October 12, 2012

I swear I'm gonna do this!

October 7, 2012

Putting things into perspective . . .

I posted this text as a graphic on Facebook a little while ago (much to the annoyance of some conservative friends and family members, I'm sure):

[font size=5]Republican Ethics 101:[/font]

[font size=3]A President lies to Congress about a blow job that was none of Congress' business, amd it's a "high crime and misdemeanor " worthy of impeahment.

But a candidate tells the American people a string of 27 lies in 38 minutes about matters that are very much their business, and you're okay with that?

Got it!

October 5, 2012

An alternative hypothesis regarding President Obama's debate performance last night

Reading various posts on last night's debate, among the President's supporters, on this site as well as others, reactions seem to fall into one of four categories:

1. those who saw nothing at all amiss in the President's performance;
   
   
2. those who acknowledge he wasn't at his best, but claim that it was all part of the President's 11-dimensional chess strategy (or, alternatively, lay any responsibility for a sub-par performance at the feet of Lehrer's poor moderation);
   
   
3. those who acknowledge Lehrer's lousy moderation, but also believe that the President bears responsibility for what he did or did not bring to the debate, yet who do not see the outcome of last night's debate as the end of the world as far as the campaign goes; and
   
   
4. those who think President Obama absolutely blew it.

The first and fourth groups, I think, are both relatively small compared to the middle two. Few people who are familiar with what President Obama is capable of in settings like this, if they are being completely honest with themselves, would suggest that President Obama brought his best game to last night's debate. But likewise, while most would recognize that the President could have delivered a better performance than he did, they will also recognize that he did have a command of the facts underlying the issues discussed during the debate — a command his opponent clearly did not have — and know that one debate outcome is unlikely to have a significant effect on the outcome of the race.

As to the second group, if one acknowledges that the President wasn't on top of his game last night, I think it's a mistake to lay responsibility for that fact anywhere but on the President himself, irrespective of the admittedly lousy moderating by Lehrer. As for those who attribute the President's performance last night to some kind of intentional, strategic chess move, I'm afraid I can't quite buy that either. His demeanor wasn't that of someone who had coolly calculated a strategy for last night's debate. He was ill at ease, and it showed. To suggest it was an intentional move in a longer game just smacks, frankly, of Kool-Aid intoxication.

As anyone reading this has probably figured out by now, I find myself in the third group. And while I don't think a single, less-than-optimal debate performance will be all that significant in terms of the campaign, if all three debates were to have similar outcomes, that could create a real problem. So, last night's performance creates pressure on the President to deliver a stronger performance in the remaining debates. And that is what brings me around to my alternative hypothesis concerning that performance.

Having watched the President over these last, 4+ years, he seems to be the type who thrives under intense pressure. Indeed, I would say he delivers some of his best work when the stakes are really high, when his back is against a wall. And of course, that is consistent with the kind of competitive personality he is said to have. Thus, watching him last night, it almost seemed as if maybe, given all of Romney's recent troubles, he was feeling a bit too comfortable, and that perhaps, subconsciously, he needed to find a way to create the kind of pressure for himself that will invoke that competitive drive of his. And maybe that's all just so much armchair psychologizing. But it certainly strikes me as more plausible than the 11-dimensional chess hypothesis.

Any thoughts?

October 2, 2012

Inspired by another thread (pic) . . .

This thread inspired me . . .

September 30, 2012

United States Attorney Announces Procedures to Handle Election Fraud and Voting Rights Abuses

[font size=5]United States Attorney Announces Procedures to Handle Election Fraud and Voting Rights Abuses[/font]

United States Attorney Jerry E. Martin announced today that in conjunction with the Department of Justice’s on-going Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative, Assistant United States Attorneys and FBI agents will be available to handle complaints of election fraud and voter rights abuses.

“Every citizen must be able to vote without interference or discrimination and must enjoy the assurance that their vote will be counted,” said U.S. Attorney Martin. “The effectiveness of our Election Day Program depends in large part on the watchfulness and cooperation of the American electorate. It is imperative that those who have specific information about discrimination or election fraud make that information available immediately to the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the FBI. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will act promptly and aggressively to protect the integrity of the election process.”

The Department’s long-standing Election Day Program is intended to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the election process by providing local points of contact within the Justice Department where the public can report possible election fraud and voting rights violations while the polls are open on election day.

