Just wanted to check in and let you know, if anyone is still looking at this page, that I have, as usual, made a New Year's resolution to blog again. I know, I know, it's the end of February. But I've been working on my other New Year's resolutions and have to do this a little at a time or my brain can't take the stress.
I updated the format and colors of the blog a bit - always a good way to procrastinate rather than actually write something - and deleted some of the links in my blogroll. I deleted any "professional" sites such as Huffington Post or Daily Kos, because, after all, aren't we all on Facebook these days? I see links from these sites all the time in my news feed over there so no need to link them here.
Sadly, I also deleted some links to blogs that I have enjoyed in the past but have not been updated in over a year. I hope if any of you are among them and see this post, you will let me know if you start blogging again and I will be happy to add you back to the list!
I also cleaned up a bit of the junk that had accumulated along my sidebar - all those old "awards" we used to give each other back in the old days - just to make it look a bit cleaner.
So, now that the housekeeping is done, I'm ready to blog again. I am going to try to write something every day starting on March 1. Hope you will hold me to it! ;-)
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
A Historic Day in America!
Oh happy day! The Supreme Court came down on the right side of history today by ruling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and dismissing the Proposition 8 case due to the plaintiffs not having legal standing to bring the case before the court, thus allowing marriage equality again in California!
As a result of the DOMA ruling, the federal government will now recognize legally married gay couples in states that recognize their marriages and give them all the rights and privileges afforded to all married couples. And because the ruling is based on the equal protection clause, this ruling could have much broader consequences.
This is a historic day for the whole country - it is a huge step forward to fulfilling the country's promise that EVERYONE has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Let's keep the momentum going until all states become marriage equality states!
Thursday, June 13, 2013
This Blog is Not Dead Yet!
Where does the time go? I can't believe it's been five months since I - or more properly, Baxter - last posted. I miss reading everyone's blogs, but for some reason keep getting sucked into Facebook and end up in long conversations over there. One of the things I always liked about blogging was the conversations we have in the comments section, which Facebook seems to so easily supplant. However, I miss the effort it takes to actually think about a subject and write coherently about it, and even more so, read the excellent posts on other blogs. I must come over to the Blog World more frequently again.
So, for those who only know me from here, I apologize for being out of touch for so long.
I never did write a post on gun control as planned - as you can figure out, I am in favor of it - but did have some great discussions over on Facebook about it - so much so that one of my former FB friends unfriended me. She is a libertarian I had known from having worked together years ago, who had such strong feelings about the Second Amendment that she couldn't even bring herself to deal with me anymore.
We used to have what I thought were civil discussions about the issues we disagree on (which is most of them with the exception of some social issues), but apparently she just couldn't address the issue further and unfriended me! I was sorry, as I do value being able to discuss issues with people who don't agree with me so as to understand their perspective and also to know what the opposition is up to!
Now I have discovered a Facebook friend who friended me at some point is apparently an Islamist extremist, which I had no idea about until a post he made yesterday. I am thinking I should unfriend him before I find myself getting a visit from the FBI or CIA or something after they monitor my Facebook friends list!
Speaking of which, what are your thoughts about the U.S. surveillance program that Edward Snowden recently revealed to the world?
Personally, I was not shocked. It's not as if we didn't know the Patriot Act had plenty of questionable things in it that gave the government broad powers when it came to tracking terrorism.
But this does seem like a slippery slope, and I am disappointed that President Obama has supported these practices as well as other policies initiated under President Bush.
That said, I am very suspicious about this Snowden guy and how he happened to have access to the information he subsequently revealed. Here's a high-school dropout who suddenly got a $122,000 a year job at a major government contractor, and immediately apparently had secret clearance (which usually takes a lot of time to get) - and then leaves after only 3 months to spill the beans to the world about what the government is doing to monitor American citizens' communications. Who is this guy? Who placed him where he had access to all this sensitive information, and why? I am not convinced he acted alone.
Now he's saying that we've been hacking into China's computer systems and the U.S. is afraid he may defect to China along with all the secrets he has compiled. While I understand some may applaud the revelation of the U.S. government surveillance program, this man has ultimately endangered the security of the United States and to me is more of a traitor than a hero. I'll be interested to hear others' thoughts about this.
In the next post, Baxter will tell you about his Great Escape on our recent trip to Cape Cod. More to come.
So, for those who only know me from here, I apologize for being out of touch for so long.
I never did write a post on gun control as planned - as you can figure out, I am in favor of it - but did have some great discussions over on Facebook about it - so much so that one of my former FB friends unfriended me. She is a libertarian I had known from having worked together years ago, who had such strong feelings about the Second Amendment that she couldn't even bring herself to deal with me anymore.
We used to have what I thought were civil discussions about the issues we disagree on (which is most of them with the exception of some social issues), but apparently she just couldn't address the issue further and unfriended me! I was sorry, as I do value being able to discuss issues with people who don't agree with me so as to understand their perspective and also to know what the opposition is up to!
Now I have discovered a Facebook friend who friended me at some point is apparently an Islamist extremist, which I had no idea about until a post he made yesterday. I am thinking I should unfriend him before I find myself getting a visit from the FBI or CIA or something after they monitor my Facebook friends list!
Speaking of which, what are your thoughts about the U.S. surveillance program that Edward Snowden recently revealed to the world?
Personally, I was not shocked. It's not as if we didn't know the Patriot Act had plenty of questionable things in it that gave the government broad powers when it came to tracking terrorism.
But this does seem like a slippery slope, and I am disappointed that President Obama has supported these practices as well as other policies initiated under President Bush.
That said, I am very suspicious about this Snowden guy and how he happened to have access to the information he subsequently revealed. Here's a high-school dropout who suddenly got a $122,000 a year job at a major government contractor, and immediately apparently had secret clearance (which usually takes a lot of time to get) - and then leaves after only 3 months to spill the beans to the world about what the government is doing to monitor American citizens' communications. Who is this guy? Who placed him where he had access to all this sensitive information, and why? I am not convinced he acted alone.
