This Must End Now! Stop the Insanity of Bowing to the Gun Lobby

I don't know if the president has a plan other to reassert his Xtian credentials, because he sounded more like a preacher tonight than a leader who has to now has to change the gun laws of this country as the public by overwhelming majority now demands.

I reserve my judgment until I see what he does in the next few days regarding federal legislation to ban assault weapons, high capacity magazines, require strict controls on handguns, etc. Maybe it's his strategy to grieve his the families and through the emotional path try to bring the necessary change.

However, enough with superstition and ignorance. What the hell is this supposed to mean, "God called back those children"??!!! Really, Mr. president? Then if God wanted to call those children in such horrible way--and you assume you know that--why should we blame the gunman or demand any change? If God is able and willing, he'll do whatever is necessary. Or, he won't... Why should we bother with anything really if this is the motto?

Someone has to speak up against this primitive superstitious and ignorant approach/reaction to tragedies. This should end. I'd like those who have access to megaphones and want a more critical thinking public would not bring out the voodoo dolls during times of crisis. It's the 21st century, we should be mature enough to handle reality, so references to the supernatural is a disservice and an action that further perpetuates wishful thinking, prejudice, servility, and superstition.

Federal laws must be passed as to what kind of firearms are allowed. It's a political choice of a secular regime! No hunter should get guided missiles, bombs, or machine guns to enjoy their sport. No one should get clips that hold dozens of bullets, and of course no assault weapons. The Second Amendment--written by people over 2 centuries ago whose idea of "arms" was much different than ours--has already been modified by reality: "the right to bear arms" doesn't mean today the right to have tanks, F16s, and nukes. Oh, and the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is so 18th century too. Out duty as engaged and informed citizens is to never reach that point of having to violently resist our own government, because if we do it'll be too late! The government will always have more, bigger, and powerful weapons.
 
It's absolutely ridiculous that in order to get a car you need to be tested for ability, obtain insurance, while the vehicle is registered and inspected, but getting a gun is simple matter of going to a gun show and buy one with no background check! This is totally insane. I'm fed up with going through the same motions of sadness, anger, grieving, promises of "never again", every time such a bloody event happens, but we don't do anything about it!

Children under 14 are 13 times more likely to be killed in the US (in advanced countries). Guns kill 30,000 Americans every year. The murder rate in other advanced countries is in the dozens whereas in the US is in the tens of thousands. Yes, there are complex reasons for having such a violent society--and we should start a national dialogue on this--but we certainly can do something about the means of violence.

Obama has done this kind of consoling after massacres 4 times during his tenure. Has he learned that the mass murderers used legally-obtained assault weapons? But, this is the president who signed 2 gun bills into law. One, to allow firearms into national parks and one to allow them on Amtrak! How's this for a radical president who'd confiscate all gun as the conservative nuts argued in 2008?...

Time is now for serious action and the president to lead. I understand the script, I understand that Obama has to speak a certain language, but no amount of comfort can bring back the innocent dead. However, if we change our attitudes and public policies we can prevent tragedies in the future. We'll all gain from this. We should come together when we face adversity and pain, but we should stop being masochists and fatalists now!

Score a Big One for the Good Side

Well, I feel happy about the outcome of this long election and I'm glad it's over. I feel good, also, because I was right on predicting the EV total and that the Dems would hold the Senate--though didn't expect to add 2 more seats! I also expected more than 7 seats net gain in the House, but that was more of an extrapolation of my basic premise: Obama would win the popular vote, that the Dems were more excited than the Repubs.

We hope that Obama claims a mandate and comes up with strong leadership on a host of issues: taxing the rich, keeping the payroll tax reduction for 95% of working Americans, push for comprehensive immigration reform, appoint one or two liberals on the Supreme Court, invest more in infrastructure and green energy, promote science and education, enhance consumer protection, and regulate the "too-big-to-fail" corporations.

