Christie, Palatucci, & Jersey

Bill Palatucci, friend of NJ Gov. Chris Christie, left Community Education Centers for the law firm of Gibbons, PC. (For details click here or here.)

Community Education Centers, CEC, calls itself "A leading provider of offender reentry" is the company to which New Jersey has outsourced halfway houses.

It is also the company that allows felons to - in words Mitt Romney might use - "Self-Parole" and "Self-Pardon" - to walk away at will. The New York Times covered this at length. The Times, not known for sensationalist reporting, described Community Education Centers half-way houses as places where "bedlam" reigns (here).

Palatucci said that his resignation from CEC had nothing to do with Governor Christie's re-election campaign. He also said that he wants to have time to work on Republican campaigns in 2013.

If Gov. Christie runs his campaign the way Community Education Centers runs their half-way houses I expect Mr. Christie to lose his re-election campaign.

Mr. Palatucci and Mr. Christie go back a long way. Back in 1987 Christie joined the law firm of Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci. In '93 he was named a partner in the firm. In '98 he registered as a lobbyist for the firm. Between 1999 and 2001, Christie and Palatucci lobbied on behalf of GPU Energy for deregulation of New Jersey's electric and gas industry; the Securities Industry Association to block the inclusion of securities fraud under the state's Consumer Fraud Act; Hackensack University Medical Center for state grants, and the University of Phoenix for a New Jersey higher education license. in 2000, Christie and Palatucci worked as fundraisers for George W. Bush.

Obama v Romney, Election 2012, Mandate? Landslide?

Cultural Forensics would like to congratulate President Obama on his reelection. 

While sometimes we question his judgment - we think he should be moving more aggressively into the efficient use of renewable and sustainable energy, and away from fuel - and waste - based systems, and we think the citizens of the United States would be better served if the Veterans Health Administration was transformed into a Citizens Health Administration and if Medicare was expanded to cover all Americans - we also think that President Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful person who looks at the evidence before making a decision.

We also draw a distinction between questioning the President's judgement and criticizing a decision, and hoping the President fails. When the President fails, America fails. As patriotic Americans, we want the President to succeed so America can succeed.

Pres. Obama won by a greater margin in the popular vote and the Electoral College than Pres. Bush. The results in 2012 were: Obama: 65,138,059 to Romney 60,606,054, or 50.9% to 47.4%. In 2004, the results were Bush: 62,040,610 to Kerry 59,028,494, or 50.7% to 48.3%. In the Electoral College Obama won by 126 votes, 332 to 206, while Bush won 286 to 251, by 35 votes. So if Bush won a "Mandate" then Obama won a mandate.

2004 Election	Popular Vote	PV %	Electoral College
Bush	62,040,610	50.7	286
Kerry	59,028,494	48.3	251
Difference	3,012,116	2.4	35
2012 Election	Popular Vote	PV %	Electoral College
Obama	65,138,059	50.9	332
Romney	60,606,054	47.4	206
Difference	4,532,005	3.5	126

But put another way, had Kerry won Florida and Virginia, then he would have won the Electoral College. Like Kerry, Romney would have needed Florida and Virginia. He also would have needed, for example Pennsylvania and Michigan or Wisconsin.

And Romney and Ryan lost their home states!  That's may not be a landslide defeat - but then again it's a resounding defeat of their politics!

History of the Republican't Party

The Republican't Party started out as the Anti-Slavery party from New England. One of its founders was Frederick Douglass, however, that wasn't his name. It was an alias because he was a fugitive.The once Grand Old Party included such luminaries as Mark Twain, Emerson, Thoreau.

It reached it's peak as a progressive movement with Pres. Theodore Roosevelt - who was given the job of Vice President to promote him into a closet. Unfortunately for the men pulling the strings, McKinley was assassinated. After serving as 26th President, from September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1909, Roosevelt was thrown out of the GOP. Then there was Taft in 1908, Coolidge, 1920, Harding 1924, & Hoover 1928,

It seems that at this time it became the party of the wealthy. And the Democratic Party became the party of the people.

Eisenhower 1952, Nixon, 1968, Ford 1974 (not elected), Reagan 1980, Bush, 1988, Bush 2000 (lost the popular vote by 543,816 votes, won in Supreme Court 5-4).

The mantle of "Progressivism" has been shifted to what Howard Dean calls the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.  As Sean Prophet, a spokesperson from National Progressive Talk Radio said on Facebook,

If the GOP loses this presidential election and does as poorly in the Senate as expected, not only will it be a huge relief for progressives and a huge win for the country, it will also mean the following:

1.  Even in the age of Citizens United and unlimited corporate spending, they STILL couldn't defeat the voices of the people and millions of small donations.  
2. Even having the most-watched news channel in the country as a bought-and-paid-for party organ of the GOP couldn't help them.   
3. Rapid declines in church attendance over the past 15 years means theocracy as a political force is almost spent.