Now he's saying that we've been hacking into China's computer systems and the U.S. is afraid he may defect to China along with all the secrets he has compiled. While I understand some may applaud the revelation of the U.S. government surveillance program, this man has ultimately endangered the security of the United States and to me is more of a traitor than a hero. I'll be interested to hear others' thoughts about this.
In the next post, Baxter will tell you about his Great Escape on our recent trip to Cape Cod. More to come.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
A Cat's Eye View: Looking Back and Looking Forward
As the Old Joke goes, I'm glad to be Here - in fact, I'm glad to be Anywhere!
Some of you may know that I had a Scary Health Problem a week or two ago. All of a Sudden I couldn't eat my Food properly! My Tongue hurt. It stuck out the Side of my Mouth and that made me Drool. It was Disgusting.
Luckily, as soon as my Humans noticed the Problem, they rushed me to the Animal Emergency and Referral Associates over in Fairfield, NJ; because of course this first popped up on a Friday night after the Regular Vet closed.
They are Wonderful People there, although I did not Appreciate being held and having them look at my Tongue. It turned out there was a Big Lump down there under my Tongue with a sore on it. The vet thought it was Cancer, but they couldn't tell until they did a Biopsy. So I spent the Whole Weekend at the AERA with an IV to keep me hydrated until they could Put Me Under on Monday morning and do the Biopsy. In the Meantime they gave me Steroids for inflammation.
By the time my Female Human picked me up on Tuesday morning I felt Great! I came Home and happily scarfed down a Whole Bowl of wet food. I purred. I rolled on the Bed. I was a New Cat.
Amazingly, the Biopsy turned out to be Normal - no Cancer! I am still taking Steroids, but am feeling Fine. I go back for a Checkup next Tuesday to see if the Problem is gone.
So that's the News from My perspective.
Now, for the Rest of the News. As Everyone knows by Now, the Fiscal Cliff Disaster didn't quite Happen. At the Last Minute the President and the Republicans were able to come to an Agreement to raise taxes on the Richer-than-Most-People, those making $400,000 or above as a Single Person, or on couples making $450,000 and higher, among Other Things. Plus, Federal Unemployment Benefits were Extended for a year. But none of the Budget Cuts that were originally part of the So-Called Cliff were enacted - that Fight is Yet to Come.
Now, I know Some of You feel that the President gave in to the GOP by allowing the Cutoff for being "Rich" to rise from $250,000 in income, which was the Original Idea, to $400-$450,000. But as a Cat, I look at it This Way. If there were a Big Tomcat over on one side of the Yard that had a big HUGE Two-Gallon Bucket full of Catnip, the difference between those two amounts would probably be the Difference between a Quarter Cup of Catnip vs. a Half Cup of Catnip out of that whole Two Gallon Bucket. So the Tax is going to be on the Rest of the Bucket, which is still a Lot. Right? Please do Correct Me if I am wrong in this Analogy. I am Only a Cat and we don't really Understand Taxes too well.
Looking Ahead, it seems the GOP still doesn't Admit that they Lost the Election in November. They vow to have a Big Fight over Raising the Debt Ceiling next month even though President Obama says he won't Fight about that subject. It Remains to be Seen whether he can avoid that Fight.
My Female Human will be back shortly to discuss Gun Control issues. In the Meantime, hang in there, the Days are already getting Longer and Winter cannot last Forever! Have some Catnip and Relax. I know I will!
P.S. My Female Human has added a Word Verification thingie to the Comments. There were Too Many spammy comments being Posted on the Blog. Apologies to Our Loyal Readers for having to Put you through that Annoyance.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Downsizing Man's Best Friend
This is one of those "WTF is wrong with people?" posts.
I was reading the New York Times today and saw an article about a family in North Carolina who downsized their home from a 3,200 square foot home to a much more manageable 1,300 square foot house.
Always attracted to stories about people who manage to simplify their lives, I read the article with interest. Ever since we bought our cabin in the woods in the southeastern Adirondacks, which is basically one big room with a bathroom and a sleeping alcove plus a sun porch that can double as a guest bedroom, I have realized that our larger home in New Jersey is really more than we need.
The article started off in a heart-warming way, explaining how the family realized that the only reason they used one of their bathrooms was to wash the family dog, Toby, and that they spent most of their time as a family in one section of the house, in the back where their family room was.
So what's the problem with this story? The last paragraph, the kicker:
This house this family bought is a 3-bedroom house. People lived in houses this size for years back in my childhood (and still do) - along with dogs, cats, and hamsters and children - and there was room for everyone.
No, there was plenty of room for Toby in the house - but apparently not in their hearts. If they had a third child they wouldn't have gotten rid of the child just because they moved to a smaller house. So why is it OK to give away the dog? And what kind of example is that for their children in terms of teaching them a sense of responsibility?
Yes, I know this is not the most egregious example of uncaring dog owners. I know that there are worse dog owners, dog owners who turn their 15-year-old dog in to a high kill shelter because they don't feel like taking care of him, or turn their dog in because they're "moving to where dogs aren't allowed" or because "they had a new baby" or "don't have time." Yes, those people are much, much worse. At least these folks found a good home for the dog. But I don't think they should be having feature articles written about them in the Times. They don't deserve the attention.
Toby, you are probably the lucky one in this story. Hopefully your new family will value you more than your old one did.
I was reading the New York Times today and saw an article about a family in North Carolina who downsized their home from a 3,200 square foot home to a much more manageable 1,300 square foot house.
Always attracted to stories about people who manage to simplify their lives, I read the article with interest. Ever since we bought our cabin in the woods in the southeastern Adirondacks, which is basically one big room with a bathroom and a sleeping alcove plus a sun porch that can double as a guest bedroom, I have realized that our larger home in New Jersey is really more than we need.
The article started off in a heart-warming way, explaining how the family realized that the only reason they used one of their bathrooms was to wash the family dog, Toby, and that they spent most of their time as a family in one section of the house, in the back where their family room was.
