https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Romney changes his position on FEMA and disaster recovery

In other news, water is wet, and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Embedded Link

Mitt flips on FEMA, now would keep it
Romney said he wanted to eliminate the government agency, but now he’s having second thoughts

Google+: View post on Google+

So which group is he lying to?

Because during the GOP primaries and before various appreciative audiences since then, Romney's been staunchly anti-abortion and all gung-ho to overturn Roe v. Wade.  But now he's all, "Well, heck, nothing I can do about it, it's not on my agenda, so don't worry your pretty little heads" on the subject.

So either he's been lying to the anti-abortion social conservative base, or he's lying to the abortion rights folks who might otherwise think he's too radical to vote for.

Will both groups believe him? Will neither?

Embedded Link

Romney Campaign Plays Dumb About Roe v. Wade |
What do you do to win over abortion rights supporters if you’ve spent your whole presidential campaign telling right-wing activists you’re anti-choice? For Mitt Romney, the answer is simple: lie! …

Google+: View post on Google+

The New Right-Wing War on Data

I've been watching with growing incredulity the escalating series of attacks on Nate Silver of 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com), all because he's refused to go along with the ever-increasing "Ro-mentum" meme from the GOP, and his analysis of aggregate poll data (the basis for which is freely available) doesn't show the race is running away in Mitt's favor. In fact, he has the audacity to show Obama as a narrow favorite.

Recently these attacks have evolved from disagreements over how Silver crunches the numbers to more deeply cogent and intellectual commentary on Silver … such as Dean Chambers of "unskewedpolls.com" describing Silver this way. "Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the 'Mr. New Castrati' voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound." (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls)

Great example of "unskewed" analysis, Dean!

I would normally simply lean back and let my house professional statistician (my wife) defend Silver's work, but Nate managed to do so in an even more entertaining fashion. After noting the above analysis by Chambers, he summed it up (https://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/status/262077837564076032) as:

"Unskewedpolls argument: Nate Silver seems kinda gay + ??? = Romney landslide!"

Embedded Link

Nate Silver Addresses Accusation That He’s “Too Effeminate” To Accurately Predict Election « Alan Colmes’ Liberaland

Google+: View post on Google+

Dealing with Disaster

While I'm sure that the GOP will be watching eagerly to jump on any mistake that the Obama Administration makes in dealing with Hurricane Sandy and its impact on the NE US, I hope at least some attention is paid to the basic, philosophical differences over what role, if any, the federal government can and should be playing in disaster relief at all.

Romney made it clear, during the GOP primaries, that the feds shouldn't be in the disaster relief business at all, because, y'know, it costs money.  (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/14/244973/mitt-romney-federal-disaster-relief-for-tornado-and-flood-victims-is-immoral-makes-no-sense-at-all/)

Instead, it should all be handled by, well, the states maybe. Because the states are flush with money, right?  Or perhaps "private industry", which is well known for its altrustic nature. But it should certainly be someone other than federal taxpayers like me, right?  Because, after all, how does it affect me if some folks in Connecticut, or Mississippi, or California, or the next block over from my house, are suffering because of some "Act of God"? Am I, like, my brother's keeper?

Ryan's approach has mirrored (or led) much of the rest of the House GOP — federal disaster spending is fine, maybe — as long as it's matched by spending cuts elsewhere (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/27/452520/gop-budget-targets-disaster-relief/). Because, of course, when people are suffering is precisely when you want to make a sound political decision over what other people will suffer, or what is or isn't an important federal program.

So while I very much hope that loss of life and property during Hurricane Sandy will be minimal, I think it will be of interest not just to see how FEMA and other federal agencies respond, but how the GOP ticket responds as well to whatever disaster spending is required.

Google+: View post on Google+

Joss Whedon on Romney and the Right Choice for This Election

Heh.

Google+: View post on Google+

Tweets from 2012-10-26

  • At the LPS stadium for the Arapahoe HS championship game, where middle school band kids are playing. I.e., Kay. Huzzah! #
  • RT @morningmoneyben: This election will be decided by three states. Or seven. Or six plus one other maybe. Or nine. Or one. Or eight. Bu … #
  • Are you ready for some wintery high school football?! Link #
  • It's freezing here at the game. No, really, 32F. #yayteam #

Election 2012: Worst Case Scenarios

I expect that regardless of what happens two Tuesdays from now, there's going to be recounting and court-based messes. But here's how things could be worse. Much, much worse.