What will happen next? Many possibilities. If the Republican'ts win, and they take the "Tea Party" ideology to its logical conclusion, then the Federal Government will collapse, the United States will evolve (even tho evolve is a dirty word to the no-nothings of the Tea Party) just as the Soviet Union evolved, and there will be 50 independent countries, or perhaps only 10 independent countries. We probably won't need passports to go from New York to New Jersey, but we may need them to go from New York to Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, or Alabama.

You heard it here first. Contact me if you want to sketch this into a film.

Alternatively, if the Democrats win then smart Republicans will quietly vote with their feet. Some will join the Democratic Party.  Progressives who believe in, or understand privacy and the need to preserve the biosphere will join like-minded Democrats and build the Green Party.

You heard this here first, too.  Contact me if you want to sketch this into a film.

Romney, Big Bird & Bin Laden

“I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

- Mitt Romney, at the debate, October 3, 2012.

Three questions.

1. Romney's method of choice for financing government expenditures, 
2. His grasp of numbers, and 
3. His focus and priorities.

First, Romney's method of choice for financing US government expenditures.

Romney said,

"I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it." 

I don't understand why China - or more accurately, bond holders in China - is Romney's method of choice for financing US government expenditures. What's wrong with borrowing money from bondholders in England? US Bondholders? Or taxing US taxpayers for US government expenditures? (That is, after all, what it means to “Balance the Budget.”) Looking to bondholders in China - which is the Chinese government or Chinese Communist Party - seems to be one of those “Entangling Alliances” that Pres. Washington warned us not to get into. 

Second, his grasp of numbers.

The Federal Budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is $338.9 million for fiscal 2012 - $338,900,000. That's a lot of money. However, the Federal Budget of the USA is 3.5 Trillion - $3,500,000,000,000.

Budget

PBS:        $338,900,000

USA:  $3,500,000,000,000

Diff: $3,499,661,100,000 - which rounds to $3.5 Trillion.

The funds allocated to the Public Broadcasting System are 0.00968% of the Federal budget - a rounding error. Looked at another way, recognizing that the population of the US is roughly 307 million people, the Federal budget is roughly $11,400.65 per person. The funds allocated to PBS are $1.10 per person. Without PBS: the budget is $11,399.55. 

Per Capita

PBS:       $1.10

USA:  $11,400.65

Diff: $11,399.55

So either Romney can't do math, which, I think, suggests that he'd not be a very good President, or he has another reason for wanting to eliminate PBS, one that he should share with the taxpayers.

This brings up Romney's focus and priorities.

Gov. Romney may have a good reason for wanting to eliminate PBS, and he may be thinking like an investment banker, thinking that CPB operates at a financial loss; that there's no quantifiable return on investment. I think this was how he operated as Governor of Massachusetts. And it suggests, to me, that he would not be a good President, at best like Herbert Hoover, at worst, like George W. Bush.

Remember what Romney said in 2007?

“It's not moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” 

This may be why John McCain was the Republican nominee in 2008. And as Biden said,

“We will follow that SOB to the gates of hell.” As Biden said, more recently, “Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.”

Romney, Hitler & Energy

"Gosh, Hitler, during the second world war, I guess, because he was concerned about losing his oil, liquefied coal—that technology's still there. Why don't we develop those sources? I think government has a role to do that, by the way."

- Mitt Romney, in a video posted May 15, 2012, on Buzzfeed. See also Brian Merchant's post on Treehugger,

Well . . .

As Brian said, 

Obviously, Romney isn't pro-Hitler. But what right-minded politician seeking office in the 21st century ever considers it a good idea to let fly a statement endorsing Hitler's ideas? It's f@$&ing Hitler!

There is simply no other politician I can think of that would ever dream of voluntarily and publicly casting Hitler's ideas in a positive light, apropos of nothing. 'Well, nation, Hitler had some good ideas' is perhaps the single least effective rhetorical framing device in the world.

Actually, there may be two: David Duke, a perennial GOP Presidential candidate - expelled from Germany in November, 2011 (Question More / wikipedia). And Pat Buchanan, the "Pundit" who used to talk about the American auto industry and drive himself around in his Mercedes? He also also lost a GOP Presidential primary run in the 1980's and went on to become one of President Reagan's advisers.

Duke was a Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan. His slogan could have been "All the way with the KKK," altho he would have needed a Madison Ave "Creative" to come up with it and even the ones that are not Jews think like Jews. Buchanan persuaded Reagan that "We must mourn the Nazi SS victims of World War II." Those guys are Nazis. 

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is probably not a Nazi. After all, some of Romney's best friends are Jews: men like Shelly Adelson and Bibi Neranyahu, and the boys from Wall Street. These are real humanitarians, the best friends money can buy. Unlike, say, Todd Akin or Sarah Palin, Romney probably doesn't even believe Jews have horns.