"'The eat-in kitchen and the family room in the back of the house,' Mr. Kelly says. 'If we looked at where we lived as a family, it was the back of the house. When I thought about it, I realized we never spent any time in the bedrooms, except to sleep. The boys did their homework in the kitchen. The house was a waste.'"So the family sold their big house for $675,000 and instead bought a 1,300-square-foot ranch house for just $245,000, leaving lots of money to play with ($300,000 was spent on renovations). So they added a large deck (15' by 45'), redid the kitchen/dining room/living room area, and installed built-in storage space in their new home.
"Another big-ticket item was the built-in storage. Made by Bo Taylor Custom Woodworking, a local company, it cost the Kellys $52,000. But it includes an entrance closet where the boys can drop their book bags, and cabinetry throughout the house. It’s so extensive, in fact, that none of the bedrooms have a dresser."The article goes on to describe their wonderful new situation. The gas/electric bills have fallen from $300 a month to $100 a month, their property taxes went down by about half, and they now keep things simple by digitizing their paperwork so they don't have stuff all over the house.
So what's the problem with this story? The last paragraph, the kicker:
"There has been one sad downside to the downsizing, though. The new house, the Kellys realized, was too small for a dog the size of Toby. So he has gone to live with a family that has a bigger house, as well as another collie to keep him company."So, back to my first line. WTF??? You downsized your house but now decide it's "too small" for your DOG? Are you KIDDING me? First of all, the dog couldn't care less how much room he had. He just wanted to be with you. (Our two dogs are each sitting next to us on our respective couches here at the aforementioned cabin that is basically one big room. There is plenty of room.)
This house this family bought is a 3-bedroom house. People lived in houses this size for years back in my childhood (and still do) - along with dogs, cats, and hamsters and children - and there was room for everyone.
No, there was plenty of room for Toby in the house - but apparently not in their hearts. If they had a third child they wouldn't have gotten rid of the child just because they moved to a smaller house. So why is it OK to give away the dog? And what kind of example is that for their children in terms of teaching them a sense of responsibility?
Yes, I know this is not the most egregious example of uncaring dog owners. I know that there are worse dog owners, dog owners who turn their 15-year-old dog in to a high kill shelter because they don't feel like taking care of him, or turn their dog in because they're "moving to where dogs aren't allowed" or because "they had a new baby" or "don't have time." Yes, those people are much, much worse. At least these folks found a good home for the dog. But I don't think they should be having feature articles written about them in the Times. They don't deserve the attention.
Toby, you are probably the lucky one in this story. Hopefully your new family will value you more than your old one did.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
A Cat's Eye View
I am just Glad that it turned out the Way it did and that we didn't have another Big Mess like back in 2000, as some were worried we would. Of course, I knew a Cool Cat like President Obama would know the right way to get back in the White House for four more years!
He sure didn't have much of a Second Honeymoon, though, did he?
Boom, right after the Election came the News that General Petraeus, the Director of the CIA, had been Fooling Around with his Biographer, Paula Broadwell - and then came all kinds of other Stories about these hot Twin Sisters, Jill Kelley and Natalie Khawam, who were hanging around all the Generals.
Amusingly to Me, these stories always refer to the Twins as "Socialites," a rather Quaint Term. Reminds My Humans of a Tom Waits song called Invitation to the Blues. "He probably left her for a socialite, didn't love her 'cept at night, and then he's drunk and didn't even tell her that he cared..."
But I digress... sorry...
Apparently the former head of the CIA is spending his Days "grovelling" to his wife of 38 years, Holly, according to an Article in the UK's Daily Mail. My Female Human doesn't blame his Wife for being Furious, which is how her Mood is described by Those in the Know.
Two of these things are Not Like the Others, wouldn't you say?
In Fact, it has all Become so Convoluted and Involved so Many People in the Cast of Characters that the Borowitz Report posted an Article saying the CIA has come out with a Pamphlet to help you know whether YOU may be part of the Petraeus Scandal without even knowing it!
It is also being Reported that Paula Broadwell, who is married with two Children, is "devastated" by the Harm caused by the Fling between her and the General.
Ah, Humans... what is that Old Saying? "What a tangled Web we Weave, when First we Practice to Deceive."
Just goes to Show that perhaps Male Humans should be Neutered, just like Tomcats are, so they won't be Getting Into Trouble when they are past their Prime and vulnerable to Younger Women's wiles.
At Any Rate, this Scandal is finally moving Off the front pages since it's been a Couple of Weeks and we're Off to the Races again with the Fiscal Cliff looming.
My Female Human says if she hears the words "Fiscal Cliff" one more time, she Won't Be Responsible For Her Actions.
President Obama Won the Election. I Hope he will use his "Political Capital" as They call it, to Stand Firm and not let the Republicans walk all Over Him during negotations. So Far So Good, as far as I can tell. For all the Latest News about the Fiscal Cliff, here's a Good Article. A few Choice Quotes to follow. The first, from GOP House Majority Leader Boehner:
"Mr. Boehner said that the White House needs to get serious about offering specific spending cuts they would put on the table towards a potential deal. 'All eyes are on the White House, the country doesn’t need a victory lap, it needs leadership,' Mr. Boehner said at a press conference in the Capitol."This was countered by a Response from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
"Mr. Reid said it was incumbent on House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) to put forward a realistic offer in response to Democrats’ plan to allow tax rates on the wealthiest Americans to increase at the end of the year. Mr. Reid said that Mr. Geithner has not made a new offer to Republicans as both sides try to broker a tax and spending deal before the end of the year. 'The president’s made the offer–there’s no offer to be made,' Mr. Reid told a handful of reporters as he walked into his offices. 'There’s no offer to be made.'"Ah, Humans. They continue to Spar like a bunch of Tomcats Yowling in a Circle, hoping One will finally get the Upper Hand and get a Good Grip on the back of their Opponent's Neck.
