For first time in my life, I won’t be voting on principle…

Posted on November 1, 2012 by

…alone.

This occurred to me the other day when my wife and I were having one of those “kitchen table talks” about finances. I have always taken a kind of foolish pride in telling myself that I was casting my ballot for what I felt was best for the whole country, and not just what was best for myself personally, at least in the short term.

I never really talked about it much because even I am not so oblivious that I didn’t understand that not much could be more annoying than someone sanctimoniously explaining that his vote is based on principle, not some selfish need like lesser citizens.

And the truth is that at least in 1992 and 1996 my vote was definitely in my self-interest, both in the short term and the long term. It’s just that I was young enough then that I didn’t really consider my vote to be that consequential to my immediate well-being, and it wasn’t the criteria I used. Like many Americans I looked at the candidates, looked at their plans, and voted for what I thought was best for the country, and figured that would benefit me indirectly as well.

In the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008 I could legitimately make a case that I was voting against my immediate self-interest. Of course long-term self-interest is a different story, and being a Democrat I believe that it is in all Americans’ long-term interest to vote for a more progressive candidate, so it’s not like my votes were some sort of sacrifice or anything. But in my thirties retirement seemed far enough away that my votes for Democratic candidates were based on principle, principally.

This year is different. Suddenly retirement doesn’t seem that far off. My wife’s and my retirement planning consists of basically four things: we’ve been maxing out on 401k contributions for a number of years and will continue to do so; our home will be paid off when I retire, allowing us to live here with only property taxes to pay; Social Security; Medicare.

If Mitt Romney wins, I fully expect that Medicare will eventually be turned into a voucher program; that’s what Paul Ryan repeatedly proposed in Congress and I believe that’s what the majority of the Republican caucus wants to do. Instead of guaranteed benefits and coverage, we’ll be forced to try to find insurance on the private market, while suffering from the pre-existing condition of being old.

If Mitt Romney wins, I fully expect that Social Security will eventually be privatized (or “personalized”); that’s what Paul Ryan repeatedly proposed in Congress. Instead of a guaranteed monthly lifetime benefit, we’ll be spending our retirement trying to manage another shrinking personal account in addition to our 401k.

I’ve been paying into Social Security and Medicare for 27 years. I would really like them to exist when I retire. Republicans and conservatives will counter that their drastic actions are necessary to “save” the programs. I’m sorry, but you cannot “save” Medicare by turning it into Vouchercare. You save Medicare by saving Medicare. You cannot “save” Social Security by turning it into another 401k program. That’s not what Social Security is. There’s nothing wrong with a 401k; but it’s not a guarantee.

The biggest lie that conservatives have been able to successfully push into our national consciousness is that we cannot afford these programs. Even a lot of Democrats will talk about “tough choices” and “sacrifices” that must be made in regards to what they call “entitlements,” rather than the “earned benefits” that they actually are. We spend more on Defense than the next ten countries combined. We are the richest nation on the planet. We can afford these programs; they can be paid for. It requires political will, not rocket surgery.

It doesn’t end there. Recently we had a scare in our family when my younger son’s pediatrician ordered some tests for what would have been a very serious illness. Everything is fine, but if they hadn’t been, we would have been in a situation where we would have very easily maxed out the lifetime caps on coverage that insurance companies used to impose before the president signed Obamacare. If Mitt Romney wins and fulfills his promise to repeal Obamacare on day one, those lifetime caps will be back. Some families like mine, who have had insurance and have paid all their premiums, will be hit with tragic illnesses and will go bankrupt trying to pay for treatment after their insurance companies are allowed to stop paying for treatment. That will happen.

I’m not sure if having a personal stake in the outcome of this election makes my vote less principled or not; I don’t really care, frankly. Either way, for reasons of principle and for reasons of practical and tangible benefits, I am enthusiastically supporting the re-election of President Barack Obama.

Posted in Economy, Elections, Healthcare, POTUS | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Conservative outrage viciously attacks satire

Posted on October 26, 2012 by

As I type this, satire is on the floor, curled up in the fetal position, begging reality to ease up just a little. I enjoy making fun of Republicans and conservatives; I really do. But recently some have gone so far past the bend that describing their thought process as cognitive dissonance would be an upgrade. Some of this stuff is just blind stupidity.

Yesterday the Obama campaign released this new ad, from Lena Dunham, who is the star of HBO’s Girls, I think. I’m not exactly sure and I don’t feel like checking, honestly. Anyway watch:

Are you outraged? Of course you are. I showed this to my wife and she said, “Why isn’t this girl in the kitchen?” Then she added, “I can’t be sure but I bet she has shoes on too. Shameful.” Now you may have read those last two sentences and thought, “By Jove! Wiesman’s wife has a sharp wit! Her snarky response to that harmless video wonderfully over-exaggerate’s a conservative reaction!”