What most people don't understand is that the system can be responsive if there's enough demand for change. The public sentiment is important in a democracy; the citizenry should be active throughout the year not just on election day. Being part of the Occupy movement was (still is) a great thing. Even though this movement didn't have a leadership and it often looked adrift, it actually accomplished a lot: to remind the nation that the government is of-by-for the people. Subtly, the OWS movement changed the dialogue in this country in that the middle class should be taken care of instead of the top elite.

In a Nutshell...

I'm awesome! Trust me I have a plan. You don't need the specifics right now, but I know what I'm doing.  Why, I said what I need to say, even contradictory statements, but I needed to get here, in a position to help you! Once you elect me president of the USofA, you'll see how great it's going to be!

That's Romney's campaign in a nutshell.

Hold the Festivities or the Funerals. Obama Lost the First Debate But Will Win in November

Obama Loses the First Presidential Election of 2012. Hold Your Parties or Funerals as This Election Has Already Been Decided. The first presidential debate of 2012 is in the history book, though it'll probably go into the pages no one reads in the future. The general consensus is that Romney beat Obama by a big margin and that the latter missed a dozen opportunities to deliver. 

So, is this a game-changer? Not so fast. Obama disappointed many of his supporters. He showed that he is not a forceful leader by nature, that he becomes professorial and almost "above the fray" when he needs to show strong commitment and when he's expected to clearly demonstrate that he's in the fight to win it. As in many games, playing it safe against an inferior team often leads to defeat. 

 As I've already said, 2012 looks much like 2004 in the reverse. Kerry won all debates against president Bush but he lost the general election. Romney won last night but not convincingly. He earned a few points among Independents, but I hardly think that this will turn the tide. Let's see how the polls move in the next few days. If the gap, especially in the swing states remains in Obama's favor, this election will be already decided. What debates like that one do is to energize the base of the candidate that does well, and this, indeed, has an effect. Much of the result in all elections depends on turnout when the margin of popular support is within a few points. 

Again, if the post-debate polls maintain the 4-5 point difference (in battleground states), there's no path to victory for Romney. I do not see this Obama advantage melting away in the next 4 weeks. However a more energized Romney base may make a big difference in Senate and House races because of turnout. This, however, is still to be decided. We're just entered fourth quarter. If the losing team begins to believe the game is lost, it gives up and the ultimate gap becomes bigger as the "players" (voters) don't show up on election day. Both candidates tried to send specific messages to their political bases. They know turnout is crucial. I'm not sure if they believe that there are many undecided voters up for grabs; the polls show that there aren't many, and of those it's a big question whether they'll actually show up on November 6th. 

The debates measure what exactly? How the two candidates deliver, communicate their message, their temperament and quick wit. Most people who tune in are doing so to crystallize their views, confirm their decision. In my view, very few actually tune it with a totally available mind to be convinced one way or another. We know this. We know that most of those who say the candidate they preferred before the debate but lost is also the candidate they'll end up voting for! I know my horse hobbles horribly, but will I change my pony?.... 

 When I raised this point during my interview with WABC radio, someone observed that politics is not like sports, because it's not the emotional side but other needs that take precedent. Well, yes and no. Choosing positions--philosophical or political--is a long term process. It's also emotional, more so that people are willing to admit. Politics like religion runs in families. The environment plays a role, but it's not during a few autumnal weeks prior to an election. Investing in a team, an idea, an identity is logical and emotional. 

The longer a person does this the harder to change his/her views. Then it's picking ponies of similar colors. Occasionally some people may confuse a mule for a pony, but in their minds they're picking a pony. Predictions is a risky business, but, what the heck, I'm making an educated guess that Obama will win at least 320 Electoral Votes, possibly 332, while Romney around 200, a little more or less. I cannot see how Ohio, Florida can go Romney's way. The states he can win is Indiana, for sure, possibly North Carolina, and maybe, at best, one or two smaller states. Not enough to land in or surpass the 270 box.

You're Going to Be Offended. Grow Up and Deal With it!

With technology news travels faster and there are many more ways for ideas, events, and whatever else to spread everywhere. It's getting increasingly impossible to remain in isolation any more. Guess what? The world is not made to please us all the time! All the religious fanatics, the ultranationalists, and whomever has a oversensitive disposition should take a deep breath and deal with this fact: they are going to be offended!  