The Good News I see is that at least President Obama apparently hasn't already Given Away the Farm up Front, as he was wont to do in the Beginning of his first Term. There is No Sense in him Offering ANY cuts in Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid. Let the Republicans make that Suggestion. Otherwise the Republicans will take Whatever the President Offers in Cuts and then want MORE. Plus this way, it is Obvious that it would be the Republicans who want to Cut these Programs that are Very Popular with the people!
In Other Good News, Senator Dick Durbin said that Social Security should NOT be part of the Fiscal Cliff talks as it does not contribute to the Deficit.
Let's Hope that the fact that some Republicans are finally Rejecting their Pledge to Grover Norquist to Never Raise Taxes may Actually lead to Progress in the Talks. But I'm not Holding My Breath. So far I don't see a Lot of Compromising going on on the GOP side. It may Take Awhile for the Fact they Lost to really Sink In. If it ever does.
With that, I will Bid you Farewell for Now. I think we will All need a Lot of Catnip to get through the End of the Year. Hopefully January 1 won't Find us at the Bottom of the Fiscal Cliff!
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Money Alone Can't Buy You Love
With President Obama's decisive reelection on Tuesday night, the American people said "no" to the many millions of dollars spent by GOP Super PACs and people like Sheldon Adelson, who donated a small fortune of his own money to support Republican candidates, ending up with nothing to show for it.
After the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, many on the left feared that the practically unlimited amount of money that would pour into these surrogate organizations for the Republican candidates would leave the Democrats in the dust.
As it turned out, all that money was not enough to buy the election. President Obama was declared the winner a little after 11 p.m., with over 300 electoral college votes already in and possibly more to come, if Florida goes his way, as is expected. Nate Silver was right, and Unskewed Polls and Karl Rove were wrong. It's all over but the spin.
So why didn't all that money and advertising help the GOP? Maybe the answer isn't that the money couldn't help, but that it was used inefficiently.
In market research, there are models that can analyze and predict the effectiveness and the efficiency of advertising. There is a certain point at which advertising no longer influences the viewer. There is a certain point when the amount of money spent is no longer efficient and additional spending adds diminishing return on investment.
(Source: http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/marketing_introduction.html)
That saturation point is probably reached even sooner for negative advertising than for other kinds of advertising. The voters just start wishing it was all over, and become cynical about whichever candidate continues to push these ads on them. And it doesn't help that some of Romney's last ads, in Ohio, were full of lies that the voters knew better than to believe in the first place.
Of course, the Obama campaign also had plenty of money from donations. They raised a billion dollars themselves and had plenty of advertising. But the difference was in the way they used it. Their advertising started earlier, before Romney's campaign really took off, and defined him to the American voters before he had a chance to.
In addition, they targeted individual voters and identified a whole database full of potential supporters who fit the profile of Obama supporters - but hadn't yet become supporters.
In market research, this is called identifying your "Strategic Value" stakeholder or consumer - the target person who is most likely to respond to you or to your product and help you achieve your objectives. The next trick is to gain insight into that person and understand what makes them tick. Apparently the President's campaign was able to do this and to motivate those stakeholders to go out and stand in line for hours to vote for President Obama.
But it came down to a lot more than just good marketing principles for the President and his supporters.
It also came down to changing demographics - and a new coalition of diverse citizens who came together to reject the old viewpoints offered by the GOP, to reject hate and bigotry, and to support the President's vision of moving "Forward!" rather than backward.
Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans were all key voting blocs in the Democratic victory. Obama won among Hispanics 71% to 27% for Romney; among Asians by 73-26%, and among African-Americans by 93%. These population groups are all growing, while white Americans, who were more apt to vote for Romney, are declining as a portion of the electorate, a trend that is expected to continue.
President Obama did better among women than his opponent, with 55% of women voting for him vs. Romney. And, showing the importance of women's issues, candidates Akin and Mourdock, both of whom were castigated by their remarks about rape, lost their Senate races.
In addition, many women were elected, including Elizabeth Warren, who took back the late Senator Edward Kennedy's seat from Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the first female senator from the state. Other firsts: Tammy Baldwin, from Wisconsin, will be the first openly gay Senator. In Hawaii, Mazie Hirono will be the first Asian American woman there, while Hawaiian Tulsi Gabbard will be the first Hindu elected to the House of Representatives.
Young people came out to support President Obama again, as they did in 2008. He captured 60% of the vote for people 18-29, compared to only 36% for Romney. This age group represented 19% of the electorate, up a point from four years ago.
In addition, gay marriage was approved by voters in Maryland and Maine, and will likely be approved in Washington State as well, the first time same-sex marriage has been approved by the voters themselves. Other states allow gay marriage, but the decision was made by the state courts or legislatures. And in Minnesota, a referendum to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage failed, another victory against bigotry.
Washington State and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana; Massachusetts approved medical marijuana use. The times truly are a-changin'.
And as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, if the Republicans don't start changing and join the reality-based world, they will be a footnote in history. Now they have to figure out whether to continue to double down on their far right wing positions and become less and less relevant to the population, or whether they will do some sincere soul-searching and try to come into the 21st century.
I'm hoping for the latter, because we need at least two viable parties in this country to keep a real dialogue going and to work together to solve problems. There are too many issues that need to be addressed; we can't afford another four years of gridlock and partisanship. But it takes two to tango and the GOP needs to step onto the dance floor.
After the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, many on the left feared that the practically unlimited amount of money that would pour into these surrogate organizations for the Republican candidates would leave the Democrats in the dust.
As it turned out, all that money was not enough to buy the election. President Obama was declared the winner a little after 11 p.m., with over 300 electoral college votes already in and possibly more to come, if Florida goes his way, as is expected. Nate Silver was right, and Unskewed Polls and Karl Rove were wrong. It's all over but the spin.
So why didn't all that money and advertising help the GOP? Maybe the answer isn't that the money couldn't help, but that it was used inefficiently.
In market research, there are models that can analyze and predict the effectiveness and the efficiency of advertising. There is a certain point at which advertising no longer influences the viewer. There is a certain point when the amount of money spent is no longer efficient and additional spending adds diminishing return on investment.
