a John Galt are totally incompatible systems, two mutually exclusive human possibilities. They cancel each other out. Any political party that pretends to integrate them is a party of liars, and doomed.

Hal Crowther’s most recent book is Gather at the River. Write him at 219 N. Churton St., Hillsborough, NC 27278.


From The Progressive Populist, August 1, 2011


Populist.com
News | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2011 The Progressive Populist
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652