Embedded Link

Zombie Election: 5 Ways the 2012 Race Could Stagger On for Months
There are two weeks left until the vote — but who says things will end with the vote?

Google+: View post on Google+

In (very slight) defense of Richard Mourdock

In a debate Tuesday night for the Indiana Senate race, Mourdock (a Republican) was asked about abortion exceptions for rape and incest. He replied:

“I struggled with myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something God intended to happen.”

His statement has lit something of a firestorm (legit and exploited both), even with his quick correction post-debate that he didn't think that rape itself  was something God intended.

A couple of thoughts of my own.

1. The idea of not granting a rape or incest exception is is a perfectly consistent and defensible position, if you grant the rights of "personhood" or humanity to a fetus (I don't, but many do).  By law and by justice, we don't visit the crimes of the parent on the child. If you are staunchly anti-abortion, providing an escape clause for rape or incest makes no rational sense, since you are essentially saying it's okay to kill a baby if the father was a rapist. 

(An exception or the life of the mother, yes, in that you must choose one life or another — though the direction for that choice is, itself, informative.)

2. Mourdock's thornier issue here was pulling God into the mix, but even here he's on hardly-radical grounds of parsing God's purpose and trying to reconsile the Problem of Evil — why an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God lets bad things (like rape) happen — or, put another way, if God knows all that will happen and can act and intervene according to His will, why does he enable a universe where that sort of thing occurs?

(And, yeah, that's one I struggle with, too. And I don't have any glib answers. Which is a big reason why I don't go around publicly attributing things, good or bad, to God's will.)

Mourdock runs into trouble here (at least one of the places he runs into trouble) because he tries to address just part of the equation.  He's willing to say that a pregnancy from rape is something "God intended," but not that the rape itself is.  And, yes, hand-wave, free will, all that, but that's just not a distinction that sits well (especially since I suspect a lot of women would consider no pregnancy from a rape to be a much greater "gift", if not a coincidentally nearby police officer or stray lightning bolt).

So, no, he didn't say that God intended rapes to occur, and it's not necessarily fair to suggest he thinks such a thing (let alone going down the road of "… so she must have deserved it") — but he opens the door to that interpretation by musing about a theological point that has engaged scholars for centuries and is hardly a topic that lends itself to easy or nuanced headline-based discussion.

Mind you, Mourdock would have been criticized anyway, either for his position on abortion exceptions or if he'd simply murmured about God's will, "Mysterious Ways", and all that — especially if he didn't follow on by saying "And here's how we're going to support the women and children who find themselves in this situation."  Where he really erred was in trying to blend the two, mixing "God's plan" in with "rape" as a reason to restrict abortion, and playing directly into a set of issues (and expectations) where the GOP fringe has come across as anti-women, shame-based theocrats who are looking to incorporate A Handmaid's Tale into the party platform.  That's beyond what Mourdock himself said, certainly — but not so far that his statements didn't resonate with those quite legimate concerns from the Left.

Embedded Link

Will Richard Mourdock’s rape remarks hurt Mitt Romney? (+video)
The Romney campaign immediately distanced itself from the remarks of Richard Mourdock, a Republican Senate candidate from Indiana. Democrats portrayed the remarks as evidence of an extreme view on abo…

Google+: View post on Google+

(Political) Party Time – the Long Form!

So who are all those “third” parties out there (on the Colorado presidential ballot, at least), and can I get official summaries of what they stand for in a short sentence paragraph?  Let’s find out!

(Answer: No. But I managed to distill each one down into a bullet or two from its website, and then a Wikipedia bullet.)

American Constitution Party:

  • “We, the members of the American Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessings of the Lord God as the Creator, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe and of our nation. We hereby appeal to Him for aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Divine Providence as we work to restore and preserve this nation as a government of, by, and for the people. Our republic is a nation governed by a constitution rooted in Biblical law and administered by representatives elected by the people to preserve, protect, and defend it against attacks by all its enemies, whether from without or within. We affirm the principles of inherent, un-a-lien-able, individual rights upon which these united States of America were founded. The sole legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all.”
  • “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.” [more]
  • (The Colorado branch of the Constitution Party is known as the American Constitution Party.)