Oh, but wait. Was it really an exaggeration? I present to you an actual tweet from RedState.com founder and CNN analyst Erick “Son of Erick” Erickson, the Ericksonner:

(That should read “Obama ad” not “Obama as”. Son of Erick has fat thumbs.)

Hilarious, right? But, wait! He’s serious! You see now why satire is sobbing on the floor. (By the way, I will be using the phrase “fallen, depraved world destined for the fire” every chance I get from now on. Yes, it’s unhinged ranting from a certified loon, but it’s still art, of a sort, and I will use it for good, somehow.)

Erickson followed it up with this:

So that’s it America. God has turned us loose, obviously, for surely this Obama ad is definitive proof of our embracing the sexual lust of the flesh. Well, we had a good run.

As if the Twitter assaults weren’t bad enough, satire is also being savagely attacked on everybody’s favorite Thanksgiving-dinner-with-crazy-relatives simulation, Facebook. It seems that after giving an interview with Rolling Stone, while talking with the reporter, President Obama referred to Mitt Romney as (prepare to clutch your pearls because I’ve made the editorial decision to just go ahead and type out the word) a “bullshitter.”

Now, as the awesome Kay at Balloon-Juice points out, the word “bullshitter” is probably the best possible word to describe Mitt Romney. Honestly, “liar” isn’t nearly evocative enough. Romney’s latest lie is that Jeep might be moving manufacturing jobs to China, and that his election victory will stop that somehow. No part of that is true at all. Jeep is not moving manufacturing to China, and if they were, Mitt Romney wouldn’t do a thing to stop it.

But anyway Obama using the word “bullshitter” is of course the end of the Republic. Again, we had a good run. Here is how one of my friends on Facebook described this, um, thing that happened. (I can’t really call it a story; I just can’t.)

How very Presidential of him. An interview with Rolling Stone? And then to say this? “I see your true colors Mr. President.”

Satirize that! I dare you! You can’t do it, can you? Neither can I. Satire is begging, but I just can’t do it. The absurdity of conservative outrage has overcome satire. We all knew this was a possibility, but did we take action? No, we allowed this to happen. We have satirical blood on our hands, people.

How can satire survive in a fallen, depraved world destined for the fire?

Posted in Campaign ads, Elections, GOP Brilliance, POTUS | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Thou shalt not kill…unless you’re Mitt Romney

Posted on October 23, 2012 by

I was struck by something during last night’s debate, which I intend to write about more extensively but a quick thought–I just wanted to say I was pretty sad to see Governor Romney, purportedly a devout Mormon and former bishop in the LDS community, get up on stage and unequivocally state that we should kill. I know this might be interpreted as a quibbling over language, but I think this kind of thinking is symptomatic of what I think is wrong with US foreign policy.

“Well, my strategy’s pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to — to kill them, to take them out of the picture.”

I’d like to point out how much more diplomatically President Obama stated his case:

“…number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed Americans, and we would bring them to justice, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.”

(http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate)

That comment by Romney really bugged me. After all, is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth really the strategy that will help us engender positive relations with other countries? Especially considering the somewhat shaky reputation the US has had in the international arena?

I would also like to point out that Romney talked about rejecting extremism. Isn’t getting on national television, telling America that we’re gonna get out there and kill ‘em, kill ‘em dead… isn’t this its own form of extremism? Yeah, I get it, it’s a total fistbump, woot we’re Americans sort of moment, but I think it’s a sobering reminder of why there are countries out there who hate us so.

I am not in any way defending those extremist groups, I just want to point out the lesson we should have all learned out on the playground: two wrongs don’t make a right. Going out and killing people ain’t gonna solve everything.

More on foreign policy and last night’s debate later.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Rightwing Violence | Leave a comment

Romney inadvertently endorses affirmative action, sidesteps question of equal pay for women

Posted on October 18, 2012 by

Thanks to Wiesman, who kindly contributed today’s talking points, I’m going to talk about the whole “binders full of women” comment and what exactly is so infuriating about Governor Romney’s entire response. Now plenty of people have been critical of the whole “binders full of women” meme, saying that it’s taking one little comment and blowing it out of proportion, but if you go back and listen to the entire preceding and following comments, there is still plenty to be outraged over.

First off, let’s actually review the infamous “binders full of women” comment that’s been taking on a whole internet life of its own:

MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women.

MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. And — important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all men?

They said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified?

And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior staff that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can’t be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women. In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 3 1/2 million women more now in poverty than four years ago.

What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a — a flexible work schedule that gives women the opportunities that — that they would otherwise not be able to — to afford.