Not all ideas are good or make any contribution except to waste our time and energy, but so it's the deep-entrenched belief that certain revealed knowledge should be unassailable. It is through free exchange, trading, and thinking that we have advanced in the face of the reactionaries who are more comfortable with repetition, ignorance, and mental isolation.

The US ambassador to Libya and others were killed because some idiot in the US, plus idiots in the Middle East showed a video defaming the prophet Mohamed. Same story with the Danish cartoons several years ago. Along the line of the Biblical moral value of punishing someone for the sins of someone else, innocent people are injured, tortured, and killed. Mohamed, Jesus, Apollo, Odin, Buddha, etc, must be happy when the mortals kill each other defending the true prophet's reputation. Otherwise the heavens should have another clear and universally-accessed message of which version is correct and whether the killings should stop.

 A Matter of Confidence

People who have confidence and are mature don't need to use violence to defend their beliefs when offended. We, men, while growing up forming an identity were very sensitive to, say, having our masculinity challenged. Most of us remember getting into fights because someone said something to our face. Most of us adults don't do this anymore, because we are confident, don't need to prove something through violence, and our identity is not invalidated by some idiot's remarks. Right? Yes!

Freedom of expression includes the free circulation of ideas, good and bad, without the fear of punishment. Societies who have experimented with tolerance and free exchange have been more successful, creative, and happier. Ancient Athens gave a lot to western civilization, and not only, while the playwrights made fun of the gods, while the scientists were discovering the world without having to please the secular and religious authorities. 

It's a safer, more rewarding, more practical & beneficial to our lives that we seek to understand the world instead the mind of God. Since the latter has given contradictory messages to different peoples throughout the continents and through millennia, while he is not willing to speak to all of us without intermediaries, in a clear indisputable way, let's just say we can live with offending each other. 

Yes, it would take maturity, confidence, and a rational mind to stop behaving like primitive primates, but we can make a better world for all of us. Unfortunately, keeping humans in a primitive state maintains servility--of body and most importantly of spirit. Who benefits from this? Who benefits when ignorance rules? Who benefits when people live in fear?  I know who is least served by such conditions: the poor, the middle class, the oppressed. 

I understand that once and idea, a practice, a belief system is raised to the level of identity, amendments are hard to come by. But, we should promote the rational mind instead of the irrational, the prejudicial, and the uneducated. A better world depends on this. 

I'm Offended! Dawkins is Disrespecting Zeus!

We are not advancing our collective civilization the more we stoke fears and worst primal instincts of people. We are not advancing if we are to be forced to respect--under the threat of the death penalty--the attributes of man-made gods who, according to the holly books, are jealous, vindictive, megalomaniac, capricious, dictatorial, genocidal, ethnic cleansers, and insecure when challenged by other gods or humans lacking faith.

Let's just all agree that we're all going to hell--that's what religions say about the other religions--but in the meanwhile we can make it a better world by respecting each other and a person's right to free expression. Ideas don't need rights, people do!

Are We Better Off Today? Yes, We Are! Take a Look..

Are we better off four years into Obama's presidency? Well, it depends how you look at it. I say, yes, we are! The previous chief and his crew started the fire that began to consume our house. This chief and his crew put out the fire and have began the rebuilding process. Is our house better since 2008? Probably yes. Is it better since we arrived? Probably not. However, the previous regime that created the whole mess now wants the keys back because the present regime hasn't completely fixed the mess!

Oh, and when the current chief asks for tools, programs, jobs, the Republicans in Congress say, NO! Under our system, the president can't raise or spend money unless Congress agrees. Further, we should never elect to high office persons and political parties that do not have a positive view regarding government. If they don't think our government can be a positive force for our commonwealth, they should stay away. No, government is not the answer to all problems, but it is the agent that reduces obstacles to freedom, to enhance access to opportunity, and to push for legal equality.