Libertarian Party:

  • “The Libertarian Party is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual. Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren. Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a great way to live. We want a system which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way. The Libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential. The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government’s only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud. The Libertarian Party is for all who don’t want to push other people around and don’t want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.”
  • “The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful state, strong civil liberties (including support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights), the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations (i.e., avoiding foreign military or economic entanglements with other nations), freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries, and a more responsive and direct democracy. The Libertarian Party has also supported the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, and similar trade agreements, as well as the United States’ exit from the United Nations, WTO, and NATO.” [more]

Green Party:

  • “The Green Party of the United States is a federation of state Green Parties. Committed to environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organizing, Greens are renewing democracy without the support of corporate donors. Greens provide real solutions for real problems. Whether the issue is universal health care, corporate globalization, alternative energy, election reform or decent, living wages for workers, Greens have the courage and independence necessary to take on the powerful corporate interests. […] We are grassroots activists, environmentalists, advocates for social justice, nonviolent resisters and regular citizens who’ve had enough of corporate-dominated politics.”
  • Ten Key Values: (1) Grassroots Democracy. (2) Social Justice and Equal Opportunity. (3) Ecological Wisdom. (4) Non-Violence. (5) Decentralization. (6) Community-Based Economics and Economic Justice. (7) Feminism and Gender Equality. (8) Respect for Diversity. (9) Personal and Global Responsibility. (10) Future Focus and Sustainability.
  • “The Green Party of the United States of America emphasizes environmentalism, non-hierarchical participatory democracy, social justice, respect for diversity, peace and nonviolence. […] The Green Party does not accept donations from corporations. Thus, the party’s platforms and rhetoric critique any corporate influence and control over government, media, and American society at large.” [more]

Socialist Party, USA:

  • “The Socialist Party is a democratic socialist organization. We see socialism as a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes and school and the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not the private profit of a few. We see the working class as in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future – to a real radical democracy from below. We stand in opposition to all forms of oppression including but not limited to racism, sexism and homophobia. We are a “multi-tendency” organization. We orient ourselves around our principles and develop a common program, but our members have various underlying philosophies and views of the world. Therefore we reject vanguardism and democratic centralism. We advocate for independent political action outside the Democratic and Republican parties. Our tactics in the struggle for radical democratic change reflects our ultimate goal of a society founded on principles of egalitarian, non-exploitative and non-violent relations among all people and between all peoples.”
  • “The Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) is a multi-tendency democratic-socialist party in the United States. The party states that it is the rightful continuation and successor to the tradition of the Socialist Party of America, which had lasted from 1901 to 1972. […] The party is officially committed to left-wing democratic socialism. Opposing both capitalism and “authoritarian Communism”, the Party advocates bringing big business under public ownership and democratic workers’ self-management. The party opposes unaccountable bureaucratic control of Soviet communism.” [more]

Justice Party USA:

  • “The Justice Party issues a clarion call to join our community of concerned Americans demanding social, economic, and environmental justice for all, not just for the wealthiest Americans and their corporations. […]  We seek to return political power to the people through fair and transparent elections, campaign finance reform, proportional representation, and Constitutional amendment. The Justice Party is a grassroots, broad-based, real political alternative to the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties.”
  • “The party is working for campaign finance reforms and does not accept corporate funding. It wants to abolish corporate personhood. The party and its founder are in favor of a financial transaction tax and want to end the Bush tax cuts. They are against the enlarging of the Keystone Pipeline and want a ban on mountaintop removal mining. They are also proponents for a single payer health system. It describes itself as advocating economic justice through measures such as green jobs and a right to organize, environment justice through enforcing employee safeguards in trade agreements, and social and civic justice through universal health care.” [more]

Peace and Freedom Party:

  • “The Peace and Freedom Party is an open, multi-tendency, movement-oriented socialist party. We are united in our common commitment to socialism, democracy, feminism and unionism and our common opposition to capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and elitism.”
  • “The Peace and Freedom Party is committed to socialism, democracy, ecology, feminism and racial equality. We represent the working class, those without capital in a capitalist society. We organize toward a world where cooperation replaces competition, a world where all people are well fed, clothed and housed; where all women and men have equal status; where all individuals may freely endeavor to fulfill their own talents and desires; a world of freedom and peace where every community retains its cultural integrity and lives with all others in harmony.”
  • “From its inception, Peace and Freedom Party has been a left-wing political organization. It is a strong advocate of protecting the environment from pollution and nuclear waste. It advocates personal liberties and universal, high quality and free access to education and health care. Its understanding of socialism includes a socialist economy, where industries, financial institutions, and natural resources are owned by the people as a whole and democratically managed by the people who work in them and use them.” [more]