(http://www.npr.org/2012/10/16/163050988/transcript-obama-romney-2nd-presidential-debate)

All issues of binders aside, Romney’s not really answering the question (big surprise) about what he’s going to do to address pay equity for women. Like most questions of real importance, say like the details of his tax plan, he does a slippery dance, throws in some heartwarming personal story, and never actually answers the question.

But from his personal story about filling his cabinet with women, clearly his answer is affirmative action. Oh yes, you heard me, affirmative action.

“Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin”[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group “in areas of employment, education, and business”,[2] usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)

On Tuesday night, Romney stated that women were underrepresented in the pool of qualified applicants for his cabinet (or according to him, were missing altogether). So what does he do? He goes out and makes gender one of the determining factors for assembling qualified candidates, the infamous “binders full of women.” How is this any different from universities weighing race as a factor when determining what qualified college applicants to consider?

The answer is, it’s not.

To quote Wiesman on this, “Romney basically endorsed the concept of affirmative action [Tuesday] night, and conservatives are too dumb to even know.”

Also, to get a little fact checking in, Romney’s story about the binders full of women isn’t exactly how the whole thing went down.

“To be perfectly clear, Mitt Romney did not request those resumes,” Jesse Mermell, a former executive director of Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, told reporters during a conference call arranged by the Democratic Party…

… Mermell, a Democrat and town official in Brookline, Mass., said Romney did not request any names after his 2002 election. Instead, she said MassGAP approached Romney’s team as part of its effort, begun before the election, to make sure that more women were appointed to senior positions in the new administration.

MassGAP describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition of women’s groups interested in boosting the number of women in top state government jobs. The coalition said it approached the nominees of both major parties after the primaries, Romney and Democrat Shannon O’Brien, and secured commitments from both that, if elected, they would work with the organization to identify potential female candidates for senior-level positions.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57534890/binders-full-of-women-effort-predated-romney/)

So to finish this post off, all joking aside on binders and all, I want to explain why I think Romney’s statement was a little bit insulting and not a little patronizing.

I think it is at best naïve, and at worst insulting, that Romney would need help finding competent, qualified women. Maybe the real question he should be asking is, why are there no women applying for a cabinet position? (Though frankly, I wouldn’t want to work for Romney either. Blech.)

Then his following comment digs him an even deeper hole.

“I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. “

What. The. Fuck.

This is exactly the kind of patronizing, patriarchal thinking that holds women back from a position of equality in American society.

Have you guys seen the 1943 “Guide to Hiring Women”? I feel like Romney’s statement is a modernized summary of this: women need a little extra care, women need to be treated differently, we have to “understand” what women need if you are to hire female employees.

Look, I am all for a flexible workplace. In fact, I feel like truly modern workplaces should emphasize things like setting your own hours, working from home, digital conferencing, and the like. We live in the goddamn digital age! Surely the corporate workplace we inherited from our parents could use a little upgrading. But at what point is flexibility something only women  need? Isn’t it something everyone needs more of, to have a healthy work-life balance?

What, can a father not pick up kids and make dinner? Shouldn’t a dad be at PTA meetings and drive the kid to soccer games? C’mon guys, wouldn’t you benefit from having the flexibility to be there for your kids and handle household issues alongside your domestic partner?

The path to gender equality is not to treat women differently. The path to gender equality is to create a system in which women don’t have to be treated differently. Policies like affirmative action are meant to bridge that immediate gap, but as the Mismatch study shows, forcibly equalizing the numbers is not the most effective solution. Certainly, singling women out as needing more “flexibility” than men, is not going to cut it either. It just perpetuates misogynistic stereotypes of the limitations of women.

And from Romney’s statement, it’s clear that he doesn’t even begin to understand this very problem. Getting binders full of women is not going to solve the problem of why these women needed to be in a binder in the first place.

Posted in Elections, POTUS, Women's Issues | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Speaking of debate bumbling…

Posted on October 17, 2012 by

I lack time to write a proper post. But I just HAD to give a nod to the binders meme that is simply taking off on the interwebz. It is just too hilarious. Good going, Mitt Romney. Please, continue to produce lines for my amusement, while revealing just how sexist you are. It’s very enlightening that you weren’t able to recognize women of quality and competence for yourself.

I grabbed a few of my favorites from the Tumblr Binders Full of Women. It is a rabbit hole of hilarious sh*t.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bubbled Romney stumbles

Posted on October 17, 2012 by

Now, that’s what I’m talking about. I wrote after the Vice Presidential debate that it was the most entertaining debate I had ever watched, and I still think that is true, but last night would be a close second for sure. It was definitely the best debate performance that I have ever seen from Barack Obama, which, as I wrote before, is a lower bar than most people think.

There were a lot of good moments in this debate for the president, and maybe one or two for Romney, but even if Romney had been winning the entire debate (he wasn’t) this exchange would have sunk him:

Warning to all my co-workers: anyone who comes into my office today and starts speaking will be met with a steely glare and the words, “Please proceed, UI designer.”