The numbers

Clinton was right, the Dems have created almost twice as many jobs despite controlling the White House for fewer years! The Repubs have created more deficits and increased the gap between the 1% and the rest. How about the market? Without including the Great Depression [guess who was mainly responsible for it?], had you invested in the market, under a Dem president you'd have gotten an annual return twice as big, 8.9% to 4.7%; including Hoover's term, then it drops to 0.4%! [Here's the link to those numbers]

Obama gets an "D" (barely passes) when it comes to political communication. He cut taxes for 95% of the middle class taxpayers and nobody knows it. The benefits of the health care law are not known to those not immediately affected by it, so many people think it's another big government program costing billions more, when it's not and it actually reduces medical expenses. One third of the stimulus went to tax breaks for working people!

There's been a huge investment in green jobs and the CBO reports that 2.5 millions jobs are a direct effect. Likewise for the automobile industry and the many private business connected to it. The stimulus package was mainly a jobs bill in essence, but Obama hasn't communicated that!

Banks got a bailout--private banks with very highly-paid execs--but that saved the financial system. It wasn't done in a way most of us would have liked, but it was necessary.

Where's G. W. Bush?

In 2008, the US had lost millions of jobs, and was losing hundred of thousands every month until the summer of 2009 when Obama's policies began to take effect. The conservatives started labeling the Great Recession as Obama's recession a week after the November election in 2008!

If the GOP really believes Obama is responsible not for the pace of the recovery but for the roots of the problem why don't they take G.W. Bush and his crew out of mothballs and parade them around today until the election? Did you hear Dubya's name at the GOP convention? I didn't either!

In 2008, the economy was shrinking 9% a year; it was like the entire economy of Canada disappearing! Deregulation and lack of oversight of Wall Street created many of the financial scandals. This is the philosophy and policies of the conservatives at play. Yes, many Democratic leaders also cater to Wall Street and big banks, but there are a few, like Elizabeth Warren, who want to change that... to the benefit of everyone, including the big financial institutions. 

Why? Because capitalism needs referees, needs oversight, needs to be saved from itself. The more successful, stable, happy, safest, healthiest countries are the ones who have strong regulations and a good oversight. The more "pure capitalist" countries are on the opposite side of this spectrum. Check it out.

It's truly amazing that the US conservatives' policies attract so much support. Why Romney and his party are still competitive in this election... They are not saying anything different nor are proposing new policies but the ones that got us into a deep recession and worsened the position of the middle class.  Are we suffering from Alzheimer's as a nation? I hope that enough people will turn out and stop this insanity on November 6th, 2012.

...

My next post, soon, will be on the electoral calculations. I'm looking into the post-convention bounce and into the numbers from the battleground states. As of now, it looks very promising for the blue team.




 

Romney-Ryan Represent a Party that Needs to Be Badly Beaten Before We Move on as a Country

It is said the the choice for VP is the first major decision impacting the administration-to-be a presidential candidate makes. Well, there are political calculations, like balancing the ticket, or getting extra votes in certain states, etc. Most times, it's do-no-harm. McCain's blunder was that he was old, had several bouts with cancer (couldn't change that obviously) but he chose a totally inadequate VP in Sarah Palin--who, by the way, was recently told to stay away from the GOP convention this summer. 

Anyway, a tea party congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, was chosen by Romney. This made conservatives (not the moderate ones) happy; it also made Dems and progressives happier. What many conservatives don't see is that their core policy platforms are not popular, nor will they be.

To pay for whatever we decide we need to, I'm happy to be taxed at a rate twice as high as Romney! It's fair, no?...

Those who say Romney will be a centrist--as he probably is on social issues, but not economic ones--and therefore will be a consensus president are absolutely wrong. He can't and he won't because he needs the nuts that have control of the GOP, in and outside Congress. He chose an extremist for his VP. Why wouldn't he choose the same for the Supreme Court? No, the Dems may block one nominee, but the president can nominate another equally conservative and extremist. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are already on the high court! The Supreme Court is always on the ballot during a presidential election. [I think it's been only J. Carter who didn't appoint a justice to SCOTUS.]