Socialist Workers Party USA:

  • “The party is running a working class, labor, socialist campaign. The candidates and their supporters are helping build solidarity with workers’ struggles and engaging in discussions on a fighting road forward to combat the consequences for workers and farmers of the world capitalist crisis, which has only just begun. The Socialist Workers Party is joining the resistance with a program of struggle to defend the most immediate needs of the working class. This includes a demand for a massive, government funded public works program to put millions to work at union scale wages, building high-quality housing and safe and convenient public transportation affordable for workers, as well as schools, child care centers, recreational facilities and other infrastructure to improve the living conditions of working people. […] The campaign will join in gatherings of small farmers, at protests against police brutality and “stop and frisk,” rallies against U.S. wars and use of killer drones from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Africa and elsewhere, against attacks on immigrant workers, with students facing unpayable debt loads, and families whose homes have been foreclosed. If we are going to advance our interests against those of the bosses, the SWP candidates explain, working people and our unions need to organize independently of the capitalist parties, the Democrats and Republicans. The socialists point to the necessity of building a mass revolutionary movement led by the working class capable of wresting political power from the propertied rulers and transforming ourselves and all of society.”
  • “The Socialist Workers Party is a far-left political organization in the United States. The group places a priority on ‘solidarity work’ to aid strikes and is strongly supportive of Cuba. The SWP publishes The Militant, a weekly newspaper that dates back to 1928.” [more]
  • (The Militant site is used in lieu of a party website.) (Also, they have no logo.)

America’s Party:

  • “We’re ‘The Citizen-Led Campaign to Save America’. Our purpose? The same as the stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution: ‘To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’ That’s why we’re pro-life and pro-liberty, and will always unswervingly support a strong and secure America. Along with the signers of the Declaration of Independence, we believe in the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from our Creator, and that just government can only exist by the consent of the governed. We call these ‘America’s Principles.'”
  • “America’s Party, originally known as America’s Independent Party, is a conservative American political party formed in 2008 by supporters of Alan Keyes as an alternative to the Republican, Democratic and other parties. […] The party seeks to reform the tax structure by advocating the repeal of the 16th Amendment, and despite the fact that many members support the FairTax, the platform remains open on what to replace the Federal income tax with. The party supports the Federal Marriage Amendment being added to the U.S. Constitution. It is also pro-life on abortion.” [more]

Party for Socialism and Liberation:

  • “The Party for Socialism and Liberation believes that the only solution to the deepening crisis of capitalism is the socialist transformation of society. Driven by an insatiable appetite for ever greater profits regardless of social cost, capitalism is on a collision course with the people of the world and the planet itself. Imperialist war; deepening unemployment and poverty; deteriorating health care, housing and education; racism; discrimination and violence based on gender and sexual orientation; environmental destruction—all are inevitable products of the capitalist system itself. […] We fight for a society in which the working class, the vast majority, holds power. Only when the tremendous wealth of society is owned by the many who created it, rather than the few who now hold legal title to it, will it be possible to speak about democracy in any realistic way. In place of an economic system based on maximizing profits, we stand for an economy based on meeting people’s needs in a way that is environmentally sustainable. The resources exist to guarantee every person on Earth the right to employment, adequate food, clean water, health care, housing, education, cultural activities and more. But these basic needs will never be met as long as control of the productive wealth and resources remains in the hands of the capitalists. Capitalism thrives on oppression and division along the lines of nationality, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, age, ability/disability and religion. We seek a new society based on equality and solidarity among all people.”
  • “The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States. […] The PSL sees as its main goal the formation of a revolutionary workers’ party, based upon the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. This party would lead a revolution and pave the way towards socialism. Under socialism a new government of working people would be formed. The PSL proposes many radical changes to be implemented by this government. In the political sphere all elected representatives should be recallable, securing freedom of speech for the working class (except in the case of xenophobia or bigotry and to prevent re-establishment of the capitalist system) and the elimination of corporate influence from politics. Concerning economics the PSL would, among other measures, prohibit the exploitation of labor for private profit, implement a working week of 30 hours and the eradication of poverty through the introduction of a basic income guarantee. The PSL would grant the right of self-determination to all oppressed nations of the US, such as “African Americans, Native, Puerto Rican and other Latino national minorities, the Hawai’ian nation, Asian, Pacific Islander, Arab and other oppressed peoples who have experienced oppression as a whole people under capitalism”. The current US “colonies”, which according to the PSL are “Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and the Mariana Islands”, will be granted independence. The PSL would end the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and close all foreign military bases of the US.” [more]

American Third Position:

  • “The American Third Position is a patriotic, democratic alternative to the two parties that have wrecked our great nation. […] Parts of our beautiful country now resemble Third World communities in Latin America, Africa and Asia. White people are already a minority in many cities and counties, along with several states, both large and small. Without constructive political action, within a few decades we will become a minority across the entire country. Enough is enough! The American Third Position Party believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination. Our government no longer represents us. The American Third Position Party believes that we should put America first! ‘We want to end these perpetual wars and focus on job creation. We are Constitutionalists who want to stop the immigrant invasion and cultural Marxism, and preserve the best traditions of America by putting America first!'”
  • “The American Third Position Party (A3P) is a third positionist American political party which promotes white supremacy. […] [It] defines its principal mission as representing the political interests of white Americans. The party takes a strong stand against immigration and globalization, and strongly supports an anti-interventionist foreign policy. Although the party does not support labor unions, they do strongly support the labor rights of the American working class on a platform of placing American workers first over illegal immigrant workers and banning of overseas corporate relocation of American industry and technology.” [more]

Objectivist:

  • “The Objectivist Party seeks to promote Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism in the political realm.”
    • “All human beings have an individual right to life and are born with freedoms based upon this right. These freedoms include one’s right to free thought, free action and the freedom to keep what is produced. It is the role of government to protect these rights, but to never encroach upon them. Living in society benefits man only if that society recognizes and protects these rights and freedoms.
    • All human beings have a right to their own thoughts and have the potential to use reason to realize their rational self-interest and to live productive lives. It is the role of government to protect an individual’s right to think or act against the initiation of force by others.
    • All human beings have a right to their own property and to keep what they produce. This includes the right and responsibility to decide what to do with all that is created. All individuals have a right to trade freely with others. No government should interfere with any transaction or trade involving individuals.
    • All human beings have the right to protect themselves from any initiation of force against their rights or liberties. To enhance this individual right, citizens entrust to their government the right to protect them from domestic and foreign threats. As a result, it is a proper role of government to protect a nation’s borders and to protect a nation’s citizens from other people and/or governments.”
  • “The party believes in the repeal of the federal income tax; thus the repeal of the 16th Amendment.  The income tax would then be replaced by a flat tax of 10% or federal sales tax. The party supports the 2nd Amendment, but only as long as violent criminals are not permitted to own any weapon.” [more]

Socialist Equality Party:

  • “The Socialist Equality Party is a political party of and for the working class. The SEP seeks not to reform capitalism, but to create a socialist, democratic and egalitarian society through the establishment of a workers’ government and the revolutionary transformation of world economy. We seek to unify workers in the United States and internationally in the common struggle for socialism—that is, for equality and the rational and democratic utilization of the wealth of the planet.”
  • “The program of the Socialist Equality Party provides the working class with the way forward. […] First, we insist that the key to the future lies in the international unity of the working class. The interests of the working class cannot be defended on the basis of a national program. In every country, working people are oppressed by transnational corporations that scour the globe for profits. […] Second, we fight for social equality, which is the foundation of socialism and a humane society. […] The SEP insists that such essential needs as decent-paying jobs, quality education, affordable housing, universal health care, a dignified retirement and access to culture are not privileges. They are inalienable social rights, the modern-day prerequisites of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The workers should not plead for these rights, they must fight for them. […] Third, the SEP opposes imperialist militarism and the assault on democratic rights, which is being led by the Obama administration. […] Fourth, the SEP opposes the political subordination of the working class to the Democrats and Republicans, which are bought-and-paid-for instruments of big business. […] Private ownership of the banks, major industries and critical resources must be replaced with public ownership. The anarchy of the market must be supplanted by rational economic planning geared to the needs of the people and under their democratic control.”
  • “The Socialist Equality Party (SEP) is a Trotskyist political party in the United States.” [more]

There are also people running as “Unaffiliated” and as “We the People” (though not connected with any party or org called “We the People” — of which there are plenty — that I could determine).

So … three conclusions from the above (beyond contemplation about the pros and cons of our largely two-party system):

  1. A lot of folks have real problem with web design. I mean … yeesh.  (The SEP had one of the nicest, for what it’s worth.)
  2. Some parties certainly make it easy to find a simple, short, fundamental statement of principles.  Others … don’t.  I will note that the Dems and GOP are quite noteworthy among those others.
  3. Anyone who thinks that the Democrats, or Obama, are “socialists” or “Marxists” hasn’t read through the websites of some of the groups above.  That is what real socialism / communism looks like.

If you are a mail-in voter in Colorado

Here's how to determine if your ballot has been received.

Embedded Link

Want to check on the status of your mail ballot? Here’s how
Want to check on the status of your mail ballot? Here’s how : The Denver Post’s political and editorial writers give a daily dish of Colorado political news, analysis and commentary on local, state an…

Google+: View post on Google+

(Political) Party Time

Looking at the ballot, I get to vote for the Presidential Electors for:

American Constitution
Democratic
Republican
Libertarian
Green
Socialist, USA
Justice
Peace and Freedom
Socialist Workers
America's
Socialism and Liberation
American Third Position
Unaffiliated
Objectivist
We the People
Socialist Equality

That's a lot of parties going on.   Hmmm. I sense a blog research project …

Google+: View post on Google+

“Because Joe Miklosi HATES CHILDREN … especially YOURS!”

Um … not really.

This has been a hotly contested race for the 6th Congressional District in Colorado. It’s been a traditionally very safe Republican district (Tom Tancredo was the Representative from here for several terms), and Mike Coffman has been pretty comfortable as the incumbent.  Except that we just redistricted (even though Coffman hasn’t bothered to update his map), and it’s now a pretty even D/R split, which means that the Republicans, especially lately as Coffman was slipping in the polls, have had to pull out all the stops to try and win.

Thus today I got yet another piece of campaign recyclable glossy paper from the Colorado Republican Committee, all about … the EVIL, ANTI-CHILD, PRO-LAWYER, PRO-MOLESTER candidate for US Congress, Joe Miklosi:

Joe Miklosi Left Child Predators on Our Streets.
Miklosi Voted Against  Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Predators.

Miklosi voted with the lawyers who defend these child predators, turning his back on Colorado’s families.
Joe Miklosi cast one of the deciding votes against Jessica’s Law, leaving dangerous child predators on our streets.
Failing to protect our children.
ONE VOTE.
A lifetime of consequences.

And it points to this page from the Mike Coffman (current R incumbent) campaign, which includes this lovely SCAAAARY VIDEO:

Now, I don’t know Joe Miklosi personally, but I’m pretty sure that neither he (nor Mike Coffman) would actually vote to “leave dangerous child predators on our streets.”

So what was going on here?  Let’s search the Internet!

Long story short:

The “258,000 children abducted each year” number in the ad is goofy scare tactics, since it bears no resemblance to the number of “child predator” sexual attacks that occur in the country each year. (The vast majority of that number is abductions by family members, for example.)

The tale in question has to do with the implementation of a “Jessica’s Law” for Colorado back in 2009.  That’s named after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, who was raped and murdered in Florida.  That state’s Jessica’s Law includes mandatory minimum first-time sentences for child sexual predators and mandatory lifetime electronic tracking after release. A couple dozen states have enacted their own versions (in full or in part) of Jessica’s Law.

In 2009, an attempt to pass a Jessica’s Law minimum sentencing provision in Colorado died in committee. Its supporters then tried to attach it as an amendment to another bill to toughen penalties on internet predators. That attempt failed, and Miklosi was one of the people (Democrat and Republican) who voted the amendment down by four votes.

Miklosi says he voted against the amendment because it endangered the internet predator law by adding on an unfunded $19 million price tag.  Also, under Colorado law most child predators were already getting life sentences. (There’s a distinct lack of “because I want child predators out on the street” or “because I like child predators’ lawyers” in his justification.)

Miklosi went on to vote for the internet predator bill.

Bottom line: the Coffman ad trumps up misleading statistics, and offers a gross misrepresentation of what Miklosi did and his motivations in doing so.

(The local police union agrees.)

And sure, yeah, “that’s politics,” but lying about someone supporting child abusers strikes me as more than a bit beyond the pale.

And art of what’s made this whole advertising campaign against Miklosi particularly pernicious is that, while it was running, a young girl named Jessica was kidnapped here in the Denver area.  The Coffman campaign was asked to suspend the ad, but said “it wasn’t possible.”  Really? There were no other ads they couldn’t offer up to the TV stations instead?

It strikes me as particularly pernicious, beyond the (lack of) veracity of the ad campaign, to further take advantage of a tragedy with it.

So, while I’d been inclined to vote for Miklosi over Coffman before, I’m even more so now.  Thanks for making that decision easier, Mike and your Colorado Republican Committee cohorts! May you receive your deserved reward on November 6th!

Bumshell

This?  _This_ is The Donald's "October Surprise" "bombshell" that will "change everything"?

Trump offers to write a $5 million check to whatever charity(ies) Obama wishes if Obama hands over (to The Donald's satisfaction) all his college records, college applications, passport applications, etc., by the 31st.

Given that folks on the Right have been agitating for this stuff (and whatever other scraps of paper they can collect about Obama) as part of a variety of spooky conspiracy theories for years, the only thing "new" here is that Trump is making it all about himself and his conditional charitable largesse.  And  making things all about himself is, in fact, nothing new for Trump.

Google+: View post on Google+

Pandering on Punishment

A few thoughts.

1. I don't think Mitt Romney gives a fig one way or the other on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. He just knows what will get him conservative base votes. And nobody ever lost votes among the GOP base by wrapping himself up in the flag and giving a razzberry to the UN.

2. Conservative paranoia over the UN never fails to boggle my mind.  As if, should the US ratify the CRC (which every other UN member except Somalia has done), we will instantly see military patrols in blue helmets arresting parents who give their kids a swat on the butt.  Because I'm sure that's just what's going to also happen in China, Russia, India, Iran, the UK, Brazil, etc., right?

Has the US ever signed a UN treaty/convention that actually affected substantive, anti-constitutional changes on people's everyday life?

These things are guidelines, people. They are a statement of principles. They are a tool for moral suasion and diplomatic discussions.  The US looks like a bunch of barbarous dolts and bullies in refusing to sign this.

3. Corporal punishment and children is certainly a contentious subject (along a broad spectrum of what such punishment entails).  I am amazed both by people who say "Anyone who does more than waggle their finger at a kid is guilty of emotional abuse and should have their kids removed immediately," but more so by the apparently much larger number who say "Jesus gave me the constitutional right to take a baseball bat to my kid and anyone who says differently will get a whack with it, too."

That said, there's nothing in the CRC (http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp ) that specifically does away with corporal punishment in principle, nor is there anything I see any more stringent than the principles already embodied in child welfare laws across the US.

Embedded Link

Mitt Romney, Defender of Spanking?
In a little-noticed signal to a Virginia evangelical power broker, the GOP candidate promised to block a hot-button UN treaty.

Google+: View post on Google+

It's almost worth it just to see Bryan Fischer have a conniption

Of course, Fischer has resisted Romney as a candidate tooth and claw, being staunchly anti-Mormon (including them in the group of non-Christian religions that only get to freely practice because of true Christians granting them the privilege, not because they are covered under the First Amendment, which Fischer says only covers Christians).

So learning that Romney (or so we hear) promised the Log Cabin Republicans that if they supported him, then he'd sign ENDA into law (which, if passed, would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation), Fischer was the first off the mark to lambaste the GOP contender in a series of tweets.

I fully expect:

a. Other Religious Right figures to call on Romney to do the same.
b. Romney's campaign to announce sometime tomorrow that it was all a big misunderstanding and no such commitment was actually made.
c. Regardless of whether (b) happens or not, Romney to get the Religious Right vote, because, y'know, even a gay-supporting Mormon is better than That Man in the White House.

Reshared post from +David Badash

Embedded Link

Wait For It… Wait For It… Right Wing Freaks Over Romney Promise To Sign ENDA Into Law
Bryan Fischer, the public face of the certified anti-gay hate group, American Family Association, just minutes ago freaked out because Romney promised to sign ENDA.

Google+: View post on Google+

Speaking of foreign policy and the candidates

Of course, that people polled in both China and France prefer Obama to Romney probably wouldn't do Obama much good among the American electorate. In fact, probably the opposite.

(Not surprising the Pakistanis are the only ones polled who prefer Obama less. That's because Romney isn't lobbing drones into their country. Yet.)

(h/t +Koushik Dutta)

Reshared post from +Koushik Dutta

Embedded Link

If The World Picked U.S. President, Election Would Be A Blowout : NPR
Out of 21 countries surveyed in a BBC World Service poll, only Pakistan chose Romney over Obama. The president enjoyed his greatest support in France.