That saturation point is probably reached even sooner for negative advertising than for other kinds of advertising. The voters just start wishing it was all over, and become cynical about whichever candidate continues to push these ads on them. And it doesn't help that some of Romney's last ads, in Ohio, were full of lies that the voters knew better than to believe in the first place.
Of course, the Obama campaign also had plenty of money from donations. They raised a billion dollars themselves and had plenty of advertising. But the difference was in the way they used it. Their advertising started earlier, before Romney's campaign really took off, and defined him to the American voters before he had a chance to.
In addition, they targeted individual voters and identified a whole database full of potential supporters who fit the profile of Obama supporters - but hadn't yet become supporters.
In market research, this is called identifying your "Strategic Value" stakeholder or consumer - the target person who is most likely to respond to you or to your product and help you achieve your objectives. The next trick is to gain insight into that person and understand what makes them tick. Apparently the President's campaign was able to do this and to motivate those stakeholders to go out and stand in line for hours to vote for President Obama.
But it came down to a lot more than just good marketing principles for the President and his supporters.
It also came down to changing demographics - and a new coalition of diverse citizens who came together to reject the old viewpoints offered by the GOP, to reject hate and bigotry, and to support the President's vision of moving "Forward!" rather than backward.
Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans were all key voting blocs in the Democratic victory. Obama won among Hispanics 71% to 27% for Romney; among Asians by 73-26%, and among African-Americans by 93%. These population groups are all growing, while white Americans, who were more apt to vote for Romney, are declining as a portion of the electorate, a trend that is expected to continue.
President Obama did better among women than his opponent, with 55% of women voting for him vs. Romney. And, showing the importance of women's issues, candidates Akin and Mourdock, both of whom were castigated by their remarks about rape, lost their Senate races.
In addition, many women were elected, including Elizabeth Warren, who took back the late Senator Edward Kennedy's seat from Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the first female senator from the state. Other firsts: Tammy Baldwin, from Wisconsin, will be the first openly gay Senator. In Hawaii, Mazie Hirono will be the first Asian American woman there, while Hawaiian Tulsi Gabbard will be the first Hindu elected to the House of Representatives.
Young people came out to support President Obama again, as they did in 2008. He captured 60% of the vote for people 18-29, compared to only 36% for Romney. This age group represented 19% of the electorate, up a point from four years ago.
In addition, gay marriage was approved by voters in Maryland and Maine, and will likely be approved in Washington State as well, the first time same-sex marriage has been approved by the voters themselves. Other states allow gay marriage, but the decision was made by the state courts or legislatures. And in Minnesota, a referendum to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage failed, another victory against bigotry.
Washington State and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana; Massachusetts approved medical marijuana use. The times truly are a-changin'.
And as Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, if the Republicans don't start changing and join the reality-based world, they will be a footnote in history. Now they have to figure out whether to continue to double down on their far right wing positions and become less and less relevant to the population, or whether they will do some sincere soul-searching and try to come into the 21st century.
I'm hoping for the latter, because we need at least two viable parties in this country to keep a real dialogue going and to work together to solve problems. There are too many issues that need to be addressed; we can't afford another four years of gridlock and partisanship. But it takes two to tango and the GOP needs to step onto the dance floor.
Monday, November 05, 2012
Down to the Wire
Well, here it is, finally - the last day before the 2012 election. And things are looking relatively good for President Obama, thanks to the October Surprise that turned out to be Hurricane Sandy.
According to Nate Silver, the President now has an 86% chance of winning reelection, thanks to leads in the battleground states and a growing lead in the polls for the popular vote (now at 50.6 vs. 48.5). Although Silver says there are plenty of other reasons that Obama has rebounded since his performance at the first debate, I have no doubt that the hurricane and its aftermath did play a part in Romney's recent slippage.
I live in New Jersey, which, along with New York City, suffered the worst damage in the storm. Thankfully for us here in Northern New Jersey, the worst we got was a lot of downed trees and power lines. Since the rain wasn't that bad, we were spared the flooding we got last year during Hurricane Irene. But as everyone knows by now, the Jersey Shore was virtually destroyed and will take a long time to rebuild.
The destruction in New York City and New Jersey brought an endorsement for President Obama from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an Independent former Republican, who said he thought the president is best equipped to do something about climate change, which he said the storm made clear was an important issue.
And, even more importantly, Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, who gave the keynote speech at Romney's convention, praised the President's response to the hurricane and accompanied him on a tour of the devastation at the Jersey Shore.
Romney's campaign also shot itself in the foot by airing deceptive commercials in Ohio during this same time period that warned Jeep and General Motors were sending jobs to China. Both Chrysler (which owns Jeep) and GM emphatically denied the accuracy of the ads.
So the general public saw President Obama acting presidential, suspending his campaign to look at storm damage, putting politics aside and joining a Republican governor in commiserating over his state's losses, while his opponent was holding a storm disaster campaign photo op and airing commercials that people knew were lies. Romney supporters shouldn't wonder why their candidate has lost his momentum and President Obama is pulling ahead.
But nothing is certain yet, as Republican governors in Florida and Ohio are doing their darnedest to suppress the vote in their states by limiting early voting, making sure there are horrendously long lines to vote in the (mostly) Democratic areas of their states, and any other strategies they can come up with.
In contrast, Christie has tried to make it easier for those displaced by the storm in New Jersey to vote, by adding early voting opportunities at county clerks' offices, extending the ability to vote by email to all citizens of the state, and allowing people to vote using provisional ballots if they are currently staying in a location outside of their usual voting area.
I am no fan of Christie, but I am very impressed with his fairness and bipartisanship during this crisis. There are certainly a lot worse Republican governors - and the ones in Ohio and Florida come to mind.
This is a very close election and every vote counts. Be sure your voice is heard and go to the polls tomorrow, if you haven't already voted early or with an absentee ballot!
According to Nate Silver, the President now has an 86% chance of winning reelection, thanks to leads in the battleground states and a growing lead in the polls for the popular vote (now at 50.6 vs. 48.5). Although Silver says there are plenty of other reasons that Obama has rebounded since his performance at the first debate, I have no doubt that the hurricane and its aftermath did play a part in Romney's recent slippage.