Romney demonstrates that he has to cater to the conservative base. He has already changed his moderate positions from when he was governor of MA. Now he says wants to overturn a health care law he signed in MA. His new positions are more in line with those of Ryan today. I doubt there will be another flip anytime soon after (if) he takes office. Besides, he will have to run 4 years later and he won't be able to go against a party emboldened by the 2012 victory. 

Fortunately, this won't happen. I think it'll be a blowout in the Electoral College, at least. If the GOP can't win at least one of Ohio, Penn, and Florida, it won't win the presidency. Yes, Obama's win will be smaller than in 2008, but he has plenty of room this year. For Romney-Ryan to win they have to have an unbelievably straight streak, winning all the toss-up states, and reverse the trends in the three mentioned above. 

Strangely, I believe another trouncing at the polls may be the best medicine for the GOP. The tea partiers, and the extremists need to be cut loose and lose big while they're controlling the agenda of the party. Yes, there are distinct visions for the future, policies, and approach to politics that have turned this GOP into a regressive party unfit for a modern country. Just look at the British or other modern conservative parties today. We progressives may not agree with them on many issues, but at least they are far more pragmatic! They accept science and the scientific way for goodness sake!

Summer Poltics Worth of Staycation Laze

Let's talk politics before this summer is over and the dynamic changes after Labor Day and the two parties' nominating conventions. So, here are a few things: the nominating show, the economy, the problem with the base of the GOP, and looking into the magic bowl while chewing coca leaves... (or, something like that).

Invite or not Sarah Palin to speak at the GOP convention?

The Repubs are having their show in a couple weeks and Romney has vowed to pick his VP before then. The first rule is do-no-harm. The VP choice rarely adds anything to the ticket but it can be a drag as Sarah Palin demonstrated. At best, in an evenly matched prez field the VP can add a slight margin in his state (if it's competitive; Alaska wasn't in 2008, which was another mistake by McCain), and may add a very few more votes in a couple other states.


Here's the problem with Romney and the GOP: They are out of the mainstream. Most of their main policy proposals--as articulated on the state level, in Congress, and their affiliated tea parties--are not in line with the vast majority of Americans. Worse, if these policies and social issues stands are further explained to the public, their approval drops even lower. Worst, is that the country is moving away from them.

Romney was/is (?) a moderate, or someone who's a businessman and cares little about the social issues that don't affect his wealthy class. Yet, he wants to be president but unfortunately for him (and many other centrist Repubs) he has to go through a very conservative activist base. So, he flips-flops. He was for gun control, same-sex rights, choice, mandated health coverage, etc. He now had to denounce those views to be viable in today's GOP. 

The Chick-fil-A gay bashing thingy is indicative of Romney's impossible conundrum. He avoided taking a position (as he has on many other social issues), because he can't have it both ways--he can't alienate the American public nor he can afford to turn away his activist but very conservative base. However, that idiot of the Catholic League Donahue, and others, have said that they're pondering sitting this election out, because their fear are confirmed they cannot trust Romney to be a social conservative!

Elections are decided on turnout to a great extend and it doesn't look good for Romney right now. Even as a known quality, even after having a Dem prez in office, Mittens was receiving fewer votes in the competitive primaries earlier this year than 4 years ago when he was losing to Mac!

As for the economy, people are pessimistic--they've been hurting since 2008--but not quite blaming Obama for the entirety of the misery. They don't see a good alternative in Mittens either. So, I suppose O's positives will hover around 50%, good enough for reelection, barring any major disaster before November.

It's often said that Americans don't really pay attention to politics in the summer. Maybe the don't follow the details {do they other times?} but impressions still are being formed about the major candidates. Two issues that aren't going away is how R made money at Bain Capital and his tax returns. The latter creates the impression that he's out of touch, that he's hiding something by not releasing older tax records. I think this is a case of double damnation--releasing the records or not.   