And remember: Romney's a Morman. The members of The Church of the Latter Day Saints love Jews. LOVE JEWS - especially the light-skinned ones. They Baptize Jews after they die - at least the light skinned ones. It's wonderful, in a creepy sort of way. But it's kind of nice; they're saying "We like you, we want you with us in heaven." That's better than offering Jews Mel Ginson's choice:  "Baptism or Hell." Or Torquemada's choice: "Baptism or die," or the choice favored by Romney's dead energy maven, Hitler: "die or die."

But in his defense, Romney is only suggesting we adopt one of Hitler's bad ideas, and one on energy policy, "Burn Baby Burn," not his domestic policy, "Burn Baby Jews." And it makes sense that the Repulican'ts would look to the Nazis for energy policy. German-American Republicans in the 1930's like Lindbergh were Nazis. German-American Republican'ts today, like Karl Rove, Donald Trump, and Newt Gingrich use Nazi propaganda tactics when talking about their opponents (Newt Gingrich: Language A Key Mechanism of Control). Goebbels would be proud.

But bad politics aside, Coal Liquification is also bad policy. We should be moving off fossil fuels. Pioneered in Nazi Germany because we cut off their oil supply, and further developed in Apartheid South Africa because of the embargo on that regime, coal liquification is simply a technology that furthers "Burn, Baby, Burn." Pursuing it will lead to "Rise, Oceans, Rise," "Swim, Baby, Swim," and "Drown, Baby, Drown."

And  quoting Hitler on the campaign trail, illegal in Germany, is like telling senior citizens about the beauty of turning Medicare into a voucher program - it's "Stupid, Baby, Stupid."

Mitt or W, Let's Compare

Round 1 - Papa.
Mitt - His father, George Romney ran AMC, then ran for President & lost.
W - His father George H. W. Bush ran the CIA, then ran for President & won.
Round 1 goes to W
Score: Mitt: 0: W: 1

Round 2 - early adult life.
Mitt - spent a few years in his 20's in France prosetizying for the LDS.
W - spent a few years blowing coke then turned away from present day sinners
Round 2 goes to Mitt
Wait - didn't Mitt strap his dog to the roof of his car for a trip from Boston to Montreal or Toronto or somewhere in Canada? Didn't the dog subsequently run away?
Round 2 - Mitt disqualified, loses half-a-point
Score: Mitt: -0.5: W: 1 

Round 3 - Graduate School
Mitt - Harvard MBA & Harvard Law
W - Harvard MBA
Round 3 goes to Mitt
Score after 3 rounds: Mitt 0.5, W 1.0

Round 4 - Professional Experience
Mitt - Bain Capital made a fortune downsizing failing businesses
W - Oil company and Texas Rangers - Made a fortune in failing businesses
Round 4 - a tie.
Score after 4 rounds: Mitt 1.5: W: 2.0

Final Round - Electability
Mitt - except for his lovely wife, people don't like him. Seems unlikely to be elected President
W - able to git enough people to vote fer him that, despite losing popular vote by 543,895 votes (50,999,897 to 50,456,002) won that crucial vote in the Supreme Court.
Round 5  we hope Round 5 goes to the American People

Not Registered?

Click Here.  It's between Hope and Nope! or Hope and Dope.

Should The President have Known About Al Queda's Planned Attack on Sept 11?

Did President George W. Bush drop the ball on National Security?  What would a President Gore have done differently?

My song, "Gone Now Forever"  ( XB Cold Fingers / You Tube ) tells the story of a man who was lost on September 11, and his family. My friend Maria loves it, but it brings a tear to her eye. It also brings me anger, and resolve.

I also wrote "City of Heroes" ( XB Cold Fingers ) to attempt come to grips with the attack of September 11. This began as an eyewittness account - I saw the flames from 34th Street and 7th and walked down as far as 18th St. It developed into a tribute to the men, women and children killed or whos lives were disrupted by the terrorist hijackers, including the cops and firefighters, who rushed into the Trade Center and the passengers and crew of Flight 93.

As I learned more about "Al Queda," which means "The Base," I re-wrote the song to challenge the notion of "Holy War." No religious leaders, I think, are worth following if the teach that “We are Saved and They are to be killed.”

Then, as I began to understand the official American response to the terrorist act, to the “Unholy War” that “brought the twin towers down,” I added an additional focus: our official response, the war in Iraq, our use of torture.

But … President Clinton and Vice President Gore knew that bin Laden was a threat. They knew he financed and or masterminded the simultaneous attacks on U. S. embassies in Dar Es Salam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya on August 7, 1998, and the October, 2000 attack on the U. S. S. Cole.