I live in New Jersey, which, along with New York City, suffered the worst damage in the storm. Thankfully for us here in Northern New Jersey, the worst we got was a lot of downed trees and power lines. Since the rain wasn't that bad, we were spared the flooding we got last year during Hurricane Irene. But as everyone knows by now, the Jersey Shore was virtually destroyed and will take a long time to rebuild.
The destruction in New York City and New Jersey brought an endorsement for President Obama from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an Independent former Republican, who said he thought the president is best equipped to do something about climate change, which he said the storm made clear was an important issue.
And, even more importantly, Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, who gave the keynote speech at Romney's convention, praised the President's response to the hurricane and accompanied him on a tour of the devastation at the Jersey Shore.
"Christie told news outlets that the president’s response had been 'outstanding,' said that coordinating with the administration had been 'wonderful,' and remarked that 'the president has been all over this and he deserves great credit.' He even told Fox News the president had done a 'great job for New Jersey' while staying above the fray about politics: 'I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics, and I could care less about any of that stuff.'"After receiving criticism from the Romney camp for his embrace of President Obama during the crisis, Christie reiterated his support for Romney but refused to back down on his praise for the President.
"'I'm a Republican, I've endorsed Mitt Romney and I support him. I intend to vote for him on Tuesday,'" Christie said. 'But the fact of the matter is that if the President of the United States comes here and he is willing to help my people, and he does it, then I'm going to say nice things about him because he's earned it.'"In the meantime, Romney didn't do himself any favors by cynically calling an already-planned campaign rally a "storm relief rally" and actually buying some of the "donations" that supporters then picked up to "donate" to hurricane victims. It also doesn't help that he ignored the fact that the Red Cross discourages physical donations and prefers monetary aid, as sorting and shipping actual goods just takes more time, when it is usually faster to use the money to buy goods from locations closer to the center of the crisis. (You can go here to donate to the Red Cross, by the way!)
Romney's campaign also shot itself in the foot by airing deceptive commercials in Ohio during this same time period that warned Jeep and General Motors were sending jobs to China. Both Chrysler (which owns Jeep) and GM emphatically denied the accuracy of the ads.
So the general public saw President Obama acting presidential, suspending his campaign to look at storm damage, putting politics aside and joining a Republican governor in commiserating over his state's losses, while his opponent was holding a storm disaster campaign photo op and airing commercials that people knew were lies. Romney supporters shouldn't wonder why their candidate has lost his momentum and President Obama is pulling ahead.
But nothing is certain yet, as Republican governors in Florida and Ohio are doing their darnedest to suppress the vote in their states by limiting early voting, making sure there are horrendously long lines to vote in the (mostly) Democratic areas of their states, and any other strategies they can come up with.
In contrast, Christie has tried to make it easier for those displaced by the storm in New Jersey to vote, by adding early voting opportunities at county clerks' offices, extending the ability to vote by email to all citizens of the state, and allowing people to vote using provisional ballots if they are currently staying in a location outside of their usual voting area.
I am no fan of Christie, but I am very impressed with his fairness and bipartisanship during this crisis. There are certainly a lot worse Republican governors - and the ones in Ohio and Florida come to mind.
This is a very close election and every vote counts. Be sure your voice is heard and go to the polls tomorrow, if you haven't already voted early or with an absentee ballot!
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Romney, Rape and the Republicans
Hi all, sorry for my long absence. I have been busily posting political thoughts over on Facebook and getting into lots of conversations but have not gotten around to posting here for much too long.
But now that the race is near the end and there is a very real possibility that Romney might manage to win the presidency with his sudden turnaround to Mr. Moderate, I felt I needed to write more about what a Romney presidency would mean.
It seems Romney's plan all along was to veer hard right for the primaries and then, as one of his advisers memorably said, use the "Etch-a-Sketch" and get rid of all that in time for the fall campaign when moderates and independents become important in the race. At the time, the comment was seen as a gaffe, but it turns out that is exactly what he had in mind all along. And the Democrats didn't see it coming. No doubt that is one reason President Obama seemed so flummoxed in that first debate; he came prepared with all kinds of anti-far-right rhetoric and there was Romney, blithely making statements supporting moderate positions on subjects he had previously been "severely conservative."
Or at least, he made it seem that way. His dissembling was particularly noticeable in his claims about his stance on health care. Contraception? Oh, he's for it. All women should have access to contraception. But he, and unfortunately, President Obama, did not point out that the whole difference was the President's plan requires women's insurance to cover contraception and Romney's plan would not.
Pre-existing conditions? Oh, yes, a Romney plan would cover those. But of course he didn't say that his plan was simply a return to the current situation we already have - people who have already had insurance can continue being covered despite pre-existing conditions. It doesn't help anyone who hasn't been insured already, although the individual states could choose to cover them - again, no change from current policy. The pre-existing conditions lie was such a whopper his spokespeople had to explain it after the debate - when all the undecided voters had stopped paying attention.
So who is the real Mitt Romney? Apparently there isn't one. Mitt Romney is whoever he needs to be to get elected. The real question is, who are his masters? Who is he beholden to? It seems pretty obvious - The far right. Grover Norquist. The Tea Party. Right-wing evangelic Christians.
Heck, Grover Norquist himself said it doesn't really matter who is president as long as he signs the legislation that comes to his desk. And, if he wins, that person would be Romney.
Romney has distanced himself from the Ryan budget, coming out with his own budget. However, his budget includes a large increase in military spending, as well as lower taxes, which he said could be covered by getting rid of unidentified loopholes. According to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, in order for Romney's budget to work, it would require cuts in many programs that help the elderly, veterans, disabled people and poor children.