Everything about this exchange was a win for Obama and a loss for Romney. It was only moments after the president accepted responsibility for the deaths of the ambassador and 3 other Americans, only moments after the president refused to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus, pointing out that the buck does indeed stop with him, only moments after he had already pointed out that Romney’s actions immediately following the attack were to try to score political points off an American tragedy.

A better politician, a better leader, would have recognized this as a moment to move on to the next question, but Romney thought he saw an opening, and decided to double down on a chance to use a tragedy to damage the president. Look how eagerly he approaches Candy Crowley to get his attack in. Look at the raised eyebrows as he demands confirmation from the president. Just nasty.

And then: “Please proceed, governor.”

Romney’s next words: “Ah bah ah bah dah.” Clearly rattled. Realizing, just a little late, that the president seems pretty confident about his position, and maybe, just maybe, wondering why. But too late, he was committed, and he blundered on, prompting the president to say, “get the transcript.”

And then Candy Crowley did something that journalists never seem to do. Seeing two men arguing about a point of fact, and one where she knew what the facts actually were, she settled the argument. The president did indeed say what he had claimed to say. The right wing was outraged! How dare she point out facts in a debate! That’s not her job, they complained. Facts have a liberal bias! The president says he said something; it’s on videotape. But: some disagree!

What happened to Romney is what happens when epistemic closure takes over a party. It is accepted dogma on the right wing that the president never said anything about terror when talking about the Libya attacks. That Rose Garden address wasn’t played over and over on FOX News, it wasn’t quoted on right wing blogs. In that bubbled universe, the president apologized for an unrelated video and covered up the terrorist angle. Mitt Romney, we learned last night, has been living in that bubbled universe with his supporters, and he got embarrassed on national television because of it.

Twenty days to go, folks. Let’s win this thing.

 

Posted in Elections, POTUS | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Well, that didn’t suck at all

Posted on October 12, 2012 by

I’ve watched nearly all of the presidential and vice presidential debates since 1988. (At first I had written that I’ve seen them all, but I may have missed one or two.) Last night was, without a doubt, the most entertaining debate I’ve ever watched. I really wish it could have kept going.

You know how you know the right wing knows their side lost the debate? They’re complaining about Joe Biden being rude to poor Paul Ryan. Apparently they were much happier with President Obama’s decision to look down and make a note (which unfortunately looked like nodding, as if in agreement) when Romney told a lie, than Biden’s decision to just laugh out loud whenever Paul Ryan strayed from the facts.

I don’t think this debate erases all the damage that was done in last week’s Romney victory. I’m not even sure it erases any of the damage; we’ll have to wait and see. I do know it made me feel a whole lot better, and that Obama supporters around the country are a little happier today than they were yesterday.

There were a number of moments that really jumped out at me. The first was when Ryan started to get annoyed with Biden and tried to zing him with, “I know you’re under a lot of duress to make an impact” and Biden just flat out laughed in his face. It reminded me of Foghorn Leghorn and the chickenhawk.

“I know you’re under a lot of duress,” began Congressman Ryan.

Secondly, this little exchange:

Memo to future Republican vice presidential candidates preparing for debates: Never ever ever bring up Jack Kennedy. But setting aside the moment for a second, even on the substance, Ryan was hilariously wrong. Kennedy did cut taxes but he cut the highest marginal rate down from 89% to 76%. Romney/Ryan are proposing cutting the top rate from 35% to 28%. It’s a completely ridiculous comparison that they are trying to make so they can appeal to Kennedy Democrats and Biden wasn’t having any of it.

Charlie Pierce described Paul Ryan’s performance in the exchange about Afghanistan like this:

He was more lost in Afghanistan than the Russian army ever was.

That sounds about right. By the end of the exchange Ryan seemed to be arguing that it would be a good idea to risk American soldiers’ lives rather than Afghan security forces to attack the Taliban. Um, what?

I loved that Biden called Ryan out on his Recovery Act hypocrisy. While Ryan claims that the stimulus was a waste of taxpayer money that didn’t help the economy, Biden reminds him of the two letters he sent asking for stimulus funds on behalf of his district. Ryan’s answer that he was just performing constituent services was incredibly lame.

Finally, Biden’s answer to the ridiculously-framed question by Martha Raddatz about abortion was perfect. While Paul Ryan put every woman on notice that his faith meant that their healthcare decisions would be made by men like him, Joe Biden simply said that he accepts his church’s teachings about life, but that he will not impose them on the country.

Like I said, I have no idea if this debate will have any effect on the polls or the outcome in November. VP debates are generally considered to be pretty inconsequential. But for Democratic supporters, this was a needed boost, and the Obama campaign can be happy about that.

Posted in Afghanistan, Elections | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment