Abort! Abort!

I've worked various election campaigns, and phone-banking is one of the most depressing, soul-grinding things you can do. Important, but sweet baby Jesus, you get to hear from all the losers, idiots and, worse, the one-issue voters.

Yes, they're out there. We could be emerging from the rubble of a GOP-led recession, the challenger could be saber-rattling for a third war in the Middle East and trying to set up robber barons for another Gilded Age, and you'd still have people on the phones listening to babbling lunatics explain how they could never vote for the Negro Abortionist.

Well, if there's people out there fixating on one subject, let's look at that subject for a moment, shall we?

(If you know anybody doing phone-banking in these waning days of the campaign, feel free to share this with them. You don't even need to give me credit for it. I'll be honest. It won't help: one-issue voters are not changing their minds, regardless of how many facts you run past them. But, well... at least you'll feel better.)

Barack Obama has been reliably pro-choice his entire career. This is not under dispute. But despite what many on the right like to claim, he is not a "radical abortionist."

While he did vote against bills to prevent "sex-selection" abortion and various bills which claimed to protect infants born alive due to failed abortions, but not due to some radical agenda. All were introduced by radical anti-abortionists, and all were so general that they could be twisted by political activists to begin the process of making all abortions illegal. Plus, the "failed abortion" acts were redundant even before they were written: Illinois law already protects an aborted fetus which turns out to be born alive.

But if you think that a vote for Romney is a "pro-life" vote, then, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

Because the truth of the matter is, nobody (probably not even Mitt Romney) knows what Romney's personal feelings are on abortion. Just looking at the evidence, his political advisers have determined that it would be best for his campaign if he was pro-life. But the people who know him give the impression that he isn't so much "pro-choice" as "uncaring." This isn't really a subject he feels like addressing.

But there's nothing here that qualifies as evidence. So, to determine the truth, we have to look at his record, and consider what Mitt Romney has actually done.

That, however, is also a mistake. Because the only conclusion to be drawn from history is that Mittens will say anything and do anything if he believes it is politically expedient.

In 1994, debating Teddy Kennedy, Romney said that he supported Roe vs Wade. Kennedy responded "I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice," leading Romney to tell a heartwarming story of a close relative named Ann Keenan.

"I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."

Look it up. While you do, keep in mind that one joke he made there, that he will "not impose (his) beliefs on other people." (It'll seem funnier later.)

In 2002, debating gubernatorial opponent Shannon O'Brien, he added "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I am not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself."

But in 2005, as governor, Romney vetoed a law which would ease access to emergency contraception. He explained through an Op-Ed in the Boston Globe, where he said he was "pro-life" and opposed any "judicial mandate" that dictated a nationwide abortion law, arguing instead that the issue should be left up to the states.

"I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," Romney wrote. "I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." Romney said he would uphold his campaign promise not to change Massachusetts' abortion laws, even though that campaign pledge was preceded by Romney's statement that he would "protect a woman's right to chose."

Then, during his first presidential bid in 2007, Romney explained that he had "changed my mind" on abortion while serving his one term as Massachusetts governor, and that "we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states." He also said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill as president that would outlaw abortion, if there "was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period."

(He even had a cute little explanation, about how Reagan and both Bushes had started out pro-choice, and changed to become pro-life. Like so many of Romney's stories, it was a lie. But even though he was called out on it, he used it again a few years later.) Still with me?

From 2005 to 2011, Romney consistently said that he was "pro-life" and believes abortion should be legal only in the case "of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." That may be the longest stretch he ever went without reversing himself.

During the Republican primary last year, Romney expanded that view to explain how he believed he should cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, reverse Roe v. Wade "because it is bad law and bad medicine," and end funding for any international aid program that "promotes or performs abortions on women around the world."

But remember: he won't force his beliefs on other people.

He wrote it out for us in a National Review Op-Ed in June 2011. "If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation's next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America." Apparently, one of his advisers thought he needed to take a hard right tack.

Having said repeatedly that abortion laws should be left up to the states, in October 2011 he went on Fox "News" and told Mike Huckabee that he "absolutely" supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.

But now, less than two months after accepting the GOP nomination, Romney is casually trying to amble back toward the center on his abortion stance, telling the Des Moines Register last month that he would not make abortion legislation part of his agenda. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." (It comes about 14 minutes into the audio of the interview.)

Funny, because in his National Review Op-Ed, he named three specific pieces of legislation he supported: "I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions... I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy (to bar foreign aid from abortion providers)... I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children..."

But hell, his friends, family and coworkers are just as confused about Romney's position as Romney is. After he spoke to the Des Moines Register, Romney's spokesperson, Andrea Saul was quick to contradict her candidate, saying "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president."

On the other hand, his sister Jane, back in August (you remember August, right? Her brother was "severely conservative" back then...), said that any fear that Romney would restrict abortion was "conjured," and that "it's not his focus."

At a "Women for Mitt" event held in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in Tampa, she said "He's not going to be touching any of that...  Mitt's much more in the middle" than even the GOP platform (which supports several anti-abortion initiatives and a "Right to Life" amendment with no exceptions for rape or incest).

Romney's surrogate, former Senator Norm Coleman, seems to agree with Jane, saying in Ohio last week, "President Bush was president for eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn't reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn't reversed. It's not going to be reversed."

And then we have that last debate with Obama, where Romney went even further left, saying Obama was "totally wrong" about him wanting to shut down Planned Parenthood. Of course, he was also trying to blame gun violence on single mothers (presumably women who had escaped his binders), so perhaps he was just having an off night.

It's funny, isn't it? Romney's positions on abortion seem to change whenever there's an election nearby, and what position would be most popular with the people voting in that election. That's kind of weird. You have to wonder - is he a vacillating bag of douche, or a cynical, calculating fucknozzle?

Personally, I vote for the second one.

A small addendum...

Speaking as a veteran with two tours of the Middle East, I think I should mention just one small point to our friends on the right wing.

Tagg, you're it.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Columbus

Were you aware that there is a movement to rename Columbus Day "Exploration Day"? It's true: a general celebration of exploration, rather than the glorification of just one man.

First celebrated nationally in 1937, Columbus Day pays homage to Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas. It is, needless to say, viewed very differently by different groups of Americans. Some people forget it's a holiday at all. Some Italian Americans see it as a point of cultural pride. Other people — especially Native Americans — point out that Columbus personally oversaw the murder and enslavement of thousands and see the holiday as an intrinsically cruel celebration of the beginning of a massive genocide and generations of oppression.

Christopher Columbus, much like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson after him, is a widely mythologized figure, remembered in song and story for having discovered America, thereby proving once and for all that the world was round.

Thanks to the miracle of the American educational system, that's pretty much all most Americans know about the story. It also happens to be complete crap.

First of all (and this argument is actually known by most Americans), how could he have "discovered" America when the Native Americans were already there? Or when the Vikings were in Greenland, and possibly points south, from the tenth century through the mid-fifteenth century?

(There's also the theory that Chinese Admiral Zheng He discovered America in 1421, but that's been mostly debunked - Zheng He [a.k.a. "Cheng Ho"] stuck primarily to known trade routes, and visited India, the Middle East and Africa, the islands around them, and some various stops in Asia.)

On top of which, the people of Europe were well aware that the world was round: Aristotle had proven that in the 4th Century BC.

You might also think that Queen Isabella of Spain gave him her jewels to fund the trip: actually, she turned him down. It was King Ferdinand who overruled her and paid for half the expedition; the other half was financed by Italian investors who Columbus had lined up.

What were the names of his ships? The Niña, the Pinta and the Santa Maria, right? Well, that's not even entirely accurate: the Santa Clara was nicknamed Niña ("Girl") because her owner was named Juan Nino of Moguer.

A lot of the mythology comes from Washington Irving, who, in 1828, wrote "A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, which actual scholars have called "fanciful and sentimental." (Really? The guy who wrote "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and "Rip Van Winkle" might have an active imagination?)

Columbus never set foot in North America: after his first voyage (he had four), he was named Viceroy and Governor of the Indies (which as far as he was concerned, was mostly Hispaniola), and he poked around in the adjoining islands, which included Cuba; his third voyage touched down briefly on the north-east corner of South America, and on his fourth voyage, he actually explored part of the Central American coast.

But he wasn't a particularly good or moral man. He tortured, killed and enslaved the local people; when the native Taino people of Hispaniola revolted at their treatment and killed the men left there as a colony from the first expedition, Columbus demanded a quarterly tribute in gold and cotton. Anyone over the age of 14 who didn't deliver had their hands cut off and was left to bleed to death.

He and his men frequently kidnapped and raped the native women. One of Columbus' childhood friends, Michele da Cuneo, wrote about one such incident this way:

While I was in the boat, I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me. When I had taken her to my cabin she was naked - as was their custom. I was filled with a desire to take my pleasure with her and attempted to satisfy my desire. She was unwilling, and so treated me with her nails that I wished I had never begun. But - to cut a long story short - I then took a piece of rope and whipped her soundly, and she let forth such incredible screams that you would not have believed your ears. Eventually we came to such terms, I assure you, that you would have thought that she had been brought up in a school for whores.

After his third voyage, some of his sailors revolted, claiming he'd lied to them about the wealth they'd be able to find in the New World (which, by the way, Columbus was still saying was the Orient); that, plus continued reports of his treatment of the natives, caused the Spanish Crown to order his arrest and return to Spain.

He only spent six weeks in prison before the crown ordered his release; after all, he'd paid back his debt, and more, in gold and slaves. He was allowed to make one more expedition, with the Santa Maria and three smaller ships. All four were destroyed, and Columbus and his men were stranded on Jamaica for a year before they were rescued. (The new governor on Hispaniola hated Columbus, and refused to allow any of his ships to rescue them.)

He returned to Spain, where he lived out his last two years of life. He tried to get the Spanish Crown to pay him 10% of all profits from the New World, as they'd agreed before his first voyage, but since he'd been relieved of his duties as governor, Spain didn't feel they needed to pay him. (The lawsuits filed by his heirs because of this lasted through the end of the 18th century.)

So Columbus opened the Americas to European settlement, and made Spain the preeminent power in the area for many years; he also managed to bring one other thing back, along with gold and slaves: he introduced syphilis to Europe. The initial outbreak is thought to have killed more than five million Europeans.

Really, David Gregory?

So, I thought I'd email "Meet the Press" today.

So, let me get this straight. You had Ralph Reed on, to impugn the honesty of Barack Obama.

First, it might have been nice if you'd disclosed that he was working for Mitt Romney. That might have been a basic level of truth that you could have established at the beginning. Just a thought.

Second... Ralph Reed? Seriously? Didn't he work with Jack Abramoff to steal from Native Americans in at least two states: the Choctaw in Alabama and the Tigua in El Paso, Texas? (I believe his entire résumé was an email to Abramoff reading "Hey, now that I’m done with electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts.")

You have a thief and a liar on to discuss the honesty of the President of the United States? Without talking about HIS background, or about the fact that he is now working for the Romney campaign? Did you miss a few classes when you were getting that journalism degree?

I'm just curious.

Sadly, I didn't have the emails for either David Gregory or his executive producer Betsy Fischer Martin, or I'd have gone straight to the source.

Remember, folks. This is what the GOP likes to call the "liberal media." Go figure.

The Continuing Adventures of Rocky and Boris

Rocky and Boris are still trying to work out their relationship. (Here's a little backstory in the off chance you aren't up to speed.)

I've always had dogs. Boris is roughly the same size as the other dogs I've usually owned, so I said this morning that he was a "medium" dog. My wife corrected me: "No, he's a large dog."

I granted her the point, saying that he was about the size of my usual dog, so it's what I'm used to. She looked at me and shook her head. "No, that's a median dog."

(I walked over, kissed her, and told her that I knew there was a reason I married her.)

Boris is many things, but he's never been an alpha male. He has been known to stand up for himself on rare occasions, so he isn't an omega male, but for the most part, he isn't even a beta. He's an iota; maybe a pi.

It's actually kind of cute, watching Boris and Rocky: it's been a long time since Boris actually frolicked like a puppy, but he does. And considering that Rocky is less than half the size of Boris, you'd think he'd be a little more intimidated. He's not.

When Boris has a chew toy that Rocky wants, some of the most fascinating tugs-of-war ever seen occur. At one point, I made a sound that caught Boris' attention, and he sat up and looked at me. With Rocky dangling off the chunk of rawhide in Boris' mouth, growling, back paws barely touching the floor.

Boris spent several years getting pushed around by Tasha: she'd eat her food, and then however much of Boris' she wanted, while he'd just stand back and let her. She was the boss. So when it's dinnertime, if Rocky decides to push his face into Boris' bowl, Boris just stands back and watches him eat both bowls of food.

Rocky may push him around, but they're friends. If they're in the yard and the neighbor's dogs come running up to the back fence, Boris will stop whatever he's doing, stand up straight, walk over to the fence and firmly sit down, watching them.

He isn't smart enough to know that there's no way the other dogs can get to Rocky. He just knows he's going to protect his little buddy.

So, here's how Monday started. I stumbled out of bed, put a spoon of canned dogfood in water, nuked it for 30 seconds to loosen the gelled bits, stirred it into a slurry, and added a little less than half to a bowl of puppy chow, and the rest to a bowl of dog chow.

Rocky, at this point, is bouncing around like a squirrel on meth, so I put his bowl down first, where he leaps on it like he hasn't seen food in a week. Boris somewhat sedately walks over to his bowl and starts eating.

I start to heat water for tea, and glance over, to see Rocky eating Boris' food, as Boris sits a foot behind him looking morose.

I picked up Rocky with a stern "no!" and put him by his food again. Boris huffed and went back to eating.

There followed a vaudeville routine. I looked around, looked down, and Rocky had pushed Boris aside again. Push Rocky over to his food bowl. The water starts to boil. Dash over to the stove. Snap "Rocky!" Take the water off the heat. Pull Rocky out of Boris' food.

Finally, it entered my sleep-addled mind that either I stood right there until Boris finished eating (and I had to get ready for work), or I had to separate them. So I picked up Rocky in one arm, his food in the other, and went over to the back door. Put down Rocky to slide the door open, put his food on the porch, go back to Boris's bowl and pick up Rocky, and put him out with his food.

I made my tea, went to the bathroom, brushed my teeth, and came back to the kitchen to see that Boris had finished eating, and Rocky was at the door literally vibrating with excitement.

So I opened the door, and a little beige streak shot past my legs aimed directly for the empty food bowl. I picked up Rocky's half-full one, carried it over and set it down. Picked up my tea, and turned around to see Rocky frantically licking Boris' bowl.

And Boris calmly eating the puppy chow.

Time to call Congress. Again.

If you've been paying attention to little things like "reality" (as opposed to the partisan propaganda that seems to have overtaken much on the American thoughtscape), you've probably noticed that Obama is something of a centrist. He prefers to work with both sides to come to a conclusion that both can live with.

Of course, if you listen to Fox "News," he's a dangerous radical and the most far-left socialist of our time. And if you just hang out on the extreme right fringes, he's a (pick any two... or four) dangerous radical leftist Muslim socialist Satanic communist Kenyan fascist extremist arrogant totalitarian dictator terrorist. (Some of them try to avoid saying "black" or any variation of it, although Rush Limbaugh did try to coin the phrase "halfrican" at one point. But let's move on.)

The Right applied a similar fun-house mirror effect to the presidency while Clinton was in office, labeling him a hippie and a "radical leftist," despite the fact that Clinton implemented a dramatic deficit reduction plan while lowering the taxes of working family; he developed a crime bill which hired 100,000 police officers and drastically expanded the use of the death penalty; he instituted the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (despite their recent love of it, right wingers thought DADT would destroy the military at the time); and despite the myth of "liberals loving Big Government", Clinton reduced the size of government more than any president in three decades.

A lot of this anti-Clinton propaganda, of course, can be laid at the feet of Newt Gingrich, the nascent Fox "News" Channel, and their efforts to radicalize the right. In their ongoing efforts to rewrite history, the Right really, really wants to ignore what they were doing at the time. Some of us lived through it, though.

But I digress.

Despite the propaganda, Obama tries to work with Republicans. They're just too polarized to respond. And the fear is, he might be willing to consider cutting Social Security in his upcoming budgets. (After all, it wouldn't be the first time he's offered it.)

Which is why Senate Democrats have been forced to make a stand.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and 28 other members of the 53-member Senate Democratic caucus have signed a letter opposing any cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit reduction package.

The letter forms a significant marker as Congress looks toward a possible deficit bargain in the lame-duck session after the election. It says Social Security has problems down the road, but that they should be dealt with separately from any budget deal.

And this seemed like an appropriate approach to me. So, looking down the list, I noted that one of my two Senators, Tom Udall, had already signed on. I sent him a little note

Senator Udall,

I appreciate your efforts to help the most vulnerable American citizens. Specifically, in this case, I'd like to thank you for signing onto the letter that Senators Sanders, Franken and others put together, opposing any cuts to Social Security.

Full disclosure: I do not use Social Security, nor does any member of my immediate family, as far as I know. (My father, who retired from the Army as a full Colonel, does collect Social Security, but his retirement check could still support him even without it.)

However, I understand, unlike our Republican friends, that Social Security is an earned benefit, that far too often helps those who would otherwise be unable to support themselves. Even Paul Ryan, who only managed to go to college after his father died because of the Survivor's Benefits, wants to destroy any trace of a safety net in America (mostly because he's a hypocritical gasbag who follows Ayn Rand - not that he's willing to admit that while he's running for Vice President, but he has in the past).

Again, thank you, Senator. As long as you keep doing the right thing for the American people, you can always count on my my support.

But that's only one Senator. Like most states, New Mexico has two.

I was, perhaps, somewhat less supportive in my email to the other one.

Senator Bingaman,

I realize that you aren’t running for reelection, but I would appreciate it, as your constituent, if you could walk your butt down to Senator Reid’s office and sign on to the letter put together by Senators Sanders, Franken and company, saying that you oppose any cuts to Social Security as part of a deficit reduction package.

It would be nice if you could show that you cared about the most vulnerable citizens and in some small way, were opposed to allowing Americans to starve.

I realize that Social Security will need to be fixed sometime in the next twenty years or so, but eliminating the cap on any income over $107 thousand dollars might be enough to do that all by itself.

Please do the right thing as long as you’re still in office.

Thank you,

I realize that it's only a drop in the proverbial bucket; on the other hand, they say that one letter is counted as the opinion of a hundred people. I'm not sure how they count emails, but there it is.

Why Does The GOP Loves Mitt Romney?

I've been trying to figure out why the Republican party nominated Mitt Romney as their candidate for president. They spent 2004 castigating John Kerry as a "flip-flopper," but now they want to elect someone who has literally reversed himself on every single issue.



But then it hit me. There's no way that they couldn't love Mittens. He's one of them.

The right wing has spent years trying to claim how much they dislike the "liberal elite," so it's somewhat ironic that their 2012 presidential candidate is a Harvard lawyer and multi-millionaire with four houses and a freaking elevator for his cars. But it's understandable, because, just like Mitt, the GOP has managed to reverse themselves on almost every policy they ever supported.

Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves; admittedly, he left the Republican party (like any reasonable person would), but he did it. In fact, the party was founded six years before the Civil War by anti-slavery activists and "modernists." Despite having that history to act as guide and beacon for their moral compass, the GOP has opened their arms and embraced every bigoted pinhead out there.

Those of us who wander the dark side of the Internet are treated to a daily flood of images of Obama as a monkey or an African witchdoctor, watermelons grown on the White House lawn, variations on "can we still call it the White House?" and every other racist stereotype they can dredge up.

Do you want to see how ugly it can get out there? Turn Safesearch off and google "Obama nigger." (But trust me, that's not a nice place to spend any amount of time.)

Have you heard the Republican position on unions lately? With all their assaults on collective bargain and worker's rights, it's sometimes hard to recall that the GOP once embraced unionization as an important step towards strengthening the middle class.

Back in the day when the Republican party still supported the ideals of the "common man" over the aspirations of the super-rich, they knew that only by organizing and acting in groups, could the poor gain any influence in negotiations with the wealthy.

Admittedly, they still know that: they just don't think it's a good idea any more.

As Reagan put it, "where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." What, you don't believe me? Honest, he said it!


Despite their current efforts to do away with environmental protection and their mantra of "Drill, baby, drill!", the Republican Party used to consist of ardent conservationists like President Teddy Roosevelt, whose policies led to the creation of the National Park Service. And though they don't like to talk about him, Richard Nixon was a Republican, and he created the Environmental Protection Agency.

They've always been a little bit prudish. On October 28, 1919, a Republican-controlled Congress overrode the veto of President Woodrow Wilson (of the Progressive Party), and passed the Volstead Act, banning alcohol and bringing us Prohibition. Also, it was Edwin Meese, Attorney General for Ronald Reagan who created the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, which succeeded in getting magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse removed from convenience store shelves.

Yet despite this continuing drumbeat of "family values," it's the traditionally "red" states that consume the most pornography; at their national conventions, strippers prefer Republicans, who outspend Democrats three to one. Republican Congressmen hold a solid lead over Democrats in number of sex scandals, as well.

The GOP likes to claim that they support the concept of smaller government, but if that's so, why does every Republican president increase the number of government employees, while every Democratic president reduces them?

This is not the Republican Party of your father. (Nor of mine, although he's most likely going to vote for them.) But overall, on issue after issue, the GOP shows why they support a hypocritical, lying gasbag who can't keep a consistent position as their candidate. He's what they aspire to be.

Romney/Ryan. Two of a kind.

The RNC Clown College has gavelled itself back into their usual unscripted incoherence again, and, to the surprise of nobody anywhere, Romney and Ryan are the nominees for God Emperor and Fisher King, and the Tampa strippers now go back to making subsistence wages.

There are actually many reasons why Mitt Romney would choose Paul Ryan for the VP spot, and only one of them involves the fact that Ryan's tax plan would have Romney paying less than one percent in taxes.

Ryan is like Mitt in many ways - he is also in the habit of making huge, sweeping statements about what he'll do, without giving any details about how he'll do them. For example, his vaunted plan to balance the budget? Well, what few details have been released have been described as "ludicrous and cruel."

But more than that, the details he isn't releasing are important. Forbes magazine, one of the most staunchly conservative of publications, point out that it isn't a plan, calling it "vacuously vague" and "all candy and no vegetables."

But he's very protective of that plan: back in April, when the president pointed out some flaws in it, Ryan went on the attack in a speech later that evening, saying "I seem to remember him saying that he was going to be a uniter, not a divider. Frankly this is one and the worst of his broken promises. We do not need a campaigner-in-chief, we need a commander-in-chief."

(Isn't that cute? "The president shouldn't attack me! Democrats can't fight back!" And then he gives a Bush quote but attributes it to Obama. And then he attacks Obama. You have to admire that level of hypocrisy.)

And in keeping with the Romney strategy, he doesn't just avoid criticism by never giving any detailed policies, he's more than happy to lie his ass off, just like Romney. His big speech at the RNC kept fact-checkers busy for days.

But remember, avoiding lies isn't a major priority of this campaign. It was Romney's advisor Neil Newhouse who said "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."

Two men, defined only by their complete inability to tell the truth. They're made for each other.

The Dog Days of August

Now we're in for it.

I guess life was too quiet around the Cynic household. So we went and got a puppy.

Around 9 months ago, we finally had to have Tasha put down. On the dog front, that left us with Boris, who I've described before:

Unfortunately, as Boris got older, we discovered a minor problem - he's an idiot. Dumb as a bag of hammers. This might partly be due to a badly-healed skull-fracture that the vet discovered, which also led to his nose curving ever-so-slightly to the right. It might be due to the fact that Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are known to be a little vague. Or it might just be that he doesn't even have two brain cells to rub together....

Boris is both moose and squirrel rolled into one dust-covered package. He's lazy - he doesn't just sit, he'll lie down, or he'll lean against a wall. Some stray atom of thought will roll through the dark recesses of his skull, and he'll go bounding down the hall, running into walls, and either skid to a stop in the living room or ram, full-speed, into some piece of furniture. And then he'll stand there, looking around confused, because whatever phantom had momentarily interested him has apparently vanished into thin air.

Boris is also extremely friendly. He loves other dogs, people, cats, birds - anything that moves is his friend. We have hopes that a burglar breaks into our house while Tasha is still around, because left to his own devices, Boris will lick their faces and show them where we store the good china and the big TV.

Now, you can see where this might be an issue when one of our primary reasons for owning a dog is in place of paying for a burglar alarm, right? The Trophy Wife was pretty happy with answering the door when she had a giant ball of throbbing death growling at her side: it was a little off-putting to salesmen and Jehovah's Witnesses, and gave her a good reason to end the visit quickly.

We can't even get Boris to bark at the door on a regular basis when somebody knocks. We've gotten one bark out of him, once or twice, but so far, only when it's been somebody we expected and knew already. So that hasn't been completely successful.

So yesterday, we took a firm grip on our sanity, and calmly threw it out of the car. Ran over it a few times, and proceeded to the Animal Welfare folks to get another dog.

Now, I've always said that if we got a dog, I wanted a puppy. And for the perfectly logical reason: I like puppies. But, in talking to the wife, we realized that neither of us particularly wanted to housetrain another dog. Plus, Boris wouldn't be much of a mentor for a houseplant, much less a puppy. So we agreed that an older dog might be a good idea.

Unfortunately, our options were limited: with our menagerie, it needed to be a dog who could stand to be around cats, and, in fact, other dogs. Preferably not a biter, and definitely not one trained to fight (yes, we still have issues with that here in New Mexico: we were one of the last two states to outlaw that particularly reprehensible "sport"). So when we narrowed down our choices, none of them were particularly housebroken, and we realized that training a younger dog to poop outside would be easier than breaking a bad habit in an older beast.

So we ended up with a 5-month-old male, Rocky (in keeping with our Bullwinkle-themed canine history): in human terms, not really a baby, but just pre-adolescent. Twenty-three pounds of excitable labrador-and-something. He loves Boris, isn't sure about the cats yet, doesn't run around barking madly, and sincerely wants to be close to people.

There are, of course, the usual puppy challenges: he wants to chew on things, we've only had one accident so far, and we have to separate the dogs to keep Boris from eating the puppy food. (Oh, and Rocky did not appreciate his first bath. But he also didn't melt or explode, so he recovered quickly.)

Of course, at seven, with most of his life spent around a relatively placid older dog, Boris is not at all sure about this bouncing bundle of energy. But overall, they're getting along quite well.

Things ought to be interesting for a while. I believe there's an ancient Chinese curse to that effect.

Mr. Telephone Man

Well, we went and did it.

The Trophy Wife hasn't traditionally been rough on phones, but her's developed a small crack in the casing some time ago, and has been getting a little crotchety lately. So on Thursday, when it didn't ring the first time I called her, and then just completely dropped the call the second time, we knew it was time to get a new one.

But somewhere along the line, we lost our minds, broke down and upgraded to a Smart Phone. And since the Wookie Son had come along for the ride (it being mid-afternoon, so he was awake), he, too, ended up with an upgraded phone.

So they've spent the last two days pecking and swiping and learning all about their damned little gadgets with the adorable two-thumbed, slide-out keyboards and the touchscreens and all the various apps.

I have a phone. That's it off to the right. You know what it does? It calls people. That's all it does; it has a low-res screen (which shows phone numbers just fine, though), and it doesn't even have a camera. I'm OK with that.

That phone is the Sanyo SCP 7050. It's five years old, and still going strong - how many people do you know with a 5-year-old cell phone who aren't cursing about it? Rubberized case, military specs for durability and waterproofing; you can drop this one on the pavement (and I have), run over it with a truck, drop it in water, and it still keeps working.

You know why they stopped making this phone? Because nobody was buying new ones to replace the ones they broke: to kill this bastard, you have to put a stake through its heart, and then burn the remains, soak them with holy water, and bury them at the crossroads at midnight. And even as you're doing that, it might just ring.

Christ, people don't seem to have a problem getting hold of me as it is. Why should I want to make it easier for them? Hell, most of the time, I don't even want to talk to the people who call me anyway. Why use would I have for a phone that can call people, email them, connect to Twitter, and find them on Facebook?

So there it is. My wife and son now have phones that are officially smarter than I am. And I don't have a problem with this.

At least I didn't have to crack out the instruction manual to figure out how to answer when somebody calls. ("Oh, you have to swipe the green phone icon sideways, not just tap it. OK!")

<i>We must code</i>

Blogger recently did a redesign on its pages, and a lot of people don't appreciate it.

The spacing has gone weird, it likes to reset your font at random, and sometimes the background color will just do whatever the hell it wants. The problem is, I'm willing to bet, that you're working in "Compose" (that little button in the upper left, assuming you have the standard layout).

See, I have a little (very little) training in coding. And damn, but I wish I'd kept it up - in 1999, I could have made a ton of money just correcting a programming error in COBOL.

If you're having weird formatting issues, open that post, and click the button in the upper left labelled "HTML." What's probably going to happen is that a lot of crap that you've never seen before will suddenly appear in the middle of your post.

I know you don't care, but HTML stands for "HyperText Markup Language." It's just the commands that tell your computer how to do things on the internet. It's not usually scary, until you let a machine try to do it.

Because they use a program to put the HTML in the middle of your text. And one of the things that the program does is set your format for every paragraph (the font style, the font size, everything). And if you go back to something you've already written to change a few words, the program wants to reset the format again.

And sometimes, when you throw in a space it doesn't think is necessary, it'll throw some invisible symbol in there (usually starting with an ampersand and ending with a semicolon). You normally can't see those, but they exist.

And sometimes, there's so much unnecessary crap there that you can only barely find your text, hiding between various commands that have no real excuse for existing.

It's automated. Like any machine, it does exactly what it's been told to do, and doesn't vary in the slightest. So you just have to cut proto-Siri out of the equation. Here's what you do. And don't worry if you have no experience with computer code: we're going to start slow and work you up to it.

First, just accept the standard font and background. You can mess with those later when you're more comfortable with it. So, the first thing you need to do is to click the HTML button again. You're about to take a few (very few) tentative steps into the wonderful world of computer code.

Now, every HTML command gets bracketed by "greater than" and "less than" signs. That tells the computer to sit up and pay attention, because you're talking to it, by god!

So, for example, to tell it to put things into italics, you type <i>. That "i" tells it italics. (Exchange it for a "b" and you've just told it to bold the next bunch of letters.)

An important thing to remember at this point is that, just like in the Sorcerer's Apprentice, if you tell your computer to do something, it will keep doing it until it dies. So every command you open, you have to close. And in this case, that means that once you've told it to italicize something, you have to tell it to stop, usually with the same command, only preceded by a slash (so </i>). Think of the slash as you, telling your computer "stop, you bastard!"

In fact, once you've done it for a while, you'll discover that a lot of programming involves counting commands and seeing which one you didn't shut down. (Or counting parentheses and seeing which one you didn't close.)

The next thing you'll notice is that HTML doesn't like paragraphs. Everything you type ends up in one big block of text. To fix that, we have another command. We'll call it "break" (programmers like easy-to-remember commands, by the way.) It looks like this: <br/>

You'll notice that the slash is at the end. This one isn't paired up with a second command. It just inserts a break (what us old guys would call a "carriage return" - those of you too young to have used a typewriter... fuck you. You'll be old soon, too).

Me, I like double-spacing between paragraphs. So I end up typing <br/><br/> at the end of every paragraph.

Pro-tip: just to make it easy on you, after you enter the breaks (<br/>), hit "enter" and make a new paragraph (which the HTML will just ignore): it'll make it easier to edit your work later.

Now, there's just two more things to show you tonight.

The first is the hyperlink. It's a jump to a new web page. It goes like this: <a href="">

Now, inside those quotes, you'd put the address for whatever webpage you were interested in. If, for example, you were writing for a particularly slow audience and wanted to steer them to the Google homepage, you'd type <a href="http://www.google.com/">Google</a>

(Notice that the closing command was just "/a" - the first part of the command is the important part. Everything else is just details, giving it the specifics of what you want it to do).

And because we like to quote our sources sometimes, it's cool to be able to set them off from the stuff we wrote, perhaps slightly indented. To do this, you'd use the command <blockquote> at the beginning of the quote, and </blockquote> at the end. (Personally, I like to italicize those as well, which looks like this: <blockquote><i>quote goes here</i></blockquote>

To be honest, you don't have to get them in the exact order, either. I do, because it's easier to look at it and say "OK, I opened italics here, and closed them here. The hyperlink starts here and ends here." Like I said, if you get into any detailed coding, it's a good idea to have a simple system to follow.

So, to recap, if you type the following commands, you'll get the following results.

<i>Italics</i> gets you Italics

<b>Boldface</b> gets you Boldface

<a href="http://www.google.com/">Google</a> gets you a link to the Google homepage

If you need to set off a quote from the rest of your text, you use <blockquote>The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.</blockquote>, which gets you this:

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

And just so you know, you don't have to put breaks either before or after a blockquote. It already double-spaces on both sides of it.

Once you're comfortable with that, you can move on to more advanced commands. Which you can learn about by going to Google and asking for "HTML for background colors" (or whatever it is you want to change). But start slow: wait until you're comfortable with what you're doing right now.

Be careful what you wish for

Well, the Republicans have really gone and done it this time. In frantically trying to find a replacement for the Kenyan Devil-baby Usurper currently ensconced in the White House (oh, how ironic that term is now!), they seem to have all-but-nominated someone who is exactly like Obama.

Or, to be more accurate, someone who is exactly like the Obama that they see in their feverish hallucinations of a Destroyed America.

And I'm not talking about the fact that Mitt passed a healthcare plan in Massachusetts that Obamacare was modeled after. That would be too easy.

The frothing paste-eaters on the right like to claim, for example, that Barack and Michelle Obama are arrogant. (Google arrogant Obama - go ahead. I can wait.)

Of course, in this case, "arrogant" translates to "they're black and aren't ashamed of it!" So perhaps, by their extremely low standards, it's true.

Mittens and his wife Rafalka Ann actually fit the dictionary definition of the word "arrogant," rather than some racist dog-whistle. Mitt doesn't just fail to understand how ordinary people live, act and react, he just doesn't care.

And let's be honest. You don't get much more arrogant than referring to the common rabble as "you people."

Every time Obama visits another country or talks with a foreign leader, the right wing treats us to a strange, twisted version of reality, where Obama has been accused of going on an "apology tour" or "bowing to foreign dictators."

So, enter Mittens and His Worldwide Embarrassment Tour. What do we get?

Well, he went to England, where one of his manservants made a blatantly racist remark before he could be taken out back and strangled. Then Romney himself insulted the British people for being unprepared for the Olympics, leading, eventually, to a worldwide tour of fuckups and stumbles.


(I apologize for the ad - MSNBC has stronger mojo than I do.)

The right wing whispers conspiratorially that Obama is running some sort of "shadow government" that will lead to the "socialist transformation of America" because Obama doesn't explain every single move he makes, every hour of every day.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney hides every detail of his life and the policies he plans to put in place if elected, on the fascinating theory that if he lets you know, you might point out a flaw or two.

Overall, Mitt has decided that the best road to the once-again-White House will be to campaign, not as a viable candidate, but as a not-Obama: he has nothing on his own, but he isn't the black guy.

A policy which might win him Mississippi and Alabama, but isn't likely to get him the gold.

Star Trek is its own grandfather

My children are Trekkies, because I raised 'em right.

My sister the Episcopalian priestess, would tell you that I ruined their childhoods, because they are Trekkies. Inured them to violence or some such crap, by allowing them to watch the original series.

(No, really. She said that. Of course, having met her children and seen what she has allowed them to watch since making that statement, I'm pretty relaxed on that subject.)

On the other hand, I suspect the brain damage of my children has a genetic component.

I like to watch random things on Netflix as I do dishes. I am currently getting crap from these same children (and from the fiancée of my absent son, since he isn't here to give me crap on his own), for rewatching Star Trek: Enterprise.

They have all the complaints of the small-minded. "It breaks continuity! The Federation cannot meet the Ferenghi and Borg in this series! They said in the other series' that the Federation had never met these species before!"

Sit down and listen, you little bitches.

The most recent movie rewrote the personal history of Captain Kirk, all the way back to his birth. And brought in the Romulans, who the Federation wasn't supposed to know about. And you liked that movie.

And thirteen years (in this timeline) before that (when my youngest child wasn't even nine), in Star Trek: First Contact, they rewrote history back to Zephram Cochrane and the development of the warp engine. In another movie that you liked. By bringing in the Borg.

In fact, all the way back to the original series, the Enterprise screwed up the history of Earth (with episodes like City on the Edge of Forever and Assignment Earth) to such an extent that there are no continuity problems that can't be explained away with one of the various theories of time travel that the Star Trek universe can't seem to keep straight.

Fuck the haters. Watch what you like.

...As if one dries/The streams from off my face.

Almost a year ago, a young woman named Savannah Dietrich (now 17) went to a party, drank too much, and passed out. That's not, perhaps, the smartest behavior, but it's not something she should have to pay for the rest of her life.

While she was unconscious, two other teenagers, Austin Zehnder and Will Frey, raped her, took pictures, and emailed them to friends. That's a crime, and should be punished.

But the boys struck a plea deal last month, pleading guilty to felony sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism. Their sentencing hearing is scheduled for next month. But one other legal action was taken: Ms Dietrich was hit with a gag order, telling her that she couldn't talk to the press or reveal the names of her attackers.

The punishment for that could be six months in jail (not 100 days, as the video below claims) and a $500 fine, probably more than the boys would have received: juveniles tend to recieve lighter sentences, and their names aren't released to the public - apparently in the theory that they never learned that rape is wrong.

But Ms Dietrich decided to fight back. She tweeted their names to everyone she knew and opened her Facebook page to the public; she followed the court order to the point that she never revealed what the proposed sentencing was, but said that it was "a slap on the wrist."

Thanks in part to the public outcry, charges against Savannah Dietrich have been dropped. The judge has managed to muzzle the press, though, so while we know the name of Savannah Dietrich, the names of her attackers, Austin Zehnder and Will Frey, are nowhere to be found on the mainstream media. What the judge hasn't been able to control, though, is the internet.



It doesn't take much to google their names, where you can discover that they play lacrosse for a community team. You even get to see what these two douches look like.

Frey

Zehnder

There are some stories that need to be told. Over and over again. Until society stops trying to blame the victim.

The continuing destruction of our Mother Tongue

So, here's the thing. I understand that English is a living language: it grows, it evolves, it changes over time. But the thing is, there's evolution, and then there's mutation. Or to be more accurate, there's evolution, and then there's de-evolution.

(Are we not men?)

I've noticed an unfortunate tendency for internet slang to creep into language. When it's written, that's fine. But actively pronouncing the letters to WTF or LOL is more than a little stupid.

Think about it: "What the fuck?" Three syllables. "Double-you tee eff" Six syllables (five if you cut it down to "dubya.")

On top of which, you've gone from a brief exclamation of shock to actively considering what you're going to say, and choosing the one that makes you look as much like a douche as possible. Good choice.

Worse, though, is when someone tries to actually pronounce them: there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether LOL (Laughing Out Loud) is pronounced "lole" or "loll." I've heard both.

This is particularly important (if anything about this rant qualifies as "important") in that, based on its internet usage, "LOL" actually seems to mean "I think this is funny, but I have nothing to say about it."

On a barely-related note, in Dutch, the word "lol" means "fun" ("lollig" means "funny"); likewise, in Welsh, "lol" is a word meaning "nonsense." Because there's no such thing as coincidence.

Other terms are finding other ways to slip into IRL usage. ("In Real Life," in case you missed that one.) "LMFAO" (Laughing My Fucking Ass Off) has become the name of a "musical" group (if by "music," you mean "a drum machine, a couple of looped notes pecked out on a keyboard by a drunk pigeon, a little sampling from talented musicians, and the stupidest lyrics ever recorded - and I include the lyrics to I've Got A Loverly Bunch of Coconuts in that list.")

I mean, there's no better way than this album to say to the world, "If we weren't close relatives to Barry Gordy, we wouldn't have careers."

However, do I have a point to this little diatribe? Yes, yes, I do. I believe that what I'm trying to express can, like everything else on the internet, be best expressed by cats.

Republican Logic

Now, remember, children. Here's how it works. This is something you should make fun of.

This is something you should not make fun of. Ever.

Two terms for you to look up: "active sport" and "riding bitch." (Incidentally, don't make fun of their ridiculous, elitist equestrian activities, either. It makes them cranky.)

Are we clear on that now?

Talking to the Man, Once Again

So, every so often, I like to reach out to my governmental representatives (OK, and sometimes I like to reach out to other people's representatives, but let's not worry about that now...).

So, today, I sent emails to my guys in the Senate and the House. (Both good, noble men fully worthy of my support. So far.) And, because I'm lazy, they were identical except for the greeting. (I've mentioned that I'm lazy, right? Because it's true.) And it went like this.

Dear Sen. Bingaman, (or "Rep. Heinrich," depending)

The Republicans are now trying to spread the lie that the penalty that's imposed under the Affordable Care Act for not having health insurance is a tax. You should probably get out in front of this, and for one good reason.

If it's a tax, they can repeal it through the reconciliation process.

Fortunately, this is easy to rebut. Justice Roberts didn't say that the penalty is a tax: what he said was, it was legal for Congress to levy a penalty in exactly the same way that it is legal for them to apply a tax.

And if you go to his opinion (all 150 pages or so), Roberts comes right out and said that it isn't a tax.

Page 11:

Before turning to the merits, we need to be sure we have the authority to do so. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessmentor collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the per-son against whom such tax was assessed. 26 U. S. C. §7421(a). This statute protects the Government’s abilityto collect a consistent stream of revenue, by barring litigation to enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes.

Translation: "We can't rule on it if it's a tax. We're ruling on it. Think about it." Page 12:

According to amicus, by directing that the penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes,” §5000A(g)(1) made the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to this penalty.

The Government disagrees. It argues that §5000A(g)(1) does not direct courts to apply the Anti-Injunction Act,because §5000A(g) is a directive only to the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same "methodology and procedures" to collect the penalty that he uses to collect taxes. Brief for United States 32–33 (quoting Seven-Sky, 661 F. 3d, at 11).

We think the Government has the better reading.

Translation: "This guy says it's a tax; the government says it isn't. We agree with the government."

So, later on, (page 35) when he writes "The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty," he isn't saying it's a tax, just explaining what part of the Constitution applies (which is why he phrased it "may for constitutional purposes be considered").

You need to keep them from taking over the argument by rewording reality. Go out on the floor and explain, on the record, in simple words, that life doesn't work like that.

If you want to get the attention of the media, apologize that reading is so difficult for our Republican friends. Or explain that things like this are why the Texas GOP is trying to ban critical thinking.

Or maybe explain that, if they're so upset that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional after all, they should consider getting on anti-depressants. After all, admitting that you suffer from depression isn't going to count as a preexisting condition any more.

Romney's Paycheck

More than any other in the history of the United States, this election is about money.

When I say that, your mind probably goes to the Citizens Unite ruling, where the Supreme Court determined that corporations and millionaires would have the ability to spend "limitless" amounts of money getting a pro-corporation candidate elected.

If you're slightly more radicalized (either to the right or to the left), that first sentence might have made you think of the Occupy movement (a.k.a., "the 99%"). But that isn't it, either.

Why do you think Mitt Romney is running for president? It's not like he needs the money: he isn't just in the "Top 1%" - best guesses at his personal net worth place him comfortably in the Top 0.001%.

For Mitt, it's strictly a business decision. He may not need more money, any more than he needs a car elevator installed in his La Jolla mansion. He just wants it.

That's why Mittens has set up a tax plan that is so heavily slanted in his favor that he would have paid almost $3 million less in taxes if his plan had been in effect in 2010.

Click to embiggen

That's also why Mittens has been raising record amounts of money from his billionaire friends. If his tax plan passes, the amount that they'll make in the first year alone will usually offset whatever donation they've made. And every year after that is pure profit. Millions and millions of dollars in pure profit.

Because these greedy mother- fuckers don't give a damn about Americans starving in what is arguably the richest nation on earth. They don't care if people are dying in the streets, as long as the wine keeps flowing and the caviar is properly chilled.

The idea of a dystopian future for America doesn't bother them in the slightest, as long as they can have walled compounds and armed guards.

Mitt Romney could give up his presidential paycheck of $400,000 without even missing it. (He wouldn't, of course. The man would give blowjobs to vagrants if you paid him enough.) Because his plan, developed by his advisors, would earn him, at absolute minimum, more than seven times that every year. Which is pretty damned close to stealing money directly from the pockets of the American people.

Remember, it's only "class warfare" when the poor fight back. When the rich are metaphorically standing on the necks of the poor, when Ann Romney is saying "Let them eat cake" and installing car elevators in Versailles, that isn't class warfare. That's just business as usual.

Which is why Mitt Romney is running for president. It's just business.

Just a quick note

Did you know that Dana Perino, the former waste-of-a-Presidency's spokesmodel, is now Dana Perino & Co? (Motto: "Working to make the world worse since 2007.") She apparently has made a business out of selling herself to whoever will pay her rates. (This does not make her a whore, by the way - for what she charges, she deserves to be called a "prostitute.")

And she even has a contact form, which I thought was convenient.

Ms Perino,

I happened to see your tweet about "Tomorrow on the menu after SCOTUS: just desserts." I thought I'd mention something.

My sister was downsized by her corporation last year, and was then diagnosed with breast cancer. Without the Affordable Care Act even fully in place yet, the changes already happening in the insurance industry ensured that she received treatment, and that she would not be penalized for her "pre-existing condition" for the rest of her life.

And her situation was only on the fringes of the healthcare law. There are thousands of people whose lives have been saved by the legislation that President Obama put in place.

Am I saying that it makes you a bad person for gloating prematurely over the possibility that the ACA will be struck down? No, I'm not.

I'm saying it makes you a bitch.

Have a good life. Try not to get cancer, you evil, self-centered herpes sore on the face of humanity.

Sometimes, it's kind of nice just to reach out to somebody and say "Hi," you know?

Bully Pulpit

There are things we need to remember about the current makeup of the Republican party.

There is no War on Women.

That's just stupid. Don't even say it. It's a ridiculous charge, and we should probably slap your stupid girl face for even suggesting it.

I mean, sure, they want to take away your rights to get an abortion. Big deal - that's to stop you from murdering babies! Right? I mean, yeah, they have a hard time agreeing on when life starts and all, but they're trying to prevent a murder! Because a fertilized egg is exactly like a human being! In exactly the same way that an acorn is like an oak tree! They're identical!

Oh, and pay no attention to the many attempts by the GOP to ban contraception. The two subjects aren't even related. Ignore the fact that if a woman gets pregnant, she will be forced to have the baby - she shouldn't have had sex in the first place!

(No, don't say "rape" - stop trying to change the subject!)

See, that's why the GOP supports "abstinence-only" education! Because logic tells you that if they don't have sex, they won't get pregnant. It's just logic! Even if it isn't supported by reality in any way, that doesn't make it less logical!

Also, there is no racism in America!

I mean, yeah, sure, there are some racist people, but racism is not a major problem! I mean, the Ku Klux Klan is disappearing, right? It doesn't matter that there are more hate groups out there than ever before! The Klan is disappearing! Pay attention!

Racism isn't a problem! Just because blacks get harsher sentences for committing the same crimes as white people doesn't even enter into the picture! Obviously, blacks simply commit more crimes than whites! (Let's ignore the fact that we've known that this is a lie for many years - bringing that up is just mean-spirited and rude.)

And incidentally, homophobia doesn't exist!

The Bible says that gays are bad, so that cancels out any personal feelings! (Again, we're going to ignore the fact that the Bible doesn't say that, and the fact that the New Testament says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. We're going to pay attention to the Old Testament on these issues and no others, because we... um... because the Bible says so!)

In fact, when you actually start putting all these things together, a very distinct pattern starts to emerge.

Women can't be allowed to control their own reproduction; that decision has to be made for them. We will take that right away from them, because they aren't important enough to do that for themselves.

Black people are not allowed to feel that they're being oppressed by society. They're allowed to vote - what more do they want? They shouldn't notice when we treat them like lesser people.

Gay people? Well, they are less important than we are. Rights? Hell, they don't even get the right to not get beaten up on a regular basis. Why do you think the GOP opposes every law that might prevent it?

The definition of bullying is the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when you have more power (physical, social or economic) than the other person. The GOP wants to ensure that the "balance of power" is always tilted in favor of white heterosexual males. They want to ensure that they have someone to oppress. The platform of the modern Republican party to to ensure that they can remain bullies.

This is why Mitt Romney is the favorite. A rich white guy with a known propensity for bullying others? Whether by holding them down and cutting their hair, or firing them and shipping their jobs overseas.

I don't see how the GOP could resist him.

And no mention of sunscreen

At Wellesley High School in Massachusetts, they may have just gotten the greatest commencement speech ever.

It was delivered by their English teacher, David McCullough, Jr. And it includes the following flowery description of these self-involved little snowflakes.

You are not special. You are not exceptional.

Contrary to what your soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you… you’re nothing special.

Yes, you’ve been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped. Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You’ve been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You’ve been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. Yes, you have. And, certainly, we’ve been to your games, your plays, your recitals, your science fairs. Absolutely, smiles ignite when you walk into a room, and hundreds gasp with delight at your every tweet. Why, maybe you’ve even had your picture in the Townsman! And now you’ve conquered high school… and, indisputably, here we all have gathered for you, the pride and joy of this fine community, the first to emerge from that magnificent new building...

But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not.

I mean, his overall message is great.

Resist the easy comforts of complacency, the specious glitter of materialism, the narcotic paralysis of self-satisfaction. Be worthy of your advantages. And read… read all the time… read as a matter of principle, as a matter of self-respect. Read as a nourishing staple of life. Develop and protect a moral sensibility and demonstrate the character to apply it. Dream big. Work hard. Think for yourself. Love everything you love, everyone you love, with all your might. And do so, please, with a sense of urgency, for every tick of the clock subtracts from fewer and fewer; and as surely as there are commencements there are cessations, and you’ll be in no condition to enjoy the ceremony attendant to that eventuality no matter how delightful the afternoon.

But going through those first several paragraphs, you kind of get the feeling that is a guy who didn't make tenure.

(Complete text, which is well worth reading, is here.)

Well, since he never wrote his autobiography, this will have to do.

Did you know that John McCain's file on Mitt Romney is on line? Hey, why do your own opposition research when millionaire Republicans have already done it for you, right?

I mean, it's from 2008, but the man's only changed position four or five times since then, right? And you can tell the slant they're going for, but it still makes for some fascinating reading. Like under "Top Hits: Social Issues," you get

Abortion
• Romney says he changed his mind on abortion meeting with Harvard stem cell researcher – Romney claims the doctor said scientists “kill” embryos after 14 days, but doctor later said Romney “mischaracterized myposition.”
• Months after his “conversion,” Romney stated his commitment to upholding Massachusetts’ abortion laws and appointed pro-choice judge to state district court.
• In October 2005, Romney signed bill expanding family planning services, including abortion counseling and morning-after pill.
• In December 2005, Romney “abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course … and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims.”
• Romney health insurance plan expanded access to abortion, required Planned Parenthood representative on state panel.
• Romney endorsed legalization of abortion pill RU-486 access during his 1994 Senate race and backed federal funding of abortion, saying “I think it’s important that people see me not as a pro-life candidate.”
• In 1994 and 2002, Romney confirmed his support for Roe v. Wade decision and forcefully positioned himself as pro-choice in 1994 Senate race, saying “you will not see me wavering on that.”
• Romney has refused to comment on bill pending in South Carolina legislature requiring that abortion doctors offer pregnant women option of viewing ultrasound

That's followed by "Executive Summaries," and then pages and pages (200 in all) of carefully sourced quotes and facts about the man - the last 6 pages just listing video that the campaign had available to it. But it's fascinating reading for a political buff like me.

Hell, Romney himself ought to check it out; if nothing else, it can remind him about his position on the various topics this week.

I believe it was the great poet and philosopher Rabbie Burns himself who wrote:

O wad some Power the gift tae gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!