Even if Harry Reid--who claimed that a former Mitt associate said R didn't pay any taxes for 10 years--is wrong, I assume that most Americans wouldn't like it that a multi-millionaire pays half the rate most of us do. Yes, it's an issue with me as well. I'm in the so-called middle class and my tax rates are twice as Romney's 12.99% of his last tax return! I don't care how he gets his income. Well, actually I work hard while he collects dividends and interest from his vast fortunes. There's something seriously wrong with this picture.

And, the Repubs want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, which is another point the Dems must keep reminding everyone. Even billionaire Warren Buffet [clearly a ..traitor to his class] said that the rich always ask for more money so they can spend more and thus create more jobs! Obviously a ridiculous claim but one adopted by the GOP that wants to convince us the trickle down effect is rain and not the wealthy pissing on us.

Some Thoughts on the Meaning of Memorial Day

While most Americans enjoy a long holiday weekend, Memorial Day is about remembering and honoring those who fought to ______________  (insert your own words).  What did you think of?

The wedding photo of an Iraq war veteran and his bride

In the Hunger Games, extra food was given to those who put their names in the pool to be drafted for a fight-to-the-death game. The poor, obviously, did it more often, because they didn't have many  other choices to provide for themselves and family.

In the 19th c. a British cabin boy was killed and eaten so others could survive in the lifeboat. Is something like this unacceptable under all circumstances?

 This group, like all other societies, made a decision that some have to be sacrificed to save the community and its values. Often the ones to be sacrificed are given no choice in the matter. When the greater community decides to send off its "cabin boys" to fight in a war, it's understood that sacrifice (death) will ensue.

In a voluntary system, who are the ones who opt for the "hunger games"?

I just learned that 18 current soldiers and veterans (of our last 2 wars) commit suicide every day on average. More deaths by suicide than by combat casualties since 2001. In addition to the 6,500 dead (both wars), the 35,000 injured (some very seriously, crippled for life), the hundreds of thousands civilian deaths, the cost of war is not just in dollars by in changed human lives! Changed, as in seriously and adversely changed!

Life goes on.... If you're lucky!

Where Jobs Come From...

There are lots of myths in our society, some are good some are horrible. A good one is the idea of natural rights. That is, every person is born with certain unalienable rights, so the concept of a social contract is easier to imagine. I'm not questioning whether every human being should have fundamental rights, but how do you prove that everyone is born with equal rights? At any rate, the point of this essay is to discuss another harmful  myth, and that is, the notion that tax cuts for the rich is a good thing. This belief is an article of faith being constantly repeated by the conservatives, while leaders like president Obama and many in the Democratic Party are afraid to challenge it!

Class warfare is the term that scares many, like an actual war might be. Relax everybody, the war is over and the elites have won it. But, I was very surprised to hear that TED Talks censored a speech critical of this article of faith.

Watch this video by Nick Hanauer--a rich person who clearly makes sense about where job creation comes from. 

 

Celebrate Mother's Day By Raising the Status and Rights of Women

This Sunday, we're celebrating Mother's Day. Everywhere in the world a mother is giving birth right now, some by choice, some by the fact of being kept as chattel. Women have attained the highest status in liberal democracies, even though, say, in Norway they fare a lot better than in our own country over all. 


If you want to know a whole lot about a country ask one question: what is the status of women? From the answer, you'll most safely ascertain the level of development, affluence, access to opportunity, legal treatment, economic participation, choices, political regime, and civil freedoms! A great society, a happy society, a more stable society, a healthier society, a nicer society is possible by elevating the status of women to parity with men. This is threatening to traditional societies, primitive cultures, and the American conservatives.

In some places in Africa there's a good chance the mother is infected with HIV/AIDS. It's not here fault, because it's her husband that most likely infected her. And, she's told by her religious leaders that condoms are worst than disease itself.

In Niger, a mother has an average of 8 children, and in much in the poorest countries women spend most of their lives being pregnant and/or caring for little children. In parts of Alabama and Mississippi infant mortality is higher than in Iran. More than one million little children go to bed hungry every night in the US.

Celebrating motherhood has to be more than the activities of one day in the year. We all had mothers, so  it would be nice if we could make their lives better. Take a look at the UN Millennium Development Goals and you'll see that every step we take to fulfilling those goals is a meaningful improvement in the lives of mothers--poverty & hunger, education, gender equality, combat HIV/AIDS, maternal health, etc.

Honoring motherhood begins with treating women better.

The following is from my last year's post, but I think it's worth repeating:

Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:

• Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.
• Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.
• Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.
• Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.
• Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.
• Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.
• Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.
• Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.
• Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.
• Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.
• Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.
• One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.
• 43 million girls are not able to go to school.
• In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.
• Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.
• Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.

Meanwhile in the good ol' USA

And in our country, the conservatives want to conserve anachronistic views which include discriminating against women. The GOP has insisted on fighting against women's health and choice. It's amazing what these conservatives have been pushing for.. [link]

On the surface someone might think that the recent debate about same-sex marriage is not related to anything else, but indeed, it's an illustration of how a conservative prefers the status quo instead of being open, accepting progressive change. 

While we've waited so long for Obama to ..evolve in his views about the rights people should have, it's becoming clearer by the day that there's a big difference between the progressives and the conservatives in this country and it's getting wider. It's good to see the president finally saying the obvious instead of pandering to those whose vote he would never get. 

Leadership matters in order to change people's views, but most importantly leaders, like FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln, may have to push for changes a conservative society would take so much longer to accept. But, once the benefits of the New Deal, the Great Society, Emancipation, etc, take hold, people accept the new reality and adopt it as their own.  

In 2004, I was working for John Kerry's presidential campaign in Cleveland, OH, and the conservatives had an initiative on the ballot to strictly prohibit same-sex unions. I spoke with many conservative Democrats who simply told me that their marriage would lose value if homosexuals were given legal sanctions! Well, such views were also common in states that were among the first to grand same rights to the LGTB community. Once people saw that MA didn't disappear into the Atlantic ocean and things aren't any different, they accepted the new reality. It's not even an issue anymore in most of the states that have been leaders in this regard.


Wasn't the same for the rights of women back then?...

The Theater of the Absurd Still Attracts Audience

The last GOP debate before "super Tuesday" took place yesterday with hyperbole and hubris at center stage.  I liked the audience booing too. This theater of the absurdity is beyond critical evaluation; it's entertainment of the lowest (and we know how low this is) common denominator in Republican politics today.

Here's a better, funnier, cleverer clip of Jon Stewart. Enjoy! Don't even think why so many Americans actually believe the crap the conservatives have been dishing out, because you'll probably weep.

No SEX for Pleasure? Surely, they're fucking with us...

Warning: If you're offended by sex or don't want to think about sex (I know, it's too late now, don't read the following post, which is about sex, since the current controversy about contraception centers on sexual activity. Otherwise, those nuts wouldn't be obsessing about sex. So, you are forewarned. And, don't look at the picture below).


Sex! We are all here because of sex! This is what the "designer" requires. So, what's the problem? Oh, I see, sex is not for pleasure, they tell us. But, Wait! Men must have some pleasure while doing it, otherwise, you know, nothing comes out of it. Sex only within marriage then? Should a couple have sex only when sex is not for sex's sake but when sex is for procreation? Once such a couple obtains the desired number of offspring, no more sex since contraception isn't moral. Right?

Contraception must be immoral then. Why? I guess because having fun while having sex, or having sex for fun is too much for those wingnuts who ..know that the creator of the universe cares only about designer sex!

An appropriate solution to those who oppose contraception?

And, we're instructed by persons who have the least experience in (good, mature) sex, that sex isn't good for us. Many of the strongest advocates of this nuttery today are those clergy who looked the other way or even shielded the many perverts who've raped thousands of children. Ah, yes, add to them a bunch of conservative religious pricks in the US who stick their heads in our private affairs instead of sticking their heads in the usual place--whether the sun doesn't shine.

No fucking for pleasure, because, god-knows where this may lead.... Or, is it using contraception the main problem? Maybe that's why those rapists in the church overwhelmingly chose to molest--you know, orally and anally--children of the faithful. Ergo, no need for contraception there.  

