Many Apologies to Iowa From Louisiana but really, keep Jindal, we don’t want him

I would like to apologize to any Iowans out there for the omnipresence of our ambitious and irritating Governor Bobby Jindal.  I feel the need to do this because he’s going to be with you more than us for the next few years.  We can’t do anything more for him and you can.  So, he’s your problem now.  We’re just glad to be rid of him frankly.  Sorry it had to happen to you, but really, we appreciate it.

He’s such a problem that the Des Moines Register has told him to leave Iowa alone.  Actually, they told him that he got on the wrong bus.

A thistle to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for having the temerity to come here to lecture Iowans about their judges. Jindal was on the recent bus tour across the state campaigning to unseat Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. This is the governor of a state whose courts have consistently been ranked No. 49 out of the 50 states in the respected state courts survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Iowa consistently ranks in the top five or 10 states overall in the survey of business lawyers. In Marshalltown, Jindal got a laugh with the remark that “Some of these judges, they actually make the replacement refs in the NFL look like geniuses.” That may be the case in his state: In the 2008 survey, Louisiana’s judges were rated the worst among the 50 states in the area of competence. Maybe Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad should head down to Louisiana and take a bus tour to persuade the good people of that state to reform their system of electing judges.

According to another Lousiana Blogger whose been watching the Jindal Migration and search for the next BIG office, he’s been up to all kinds of things in Iowa.  Well, at least he can’t voucherize their educational system into a free for all funding of whacky christofascist cult camps. Bob Mann has been keeping up with Travels with Bobby.

Jindal, as you may recall, recently neglected his gubernatorial duties to spend a day trekking across Iowa, crusading against gay marriage and meddling in a state Supreme Court race.

That prompted a retired hotel clerk from Marion, Iowa, Dave Gregory, to send a letter to the editor of the Baton Rouge Advocate:

Your governor, Bobby Jindal, has traveled from town to town across Iowa crusading against gay marriage. Many suspect he’s already campaigning for the 2016 Iowa Presidential Caucuses.

We Iowans were recently subjected to an endless parade of Republican candidates during the 2012 Presidential Caucuses. We really don’t need Gov. Jindal’s wisdom and advice for the next four years.

Please call back your governor and find something for him to do. Aren’t there any homosexuals to persecute in Louisiana?

Yes, Bobby the guy well known for speaking faster than the speed of light–a well known snake oil salesman attribute–and for participating in the kidnapping and assault of a young women in the guise of “spiritual warefare” is now doing a full frontal assault on Iowa.   The aforementioned letter to the editor got a response down here in the Baton Rouge Advocate.  Namely, we don’t want him back.  He ran unopposed because the Democratic Party in Louisiana basically became nonexistent after Katrina.  No one voted in that election and he won by basically being anointed by the few wankers that voted.

In response to Dan Gregory of Marion, Iowa, (Oct. 1) who asked that we take our governor back home so he would stop crusading against gay marriage in Iowa: Bobby Jindal doesn’t have to get personally involved in persecuting homosexuals in Louisiana.

He has the Louisiana Family Forum and Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council to take care of that for him, so he won’t get his hands dirty at home. 
Sorry, Iowa, but we don’t want him either.

David Neubig

construction

Baton Rouge

Bobby only does things that Bobby thinks will get him the next highest office. Right now, he’s basically doing anything the Teavangelicals want and Louisiana is suffering and hating him for it.  Every one hates Jindal’s voucher program and his personal popularity is way way off.

And now a Southern Media and Opinion Research Poll finds Jindal sinking like a stone. It’s no surprise, but 89% of those surveyed don’t like Jindal’s slash and burn of the public Charity Hospitals. More startlingly, Jindal’s prized voucher program is opposed by 54% of Louisianians:

The poll shows Gov. Bobby Jindal with a 51 percent approval rating. That compares with 61 percent last spring and 64 percent a year ago…

Reductions for the LSU-operated charity hospital system are particularly unpopular. Eighty-nine percent said they were concerned by the cuts. Seventy-nine percent said the charity system would not be able to provide the same quality of health care, and 80 percent said Louisiana residents would lose access to health care as a result.

Among the poll’s other findings:

  • On the issue of school vouchers, 54 percent were opposed.
  • Salaries for state executives and political appointees were a hot button issue with 86 percent saying annual salaries of $175,000 and above are excessive or not justified.
  • 47 percent favor eliminating tax exemptions to increase state revenue compared to 35 percent opposed, which tracks with widespread opposition to deeper budget cuts.
  • 69 percent said the Legislature should be more independent from the governor

Bad news all around. #Vouchergate isn’t going well for Team Jindal. Nor are his high-priced public employee hires.

And it looks like the tax credit monster is about to bite Jindal back…

Jindal isn’t worried, however. He’s spent the last week campaigning for judges in Iowa, in some fields of dreams.

Jindal knows he can’t run for governor and really doesn’t care from here on out what he does to Louisiana.  He’s just building up his ‘conservative’ Republican credentials by railroading the state.

Let’s not forget he’s defunded the state’s library and left us with this voucher program that’s probably going to bring down a lot of public school systems in the state.

Louisiana is embarking on the nation’s boldest experiment in privatizing public education, with the state preparing to shift tens of millions in tax dollars out of the public schools to pay private industry, businesses owners and church pastors to educate children.

Starting this fall, thousands of poor and middle-class kids will get vouchers covering the full cost of tuition at more than 120 private schools across Louisiana, including small, Bible-based church schools.