Should The President, then George W. Bush, have had a better understanding of the threat posed by bin Laden and his people? Tony Karon, in “Time” magazine on May 30, 2001, 3 months before the attack on the Pentagon and the second attack on The World Trade Center, wrote, 

“the conviction in New York of four footsoldiers of Osama bin Laden's jihad to drive the United States out of the Middle East.... the man named in the indictment as the architect of the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania wasn't even in court … Bin Laden remains holed up in Afghanistan under the protection of its ruling Taliban militia, and reiterated that it has no intention of handing him over for trial....“

“The war on terrorism is primarily about intelligence — being able to monitor your enemy's communications and anticipate his actions in order to confound his plans and keep him on the defensive.”

As we know from the mission that brought bin Laden to justice, in Pakistan, far from Kabul and even farther from Baghdad, the 'war on terrorism' is a war than can be effectively waged with small teams of commandos using “actionable intelligence.”

Should the President have been able to foil the attacks of September 11? This is an unknowable question. However, We sustained:

1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City,

1993 bombing of the World Trade Center,

1998 bombings of the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,

2000 bombing of the U. S. S. Cole.

And we foiled Al Queda's Millennium plot.

Should the President have been able to foil the attacks of September 11? Here's the timeline of events.  Here's the unclassified version of the August 6, 2001 intelligence memo to President Bush.  What do you think? 

And what would a President Gore have done?  

It's pretty clear that he would not have let bin Laden go and gone into Iraq. But what else? Gore knew that bin Laden was a threat.Clinton, as Commander-In-Chief, set up the CIA unit tasked to investigate bin Laden in 1996. After the Embassies were bombed he ordered an attack on bin Laden's compound in Sudan.

Cognitive Abilities Impaired By Wealth

The Anna Maria Blog reported here

[Australian] Mining magnate Gina Rinehart intends to bring in semi-skilled migrants to work in her mines. She doesn’t want Australian workers because our wages are too high so she’s had a brilliant idea - bring in desperate people from other nations willing and overjoyed at the opportunity to work for half the Australian wage. She’s trying to convince anyone who will listen that it’s got nothing to do with profit, she’s not being unpatriotic, she is simply suffering from an acute labour shortage.

The Anna Maria Blog reported in the same post that there are 10's of thousands of Australians who would want the jobs Rinehart wants to fill, but they would want them at union scale.

Rinehart has been publicly advocating that Australians should work for no more than $2 per day, given the rates at which Africans and Asians work. Does she include herself in that? If she was to start working for $2 per day? As she is said to makes $600 per second, 51.840 Million per day, what would she do with the $51,839,998 excess?

Mark Memmott, showing that he can cover arcane neuroscience as well as hard news at the NPR "Two-Way" blog, has reported that Rinehart, reported to be accumulating money at a rate of $600/second, appears to be having trouble with self-awareness, cognition, and empathy. Some memory loss may be indicated. These symptoms of cognitive deficits are most marked in a video which Rinehart produced herself, posted on the website of the Australian Mining Club (one suspects that the A.M.C.'s wine cellars are at exactly the right depth), in which she argues that great fortune is the product of merit. The BBC, which reported the $600 per second figure, also reported that she acquired her wealth via inheritance. It may be that her merit consists of having persuaded the legator of her merit in leaving her or his fortune to her, or that merit may have been self-evident.

Forbes currently lists Rinehart as the world's 29th-richest person, with a net monetary worth of $18 billion, and the wealthiest woman from the Asia/Pacific region. She could be headed toward becoming the world's richest person, the magazine speculated last year.

If Australia is, as Rinehart claims, to expensive for business ( Anna Maria Blog / Herald Sun / LA Times ) maybe she should move her operations, and herself, to China or Africa. If she did so would doubtless make Belgium's King Leopold look like a prince, or Mother Theresa.

Do Rinehart's mining interests include the mining of lead or mercury? Does she eat the lead? Mainline the mercury? Perhaps she eats whale?

It has also been suggested that lower income class warriors want to "Eat the Rich." If that is the case, Rinehart could feed a lot of them.

It's sad that such an obviously superior woman should be experiencing so much stress as the result of her wealth or the rate of accumulation of same. Perhaps Australian health authorities should temporarily place her funds in the hands of a custodian while she returns to her senses or regains her humanity or her sense of affiliation with same.

Perhaps Rinehart should spend some time with Paris Hilton. While Hilton's net monetary worth is estimated at only $100 Million, as opposed to Rinehart's $18 Billion, we suspect that Hilton has more fun and may have a more profound sense of herself as a person.

Paul Ryan, Marathons, and Character

On June 23, 1990, when he was in college, Paul Ryan ran "Grandma's Marathon," in Duluth, Minnesota, completed the 26.25 mile race in 4 hours 1 minute and 25 seconds. He took 1990th place.( Runners World / Article / Race Stats )

I've never run a marathon, and I think it's a tremendous accomplishment. If I ran several, I think I'd cite my best time and the number of marathons I ran. If I only ran one - and there are no records of Paul Ryan running other marathons - I think I'd remember my time, even after 20 years. If I did it in 4 hours, 1 minute, and 25 seconds, I might say "I ran the marathon in 4 hours."  And I'd only use the term "Personal Best" if I had run more than one. Because if you've only run one race, then your personal best is also your personal worst.

On a broadcast interview on the Hugh Hewitt show, on August 22, 2012 (description / transcript), Ryan claimed his "Personal Best" was "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something." That's a huge difference from "I ran the marathon once in four hours."


What does this say about Paul Ryan's character? 

I think it speaks volumes and none of it good.

New Yorker / Daily News / Opposing Views / Politico

Why I Love Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan - If Only

Top 10 reasons why I'd love Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, if only,

1. I'd love Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan if only I was a money manager who spent each day considering whether I should sell my holdings in Apple, Ford, or IBM or speculate on Cree, Lighting Sciences, and Solazyme. Then I'd want low capital gains taxes, (except I'd be concerned that people needed jobs to buy the stuff my companies designed or manufactured).
2. If only, like Donald Trump, I was a real estate investor and pocketed a few million each time one of my buildings went bankrupt but the banks didn't want them so they forgave part of the debt, or I simply  owned a few buildings and lived off rents (except I'd be concerned that people needed jobs to pay the rent). (click, click, click & click)
3. If only I was a real estate shark and I made money buying, fixing, and selling foreclosed properties from banks (except I'd be concerned that people I'd sell to needed jobs to be in a position to buy).
4. If only, like Sheldon Adelson, I owned casinos outside the U.S. and was in trouble with the SEC, IRS, and DoJ over the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act over alleged bribes paid to develop them (except I'd still be worried that some low level bureaurocrat wanted to "bring me to justice"). (click, click, click)
5. If only, like some friends of Chris Christie, I owned a private, for-profit prison, half-way house, hospital, school, or other company that performed a government function and could help claim to shrink government by paying less educated or uneducated and less qualified or unqualified people minimum wage to do the work of skilled and trained people. And anyway, why should we educate the next generation? They're just going to be buying crap made in China. (click)
6. If only I owned my own private island and truly didn't interact w the outside world (except I'd be concerned about radioactive waste from Fukushima and US plants, fallout from French nuclear weapons testing, pollution from China, mercury in fish from coal plants, plastics in the oceans, and rising sea levels).
7. If only, like the Charles Koch, David Koch, Boone Pickins, I owned coal mines, coal plants, oil wells, refineries, frakking wells, or nuclear plants, or owned interests in companies like Halliburton, and I didn't go to the beach, didn't eat fish, and I didn't care that "Drill Baby, Drill" and "Burn Baby, Burn" means "Sweat Baby, Sweat," "Swim Baby, Swim," and ultimately, "Drown Baby, Drown." (And I can't charge you for sunlight.)
8. If only I owned gun shops or gun and ammunition companies and lived in a gated community, and never went to movies, didn't have children or grandchildren in or someday to go to college, and didn't go to meetings w my Reps in the House or Senate, or I, myself, lived in a state with reasonable restrictions on gun acquisition and gun ownership. (Why is it that we are not allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater but are allowed to open fire in a crowded theater?)
9. If only the women I care about didn't need birth control or other medical care, and if I never needed doctors or nurses, because anyone who becomes a doctor, nurse, therapist, or other medical practicioner needs an education. ... BUT 
10. I'd really love Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan if only I was a comedian or writer working for Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, Saturday Night Live or Rupert Murdoch and the Faux News crew.

-

Copy Left (CL) 2012, XB Cold Fingers. Ownership Rights Reserved. Feel free to pass it along. This is a work of satire. But while it may be speculative, it's not fiction.  Look for this and my other observations on Cultural Forensics and my YouTube Channel, XB New Music.

Exclusive Interview With Mitt Romney

Wall Street, NY.  by XB Cold Fingers

On the eve of the Republican National Convention I interviewed Willard Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican candidate for President.  It was a "Thought Interview," which did not take place in reality. However, given that so much does not take place in reality, particularly on the campaign trail, it seems reasonable to conduct interviews that do not take place in reality.

"Mr. Romney," I began, "Your father George Romney, released 10 years of his tax returns, and in fact began the tradition of candidates for President disclosing their income and tax returns. He paid at a rate of about 35%.  You released one year of tax returns and suggested that you pay taxes at a rate of about 13% - much less than the 35% rate paid by your father, and also much less than the rate paid by most American taxpayers. So my first question, sir, is will you release tax returns from other years?"

Romney leaned back, took a sip of orange juice, and said, well no, releasing his tax returns didn't help my father become President, why do you think it will help me?

"But the people expect it," I said.

"Well, the people expect lots of things," Mr. Romney replied. "Things like good job. unemployment compensation, health care, being able to retire.  That's part of the entitlement society that we have to change.  Americans need to take care of themselves."

"Why then does your budget plan award oil companies $2.3 billion in subsidies?" I asked. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/23/734721/big-oil-buys-gusher-5-pro-oil-planks-in-romney-energy-plan/?mobile=nc

"We need to support industries we believe in, to help them get off the ground," he said.

"But oil companies are 'off the ground.'" I said, "And a lot of Americans support solar, wind, geothermal, marine hydro and efficiency - the so called 'nega-fuel-watts' of sustainable energy and the 'nega-watts' of efficiency. The cheapest unit of energy," I said, quoting Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute," is the one you don't have to buy."

"Well, yes, but Cheney, Boone Pickens and the Koch Brothers don't support that. They can't charge people for sunlight or energy they don't buy. Get a grip man." he added, almost emphatically.

Moving on, I said, “Rep. Todd Akin recently said 'in the case of legitimate rape, women don't get pregnant, they have a way of shutting that whole thing down.' Do you believe that Mr. Akin's lack of understanding with regards to human biology should disqualify him in the eyes of the voters?”

“I have no comment,” Mr. Romney said.

“Rep. Akin co-sponsored with Paul Ryan – your running mate – several bills which sought to render abortion illegal. Would you push to overturn 'Roe v Wade' and make abortion illegal?”

“I have no comment,” Mr. Romney said, “other than to say that abortion is the law of the land and our platform would seek to overturn it.”

“Really?” I said.

He looked around. “Are we on camera?” he asked.

“No,” I said.

“No, Not really.” He said. “Abortion is a great issue for us. Those people get so riled up about it. They vote for us. We could say, 'Give us your houses, your cars, your money, because we're against abortion,' in fact we do, and they do. It's like gun control. Of course we should keep guns out of the hands of nuts. But a few isolated incidents keeps people afraid. And when they're afraid, they vote Republican.  It's also why we are gutting education. We don't want educated citizens who can think. We don't need them in our factories; they just cause trouble.”

“Turning to foreign policy,” I said, “President Obama ordered the mission in which Osama bin Laden was killed, in Pakistan. The Navy Seals who carried out the mission also brought back a treasure trove of actionable intelligence against Al Queda. He also ordered the successful drone attack on Al Awlaki. Doesn't that prove that the best way to fight terrorism is with intelligence and commandos or drones? and call into question the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?”

“I have no comment,” Mr. Romney replied.

“Regarding Iran,” I began, “You are on record for suggesting that 'All options are on the table.' How is this different from President Obama?”

“I am different than President Obama. Therefore it's different.”

He then asked me what time it is. I looked at my watch, told him.

“Well,” he said, “That's all the time we have. But I'd like your watch. May I see it?"
"Sure," I said, and handed him the watch. He put it on.

"You can never have enough watches,” he said.

I looked at the two secret service agents, and Paul Ryan, in boxing gloves.

“Thanks,” he said. “You realize that you're in trouble if I'm elected.”

“Yes, sir,” I said. “So are we all.”

– Copyright, ©, 2012. XB Cold Fingers. All Rights Reserved. Please note - this is a work of satire. At least, not in this universe. It might have happened in a parallel universe.

Justice Scalia on the Second Amendment

Justice Antonin Scalia, interviewed on Fox News, talking about the use by Aurora, Colorado, says,

Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand carried. It's "to keep and bear" so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be decided.... My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that society had at the time.

The segment can be watched here, on YouTube. With the use of the word "limitations," and the phrase "it doesn't apply to cannons," Mr. Scalia appears to suggest that gun control is legitimate public policy. However, suggesting that "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes will have to be decided" seems to me to absurd bordering on Kafkaesque. It would be one thing if Mr. Scalia was a commedian like Rush Limbaugh. But he is a Justice of the US Supreme Court.


It should also be noted that while the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were written in 1789, 223 years ago, and the US Constitution, ratified in 1787, was written 225 years ago; they were written to be relevant to the United States of America at that time and in the future. With all due respect to Mr. Scalia, we need to place limitations on the weapons that are available today, not only limitations of the world of 1787.
Would Jefferson and other authors and signatories of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, if you put them in a time machine, and brought them here, asked them to review the Bill of Rights, say "We must regulate cannons, but not assault rifles with 100-round clips or hand-held rocket launchers capable of bringing down airplanes?"

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How do we resolve this with the rights of people to attend movies (Aurora), go to school (Columbine, Virginia Tech) or to go to public meetings with their Representatives in the House (Arizona)?

We, as members of society must have the right and obligation to regulate access to weapons.

So the question we have to ask is how do we keep deadly weapons out of the hands of sociopaths and psychopaths? Is there a Catch-22 like problem, i.e.,

"Assault rifles are legal to own for anyone who isn't crazy, but anyone who wants to own an assault rifle is crazy and therefore can't own one?"

Or do we simply amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment?

There are precedents for changing the Constitution. Slavery was allowed until the Emancipation Proclimation and the 14th Amendment. Prohibition, established by 18th Amendment, 10/28/1919, was repealed by the 21th Amendment, 12/5/1933.

If you take the Second Amend to it's logical extreme, anyone can own any weapon. Therefore people should be able to buy bombers, aircraft carriers, like the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers, pictured above, or nuclear weapons ....

And consider Iraq under Saddam, Iran, Libya under Gaddafi, Nazi Germany. In those countries only certain people could get guns; only certain people could "serve." In the United States, on the other hand, ALL can bear arms Gay, straight, black, white, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Christian, Athiest ... one nation under sky ...

Minimize Your Capital Gains Tax

Mark Price, writing on PT-News, here, says,

"A famous strategy used by stock investors is to purchase when price exceeds its 52-week high, or to sell when price tumbles below its 52-week low."

It shouldn't take a degree in finance or business administration - which I have - to realize that this is spectacularly stupid.  And yet ... it is a strategy that is guaranteed to minimize your capital gains tax because it seems guaranteed to give you capital losses.

If I buy when a stock is at its 52 week high, and sell when it's at its 52 week low, then I'll lose money.

On the other hand, if I buy from you when a stock is at its high, then you make money. If I sell to you when it's low, you make more money.  Hmm. Maybe Mark Price isn't so stupid. Maybe he's just a crook.

Maybe I'm being cynical. But something seems, well, fishy. Maybe it's because I recently read Ken Fisher's How to Smell a Rat, the Five Signs of Financial Fraud, (here) and because I was listening to "On Point" this evening - Crooked Bankers - about 'Banksters.'  Maybe it's that the "About Us" page says,

"All of our writers come from strong journalistic backgrounds and are always available to be contacted with any questions, comments, or concerns." 

Far be it for me to correct the professional writers at Potential Traders, but I think it should say "journalism backgrounds," not "journalistic backgrounds." The lack of American English usage, and the logo - a bull positioned on the left of the banner and facing left - raise red flags.

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

Back in 1996, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House, (shown above with "Sugar Daddy" Sheldon Adelson NY Times / Brian Lehrer the last surviving member of the Gangsters what built Las Vegas) wrote "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" (here and here). This was a memo on the use of language to frame an issue. It's a primer on the use of propaganda to win political campaigns by deamonizing your opponent. Hitler would be proud. But don't take my word for it - read on. The full text of Newt's memo is below.

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo 

   As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

   That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

   This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

   While the list could be the size of the latest "College Edition" dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

   Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.

Optimistic Positive Governing Words

   Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

active(ly) activist building candid(ly) care(ing) challenge change children choice/choose citizen commitment common sense compete confident conflict control courage crusade debate dream duty eliminate good-time in prison empower(ment) fair family freedom hard work help humane incentive initiative lead

learn legacy liberty light listen mobilize moral movement opportunity passionate peace pioneer precious premise preserve principle(d) pristine pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform prosperity protect proud/pride provide reform rights share strength success tough truth unique vision we/us/our

Contrasting Words

   Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

abuse of power anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs betray bizarre bosses bureaucracy cheat coercion "compassion" is not enough collapse(ing) consequences corrupt corruption criminal rights crisis cynicism decay deeper destroy destructive devour disgrace endanger excuses failure (fail) greed hypocrisy ideological impose incompetent insecure insensitive

intolerant liberal lie limit(s) machine mandate(s) obsolete pathetic patronage permissive attitude pessimistic punish (poor ...) radical red tape self-serving selfish sensationalists shallow shame sick spend(ing) stagnation status quo steal taxes they/them threaten traitors unionized urgent (cy) waste welfare

It's About the Middle Class, and Elephants

James Carville and Stan Greenberg on "On Point," Wednesday, 7/11/12. (here) said

1. Obama is tied or only slightly ahead of Romney in the polls. 
2. Obama and Romney present profoundly different visions of the challenges facing the United States and the world, and, consequently, strikingly different solutions.Actually, Romney offers no solutions, only vague promises that he can do things.
3. In order to win re-election, President Obama has to focus on the future and the middle class. 

I agree. I also think Obama is doing a good job, particularly on foreign policy. Bin Laden is dead and American combat troops have left Iraq. Operation "Olympic Games" is slowing down Iran's nuclear ambitions. (Part of the reason for this may be that the Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch Sheldon Adelson, the Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court, etc. - can't stymie the President on foreign policy the way they can on domestic policy.)

Carville and Greenberg focused on the economy.

• Unemployment is at 8.2%, 
• Under-employment is another 4% to 8%, 
• That's 13 million unemployed and another 6.5 million to 13 million underemployed. 
• Wages, for people who work for a living, are stagnant or dropping. 
• Energy costs are going up, real estate taxes are going up, housing values are, at best, stabilizing.
• College costs are rising, and the career prospects for recent college grads are in the toilet. 

Carville and Greenberg basically said "In order for Obama to win re-election, he needs to present a vision for the future that addresses these issues." I agree there too, however, I see a herd of elephants in the room that I didn't hear them talk about:

1. Obama's mother was a white woman from Kansas, his father, however, was African, and Barack Houssein Obama is a funny name for a US President. Still, enough people were inspired by his candidacy, rhetoric, and character to vote for him in 2008.  Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been proud.Yet Obama is an African American. Still, it seems to me, white boy that I am, that there may be some people who are "concerned" about Obama's race, and this is the real sentiment under all that "Birther" nonsense.
2. While he's African-American, he doesn't talk like Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mohammed Ali. He's a cerebral, analytical, lawyer. If Bill Clinton was the first black President, then Obama is the first Jewish President. Actually, he's the first Vulcan President, or at least the first since Wilson. Obama's a "Servant Leader." Ambitious but not arrogant. Sure of himself but not full of himself. Not full of self-doubt and insecurities, but full of an awareness that while he's unique and wonderful, so is everyone else.  He's a President who, if - when - his wife says "take out the garbage;" he takes out the garbage. I can see George H. W. Bush doing that, and Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (course he would smile at Hillary and she would melt), and Al Gore, but not George W. Bush or Willard Mitt Romney. They would have help to do that - servants. ("W" would joke with them, give them nicknames, and dimly be aware of the ages of their children. Romney wouldn't even know their names.) Most of the folks in Washington don't understand this. Clinton might. And Richard Lugar, the soon to be former Senator (R) from Indiana.
3. Fox News, the GOP, the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson (Newt Gingrich's Sugar Daddy), Rush Limbaugh, etc. have been focused, since before the inauguration in January, 2009, with trying to make Obama fail, pretending that trying to force the President to fail is not the bad for the United States. When in reality 
4. Our environment is increasingly polluted. And our economy - and the global economy - is on a largely unsustainable path.  We have, mostly in the last 50 years, burned so much coal, oil, and methane that we have added about two trillion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, increasing the concentration of CO2 by about 50%, from about 260 ppm to 390 ppm. The scientific consensus is that this is sufficient to change climate and weather.  As Bill McKibben put it, we have changed Earth into Eaarth.

I Have A Dream

"I have a dream where one day my four little children are judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin." - Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. (here)

Dr. King made that statement on August 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington DC.

Election Day, 2008, was that day. Enough voters judged Barack Obama by the content of his character, not the color of is skin, that he was elected President of the United States.

Let's hope for the same in November, 2012, and going forward.  And that all are judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  As Dr. King said,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

                Free at last! Free at last!

                Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

The Affordable Health Care Act - and Socialism

All the misleading hoopla about the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” or as Rick Santorum put it, “Romneycare,” leaves out several actual facts.

1.  The law forces insurance companies to insure young adults on their parents' policies.

2.  The law prohibits insurance companies from dropping people with pre-existing conditions.

If this is socialism, then I am a socialist.

3. The law requires 30 million of the 50 million Americans without health insurance, to buy it (the same way that the governments of New York, New Jersey, and the governments of many other states require people who want to register an automobile to buy car insurance). This should, over time, lower costs for the rest of us.

4. The law does not replace the health insurance industry with a government run program; it does not expand Medicare to cover all Americans. Similarly, it does not transform the Veteran's Health Administration into a “Citizen's Health Administration."

Actually, expanding Medicare to cover all citizens, perhaps by transforming the Veterans Health Administration into a Citizens Health Administration sounds like a good to me.

However, as President George Bush said, “Every American has access to health care. All people need to do is go to the Emergency Room.”  What he failed to mention is that using a Hospital's ER as a primary care clinic is very expensive.  When people without insurance do it, the hospitals make up for the loss by charging patients with health insurance for the costs of patients without health insurance. This is inefficient and expensive, and actually is socialism.

You Can Judge a Man by His Friends, part 2

Here we see Russian President & Dictator Vladimir Putin and American President Barack Obama at the G 20 Summit in Mexico in June, 2012. Unlike the pictures, below, of Putin with Assad and Ahmadinejad, these men are not smiling. They don't seem pleased to be in each other's company.

As an American, I am proud that the President of the United States does not seem happy to be in the company of the dictator of Russia.

Thanks to the NY Times for the image of Obama and Putin.