Did you notice that God didn't do anything about it while this was taking place in his house of worship. Not one of those sodomites was struck dead. Maybe god is OK with it. Or, maybe he doesn't really care what the fuck we humans do down here. It's up to us to decide what's good or bad! It's up to us to think whether it makes sense to use contraceptives to plan family size and for women's health. It's up to us to rationally think and act without some false divine and private revelation, and without the perverse interpretation of some inane passage in the book god allegedly wrote.

It's, therefore, up to us to fuck however we want, among consenting adults, and have fun while doing it. Those who dislike sex do not have to have it. Or, they do not have to use contraceptives. But, most importantly, they should stay the fuck out of our way.

Endorisng Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina Primary

I've been saying here that although the Republican party usually nominates the "next in line," Romney's candidacy could be the exception. Despite MR being a "known quality" as a second-place finisher in 2008, and his "electability" against president Obama, he is not treading well. All the shooting stars, several of them, were capturing the anti-MR. None of the anti-MR is a clear favorite either, but I still believe that the GOP will go more traditional and select someone else than MR.

Just after N. Hampshire--which MR won but in the 30's, despite NH being his "back yard"--MR had a huge lead in South Carolina. Today, Newt Gingrich is surging and I think he'll win the "first primary in the South." This contest may go on for a long while. The question is what Santorum [if you're curious about him, Google "Santorum"] will do. If he drops out then NG will get a boost. Ron Paul is a marginal candidate and will not win the nomination. He may have enough delegates to be a player at the convention but that's all.

Obama's close allies and advisers prefer NG to MR, because they think NG has a lot a baggage and is more ideologically and politically stuck to a brand of conservatism that most Americans don't like. I agree. So, though this blog, I endorse NG in the SC primary!

Appealing to the lowest common denominator is a shooting sport in SC

By the way, to dispel any rumors that NG is an intellectual or anything of that sort, when ever you hear that Newt is the smartest in the room, leave that room!

Is New Hampshire Romney's Last Clear Win?



The first primary in New Hampshire, following the Iowa caucuses, will not settle anything in the Republican field but it'll show that the party is still looking for the anti-Romney. The latter will win NH but since this has been expected, it'll be no big news. Ron Paul will have a nice showing but he's a marginal player for now. J. Huntsman may come second, which will be very good for him,  but that's all--he won't go anywhere past NH. Santorum may get some wind if he finishes close 4th. Gringrich, "I can't see how I won't be the nominee," will finish 5th. South Carolina will probably be more important in narrowing the field of the contenders.



The song and dance of the good ol' days of the Repubs

 If Romney wins anything less than the expectations (I'd say, under 50%), then N.H. may be his last big win. Does he need big wins after that? That will depend on how long the race for the nomination will be and his opposition. He may be the last man standing in the end, but he will not have captured the Repub base, nor will he energize all the Rebubs to come out and vote for him in November.



Long ago, I argued that Romney could not be the nominee of this GOP, because of his faith, his flipflopping, and the perception he's Obama-light. Yet, there hasn't been a good anti-Romney, and he's benefited from a split opposition, that may change soon though. The GOP normally nominates "the next in line" and Romney should be running away with the nomination if he was from the South or had Santorum's extreme conservatism.

As for the issues these GOP candidates are pushing, they're a garden variety of Reagan-worshipping [notice the absense of the Bushes?], and ridiculous general statements about how great America is, big business need more tax breaks and no regulations, and that Sharia should be banned from the US! Whatever.

Meanwhile in Democratic politics, Obama clearly is focusing on the independents. For several months now this important group is split between "re-electing the president" and "a Repub should be the prez".  Also, Obama's concentrating on winning a couple swing states as the electoral college map calculations have changed.

I've heard this from different sources, but I don't know if it's the same rumour being re-circulated or there are actual discussions taking place. That is, Hillary and Joe will switch places. I had heard that Hillary would retire soon, but a VP position may change that. Biden wanted to be Secretary of State so he may be game too.