Asst. United States Attorneys Steve Jordan and Blanche Cook will be available while the polls are open on August 2, 2012, to receive and handle complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses in consultation with Justice Department Headquarters in Washington. They can be reached at the following numbers: AUSA Jordan-615-736-2083; AUSA Cook-615-736-5431.

< . . . >

Read full article at: http://www.fbi.gov/memphis/press-releases/2012/united-states-attorney-announces-procedures-to-handle-election-fraud-and-voting-rights-abuses

September 25, 2012

A comment of mine re. "What's Wrong with Pennsylvania" on the NY Times site...

Below is the text of a comment I posted to an article published on Sunday in The New York Times titled, "What's Wrong with Pennsylvania?". I guess I struck a chord: 400 recommendations and top billing in the Editor's Picks!

I grew up in north central Pennsylvania (Clinton County), and still have many family and friends who live there. I can tell you there is yet something else that ultimately works against Republicans, and, by extension, Romney, in the state. That is, the extreme identification of the GOP with hardline, evangelical fundamentalists and their social agenda. Pennsylvania is certainly not the most socially liberal state in the union, but neither is it the most conservative. Candidates (or parties) who seek to promote a theocratic agenda may achieve a degree of electoral success for a time, but PA voters, as a whole, are generally uneasy with religious zealots. Former Senator Rick Santorum is a prime example of this.

Sept. 24, 2012 at 3:04 a.m.

September 24, 2012

The part they left out of Ann's "Stop it, this is hard" quote . . .

"Stop it. This is hard. You have no idea how difficult it is keeping track of what my husband says from one audience to the next!"

September 21, 2012

There is an interesting attempt at damage control emerging from Romney supporters . . .

. It says, in effect, that Romney's comments on the now infamous video do not represent his "real" views, but were mere pandering to a group of wealthy donors in order to secure their patronage.

So, in order to counter the perception that Romney is a cynical, craven man who will shamelessly lie to certain groups of voters in order to secure their vote and thus win an election, they are present him as a cynical, craven man who will shamelessly lie to certain groups of voters in order to secure their cash and thus win an election.

Do they think that helps his cause? LOL!

September 18, 2012

So Mittens allows as how his comments were "not elegantly stated, but . . .

. . . doesn't retreat an inch from the content of those comments.

It is surely emblematic of just how clueless the man is that he would think the objections to his comments were primarily stylistic ones. The problem, Mittens, is not how you said it that was the problem -- it was WHAT YOU SAID!

September 17, 2012

Question concerning policies in state-run drug rehab programs

A friend of mine who has struggled for years with meth addiction came to me recently and anniounced he wants to get clean. This is something he has needed to do for a long time, and I am pleased that he now seems ready and willing to try to tackle this particular demon. But he is coming up against a stumbling block in the last place one would expect: in the policies of drug treatment facilities. Let me explain...

My friend is unemployed and is on Medicaid, so his options are pretty much limited to using one of the state-run (NY) facilities. He is also a heavy smoker. Now, here's the thing: it turns out that New York has a statewide policy in its drug treatement facilities that requires complete abstinence from smoking in addition to the obvious requirement of abstaining from the addictive substance for which he is seeking treatment. (Note: many private-run facilities do not impose this requirement.) He confided in me that while he feels like he is finally ready to try to tackle his meth addiction, and while smoking is also something he eventually wants to kick, he fears he is nowhere near strong enough, emotionally or psychologically, to address both addictions at the same time.

I am not, and have never been a smoker. But I did observe my mother's decades-long struggle to quit smoking. By the time she was in her early 60s, she did finally manage to quit; alas, it was not soon enough to prevent her from developing the lung cancer that took her life at age 69. So I do have some understanding of how beastly difficult it can be to overcome nicotine addiction. I have to say I'm kind of surprised to hear about these policies. I mean, in a perfect world, nobody would ever be addicted to anything,so multiple addictions wouldn't be such a problem. But in the real world, people are often addicted to multiple substances. Both meth and nicotine addictions have serious health ramifications, but I think few would disagree that tackling the meth addiction is more imminently critical than kicking smoking. So, I guess my question is, why would the state impose such a policy, that seems, almost by design, to set people up for failure? Without in any way minimizing the importance of quitting smoking, when dealing with people with two addictions where both are harmful to one's health, but one of which presents a more immediate threat and is illegal to boot, why on earth would they institute a policy that simply puts yet one more hurdle in the already difficult challenge of treating the addiction to the illegal, and arguably more imminently harmful, substance? That simply makes no sense to me. Does anybody have any insight to offer on this?