So, why are Republicans so fixated on rape? Because in their eyes, if a woman is raped, it wasn't her fault she got pregnant. She didn't have sex in order to enjoy it, heaven forbid. It was forced on her - and it better have been done forcibly, because after all, "some girls rape easy." If she just had sex voluntarily, out of desire, then she should reap what she sows, even if she was being responsible and using birth control that failed. She made her bed, let her lie in it. And of course the man had nothing to do with it, did he? No blame falls on him. It's all about controlling women.
Republican Richard Mourdock, who was recently criticized for his comments saying that pregnancy as a result of rape is something God intended, is just one of several Republicans, including Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, who don't believe in abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. But you know what? I don't really have a problem with that. If their belief is that life begins at conception, then an exception for rape or incest makes no sense at all. Either it's a life or it isn't. And if that's what you believe, fine - just don't impose that belief on everyone else.
Again, even the rape/incest exception is an example of the blame game against women - if the woman didn't mean to have sex, then it's OK to kill the fetus. Otherwise the woman should be forced to have that baby because again, she should reap what she sows.
Unfortunately, the idea of making the exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, is now being construed as a "moderate" position in the Republican party. As Gail Collins points out in today's New York Times,
If anyone thinks Romney doesn't endorse these antediluvian positions on women's right to choose, remember he said he would support amendments to the constitution proclaiming life begins at conception and that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also pledges to take away federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which provides needed health care to many low income women.
And if he has the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices - which is extremely likely - he will appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and who would be favorable to a constitutional amendment supporting marriage as being only between a man and a woman. According to his own website, "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito."
Then there's the whole issue of racism in the Republican camp. Every time I try to believe that racism isn't at the core of many Republicans' antipathy toward President Obama, another reminder smacks me in the face that yes, obviously, that is part of it. The coded and not-so-coded words (Sarah Palin, "shuck and jive"??? Really???) - Obama being hanged in effigy - and now, most recently, John Sununu, co-chair of Romney's campaign, accusing former Secretary of State Colin Powell of endorsing President Obama due to racism. Of course, he later backed off of his comments - but that is the Republican way: put it out there, send your signal, then say, "Oh, I didn't mean it like that."
Don't even get me started on climate change and the environment. Suffice it to say that Romney says he loves coal and would love to drill for oil and gas on public lands and in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and wants to gut environmental regulations.
So what is the upshot of all this? A Mitt Romney presidency would be bad for:
Women
The poor
Children
The middle class
The elderly
LGBT people
The environment
The only people it would be good for is the richest 1% of the population, and the military-industrial complex.
We are better than this. We must ensure that President Obama gets another four years to enact his policies.
Now we have the "storm of the century" bearing down on the eastern coast of the U.S. Let's hope it does not disrupt these elections. Voter turnout for President Obama's supporters is key. Let's make sure everyone gets to the polls and votes! This election could not be more important!
But now that the race is near the end and there is a very real possibility that Romney might manage to win the presidency with his sudden turnaround to Mr. Moderate, I felt I needed to write more about what a Romney presidency would mean.
It seems Romney's plan all along was to veer hard right for the primaries and then, as one of his advisers memorably said, use the "Etch-a-Sketch" and get rid of all that in time for the fall campaign when moderates and independents become important in the race. At the time, the comment was seen as a gaffe, but it turns out that is exactly what he had in mind all along. And the Democrats didn't see it coming. No doubt that is one reason President Obama seemed so flummoxed in that first debate; he came prepared with all kinds of anti-far-right rhetoric and there was Romney, blithely making statements supporting moderate positions on subjects he had previously been "severely conservative."
Or at least, he made it seem that way. His dissembling was particularly noticeable in his claims about his stance on health care. Contraception? Oh, he's for it. All women should have access to contraception. But he, and unfortunately, President Obama, did not point out that the whole difference was the President's plan requires women's insurance to cover contraception and Romney's plan would not.
Pre-existing conditions? Oh, yes, a Romney plan would cover those. But of course he didn't say that his plan was simply a return to the current situation we already have - people who have already had insurance can continue being covered despite pre-existing conditions. It doesn't help anyone who hasn't been insured already, although the individual states could choose to cover them - again, no change from current policy. The pre-existing conditions lie was such a whopper his spokespeople had to explain it after the debate - when all the undecided voters had stopped paying attention.
So who is the real Mitt Romney? Apparently there isn't one. Mitt Romney is whoever he needs to be to get elected. The real question is, who are his masters? Who is he beholden to? It seems pretty obvious - The far right. Grover Norquist. The Tea Party. Right-wing evangelic Christians.
Heck, Grover Norquist himself said it doesn't really matter who is president as long as he signs the legislation that comes to his desk. And, if he wins, that person would be Romney.
"All we have to do is replace Obama. We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget... We just need a president to sign this stuff."So whatever Mitt's real beliefs, if he has them, he will be kowtowing to the far right end of his party. He chose Paul Ryan as a running mate to do just that. Ryan's positions are what are "severely conservative." Ryan's proposed budget would change the tax structure, lowering the top bracket to 25% from 35%, as well as making Medicare into a voucher program and making Medicaid into a block grant program administered solely by the states.
Romney has distanced himself from the Ryan budget, coming out with his own budget. However, his budget includes a large increase in military spending, as well as lower taxes, which he said could be covered by getting rid of unidentified loopholes. According to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, in order for Romney's budget to work, it would require cuts in many programs that help the elderly, veterans, disabled people and poor children.
"For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs. But if policymakers repealed health reform (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) and exempted Social Security from cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage to meet Romney’s overall spending cap and defense spending target, then they would have to cut non-defense programs other than Social Security by 22 percent in 2016 and 34 percent in 2022... If they exempted Medicare from cuts for this period, the cuts in other programs would have to be even more dramatic — 32 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2022."Then there is the "war on women." For some reason this year the Republicans have been very focused on rape. Legitimate rape, forcible rape, other kinds of rape. Many of these discussions about rape pertain to the issue of abortion and pregnancy that occurs as a result of rape. And in Pennsylvania, there is proposed legislation requiring mothers on welfare to prove they were raped before they would be allowed to collect additional funds to support a new baby.