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Colorado Ballot Propositions 2012: Amendment 65

So far we’ve had Civil Service reform (weakening) in Amendment S, and Marijuana Legalization in Amendment 64.  Tonight, the last statewide initiative on the ballot: Amendment 65, the (kinda-sorta) Campaign Finance Reform initiative.

So here’s the problem:

  • A lot of people agree that excess money from individuals and organizations distorts the political process, giving undue influence on the electorate, and undue influence on beholden office-seekers.  Even where corruption doesn’t actually occur, the very appearance of corruption is corrosive to the process.
  • The Supreme Court says that money = speech, and that corporations = people, so any sort of limits on campaign financing in statutory law are limited and (if challenged) dubious at best.

Amendment 65 tackles this problem. Sort of. It doesn’t actually do anything, but it’s meant to send a “message”:

  1. It instructs the Colorado congressional delegation to propose and support a US constitutional amendment that would allow the feds and states to limit campaign contributions and spending.
  2. It instructs the state legislature to pass any US constitutional amendment that gets proposed to that end.

Which is all very nice, but even a state constitutional amendment cannot actually compel an elected representative (federal or state) to vote a certain way.  So this Amendment is largely a feel-good “sense of the people” kind of thing — a political statement by the populace to future state and federal representatives.

On the one hand, that seems fairly useless (the arguments against suggest that the effort would be better placed electing congressional representatives that support this proposal).  On the other hand, it is a statement of the will of the people, to be flouted (should the opportunity arise) at some peril. On the gripping hand, yes, is this really something we need to be embedding in the state constitution — a non-binding “will of the people” of those who went to the polls in 2012?

(I’m not going to argue the merits of campaign finance and spending reform. I tend to believe in its need and disbelieve that any sort of system will ever be effective in restricting it save for a completely publicly funded campaign setup, which will introduce its own distortions and challenges.)

My net-net recommendation is in support of Amendment 65, to vote “Yes” on it.  I’m not altogether happy with either what it will actually do, nor with cluttering up the state constitution with such things (really, if there’s a candidate for a legislative proposition, rather than constitutional one, this is it).

But I think the basic principle of trying to stem the tide of millionaires, billionaires, and shadowy consortia thereof flooding the airwaves and mailboxes with whatever lying crap they want to (on any particular side of any particular race) and having that be the most prominent emblem of “free speech” in our land seems a worthy philosophical effort. I will vote “Yes” on Amendment 65.

Yes, clearly just another voting-suppressive mistake

Maricopa County in Arizona again seems to have (purely innocently, of course) given the wrong date for the election in Spanish-language materials.

'Yvonne Reed, spokesperson for the Maricopa County Department of Elections, told HuffPost that some of the Spanish-language notices were incorrect because the department used the election date from last year, but that they are no longer being distributed.'

Yes, for some reason all the other 2012 dates on the document are the correct ones, but the General Election date, in just the Spanish translation, was retained with the wrong date.  

A mere coincidence, I'm sure.

Embedded Link

Arizona County Puts Out Another Spanish-Language Flyer With Wrong Election Date
The general election is Nov. 6, but Spanish-speakers in Maricopa County, Ariz., are being told otherwise, with now two documents from the county's elections department stating the date — in Spanish -…

Google+: View post on Google+

Election monitors use black helicopters to pollute our precious bodily fluids!

Election monitors use black helicopters to pollute our precious bodily fluids!

Just like they have since 2002. And in other non-news events that the conservative media are having hissy fits over …

Embedded Link

Conservatives Panic Over ‘U.N.-Affiliated’ Election Monitors
Conservative blogs and news media are all buzzing about a team of international election monitors coming to observe the presidential elections in November. The observers are arriving at the invitation…

Google+: View post on Google+

Romney: Government Stimulus = Bad (but it makes for a nice speaking venue)

Romney: Government Stimulus = Bad (but it makes for a nice speaking venue)

Mentioned only for (a) the mild irony and (b) it's a local landmark.

Embedded Link

After Bashing Government Spending, Romney Campaigns At National Landmark Built By The New Deal
On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney and his campaign advisers have made a habit of attacking the 2009 Recovery Act (i.e. the stimulus). Romney calls the stimulus, “the largest one-time careless expendi…

Google+: View post on Google+