So, why are Republicans so fixated on rape? Because in their eyes, if a woman is raped, it wasn't her fault she got pregnant. She didn't have sex in order to enjoy it, heaven forbid. It was forced on her - and it better have been done forcibly, because after all, "some girls rape easy." If she just had sex voluntarily, out of desire, then she should reap what she sows, even if she was being responsible and using birth control that failed. She made her bed, let her lie in it. And of course the man had nothing to do with it, did he? No blame falls on him. It's all about controlling women.
Republican Richard Mourdock, who was recently criticized for his comments saying that pregnancy as a result of rape is something God intended, is just one of several Republicans, including Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, who don't believe in abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. But you know what? I don't really have a problem with that. If their belief is that life begins at conception, then an exception for rape or incest makes no sense at all. Either it's a life or it isn't. And if that's what you believe, fine - just don't impose that belief on everyone else.
Again, even the rape/incest exception is an example of the blame game against women - if the woman didn't mean to have sex, then it's OK to kill the fetus. Otherwise the woman should be forced to have that baby because again, she should reap what she sows.
Unfortunately, the idea of making the exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, is now being construed as a "moderate" position in the Republican party. As Gail Collins points out in today's New York Times,
" One of the truly disturbing parts of our current politics is that we have begun to identify people who want to impose their religious beliefs on millions of women who don’t share them as moderates as long as they’re O.K. with the rape exemption."The real shame of the whole "pro-life" stance in the Republican party is that they only care about that baby before it's born - afterwards, that baby and its mom are on their own. Don't expect handouts from the government to support that kid! Oh, and if he turns out to be a criminal, they have no problem with the death penalty. This has never made any sense to me either.
If anyone thinks Romney doesn't endorse these antediluvian positions on women's right to choose, remember he said he would support amendments to the constitution proclaiming life begins at conception and that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also pledges to take away federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which provides needed health care to many low income women.
And if he has the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices - which is extremely likely - he will appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and who would be favorable to a constitutional amendment supporting marriage as being only between a man and a woman. According to his own website, "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito."
Then there's the whole issue of racism in the Republican camp. Every time I try to believe that racism isn't at the core of many Republicans' antipathy toward President Obama, another reminder smacks me in the face that yes, obviously, that is part of it. The coded and not-so-coded words (Sarah Palin, "shuck and jive"??? Really???) - Obama being hanged in effigy - and now, most recently, John Sununu, co-chair of Romney's campaign, accusing former Secretary of State Colin Powell of endorsing President Obama due to racism. Of course, he later backed off of his comments - but that is the Republican way: put it out there, send your signal, then say, "Oh, I didn't mean it like that."
Don't even get me started on climate change and the environment. Suffice it to say that Romney says he loves coal and would love to drill for oil and gas on public lands and in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and wants to gut environmental regulations.
So what is the upshot of all this? A Mitt Romney presidency would be bad for:
Women
The poor
Children
The middle class
The elderly
LGBT people
The environment
The only people it would be good for is the richest 1% of the population, and the military-industrial complex.
We are better than this. We must ensure that President Obama gets another four years to enact his policies.
Now we have the "storm of the century" bearing down on the eastern coast of the U.S. Let's hope it does not disrupt these elections. Voter turnout for President Obama's supporters is key. Let's make sure everyone gets to the polls and votes! This election could not be more important!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I am still here fighting the good fight... for dogs!
This dog came in as a stray in February, and the shelter manager, who is herself a dog trainer, but not familiar with pit bulls, felt he had issues that needed to be resolved.
She sent him to be evaluated at an animal welfare organization called St. Hubert's, where he was deemed "an accident waiting to happen," due to his responses to other dogs and to strangers who approached him in a threatening or scary manner. He did, however, act very friendly to a stranger who approached him and greeted him.
At this point, the dog had been found wandering as a stray, probably abandoned by his original owner, and then kept in a cage with only limited interactions with the outside world for several weeks. Of course he was nervous and over-reactive.
The shelter manager continued to work with him, but never felt she could trust him despite the fact that shelter volunteers and others who met Memphis said he was friendly and had never shown any signs of hostility to them.
Finally a well-known local trainer and pit bull rescuer, Jeff Coltenback, who also runs a pet store in our town, offered to take Memphis and work with him to ensure he could pass the temperament test and be adopted out. He had hoped to take him on permanently as his rescue is a registered 501(c)(3) rescue organization, but instead the local Health Department insisted he only keep him to train him and made him sign a long agreement which included stipulations on what he could or could not say about the dog's training, among other details.
To make a long story short, although Jeff did not comment on the dog's training, he did put up pictures of Memphis with other people, including children, on his Facebook page, and the Health Department demanded after 8 days that he bring Memphis back to the shelter, as he was "putting the public in danger" and it could be a liability for the town. As you can imagine, he was doing nothing of the sort.
In fact, Jeff said he only exposed people to Memphis who agreed to work with him, Memphis was supervised at all times, and he said that this is the way he always works with dogs that need socialization. Furthermore, he said since Memphis had come to him he had seen zero evidence of any dangerous traits. The dog gave him no cause for concern or any need for correction during the eight days he had him.
In fact, because of Memphis' friendly and winning personality, Jeff and his family fell in love with the dog and now want to adopt him. Since Memphis was returned to the shelter over a week ago, he was given another behavior test, and his future is now an item on the agenda of the Board of Health meeting tomorrow night. Even though the Health Department must have received the written results of the behavior test by now, they are not revealing the conclusions until the meeting takes place.
The story of Memphis has gone viral, thanks to social media, Examiner.com and Facebook Causes. I know many of my blog friends are fans of pit bulls; for those who are not, please understand this is a good dog, a family dog, who deserves a loving home. Being with a professional trainer and rescuer who loves him would be a perfect solution for him. How could anyone deny him this happiness? Please see here for further information about Memphis and his plight.
I will try to get back into the political scene shortly; as always, I have been following what is going on and am appalled at the choice of Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate. On the plus side, it gives President Obama plenty of fodder to work with. No one can say this is an election without stark differences between the two sides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)