The following year, students of any income will be eligible for mini-vouchers that they can use to pay a range of private-sector vendors for classes and apprenticeships not offered in traditional public schools. The money can go to industry trade groups, businesses, online schools and tutors, among others.

Every time a student receives a voucher of either type, his local public school will lose a chunk of state funding.

“We are changing the way we deliver education,” said Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican who muscled the plan through the legislature this spring over fierce objections from Democrats and teachers unions. “We are letting parents decide what’s best for their children, not government.”

The concept of opening public schools to competition from the private sector has been widely promoted in recent years by well-funded education reform groups.

Of the plans so far put forward, Louisiana’s plan is by far the broadest. This month, eligible families, including those with incomes nearing $60,000 a year, are submitting applications for vouchers to state-approved private schools.

That list includes some of the most prestigious schools in the state, which offer a rich menu of advanced placement courses, college-style seminars and lush grounds. The top schools, however, have just a handful of slots open. The Dunham School in Baton Rouge, for instance, has said it will accept just four voucher students, all kindergartners. As elsewhere, they will be picked in a lottery.

Far more openings are available at smaller, less prestigious religious schools, including some that are just a few years old and others that have struggled to attract tuition-paying students.

The school willing to accept the most voucher students — 314 — is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

And of course, who could forget this Jindal “education” initiative?

Jindal has an elite résumé. He was a biology major at my school, Brown University, and a Rhodes scholar. He knows the science, or at least he ought to. But in his rise to prominence in Louisiana, he made a bargain with the religious right and compromised science and science education for the children of his state. In fact, Jindal’s actions at one point persuaded leading scientific organizations, including theSociety for Integrative and Comparative Biology, to cross New Orleans off their list of future meeting sites (PDF).

What did Jindal do to produce a hornet’s nest of “mad scientists,” as Times-Picayune writer James Gill described them? He signed into law, in Gill’s words, the “Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), which is named for what it is designed to destroy.” The act allows “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials” to be brought into classrooms to support the “open and objective discussion” of certain “scientific theories,” including, of course, evolution. As educators who have heard such coded language before quickly realized, the act was intended to promote creationism as science. In April, Kevin Carman, dean of the College of Science at Louisiana State University, testified before the Louisiana Senate’s Education Committee that two top scientists had rejected offers to come to LSU because of the LSEA, and the school may lose more scientists in the future.

And now Jindal is poised to spend millions of dollars of state money to support the teaching of creationism in private schools.

The state of Louisiana has had a problem with evolution for a long, long time. In 1981, it passed a “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act,” which required the teaching of creation science alongside “evolution-science” in public schools. The Supreme Court struck it down in 1987 (in Edwards v. Aguillard), finding that creationism is inherently religious, and that the law’s “preeminent religious purpose” placed it in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Case closed? Not really.

When Jindal stepped into Republican politics in Louisiana, he had a choice to make. He could defend mainstream science, which sees evolution as the powerful, strongly supported, and widely tested theory that it is today. Or he could have joined the doubters and deniers that populate the electorate in his party. Campaigning for the governorship in 2007, Jindal touted his Christian faith, shied away from specific statements about evolution, and emphasized his commitment to local control of education. Louisianans didn’t have to wait long to find out what this meant for science.

Jindal signed the LSEA into law in 2008, endorsing the thinly veiled attempt to allow creationism into the science classrooms of his state. The backers of the law made it clear that material on intelligent design would be high on the list of supplemental materials that local boards and teachers could present to their students.

Please Iowa!  Do us a favor!  Just keep him there for the rest of his term so he can’t damage us any more!   I was kind of hoping Mitt would take him off our hands but it seem not even Mitt is THAT stupid.  So, we are so sorry Iowa.    Just look at our alligator tears!!!


Job Number Truthers

I guess today is Tinfoil Friday.  Allen West and Jack Welch think the BLS is manipulating unemployment number in response to some Chicago Mafia move to make Obama and the economy look better.  Huhn?  I would think if that was possible they would’ve been doing it all along instead of just suddenly producing a better but still anemic result at the last moment.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released an unexpectedly strong monthly jobs report on Friday, finding a dramatic drop in unemployment to 7.8 percent and revised the number of jobs added in July and August up from initial estimates. While for most Americans, the growing economy is good news, conservatives immediately expressed their skepticism in the jobs report’s credibility.

1) Minutes after the report was released, Jack Welch, who famously cooked General Electric’s accounting books when he was CEO, accused President Obama of manipulating the numbers to distract from his debate performance.

This is pretty weird. The jobs report was  straightforward this month.

The controversy, if it’s worth using that word, is over the unemployment rate, which dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. That’s three-tenths of one percent. That’s what all the fuss is about.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

The fact is that there’s not much that needs to be explained here. We’ve seen drops like this — and even drops bigger than this — before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent — two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isn’t some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.

What’s even odder is that Romney said the report wasn’t “realistic” and actually misstated the reasons for the change in numbers.

Mitt Romney challenged the significance of the drop in the unemployment rate today, arguing that the “real reality” is that the figure declined because “more and more people have just stopped looking for work.”

“There was a report that just came out this morning on job creation this last month,” said Romney at a rally in the battleground state of Virginia. “There were fewer new jobs created this month than last month. And the unemployment rate as you noted this year has come down very, very slowly, but it’s come down nonetheless.”

“The reason it’s come down this year is primarily due to the fact that more and more people have just stopped looking for work,” Romney said. “And if you just dropped out of the work force, if you just give up and say look I can’t go back to work I’m just going to stay home, if you just drop out all together why you’re not longer part of the employment statistics.”

“So it looks like unemployment is getting better, but the truth is, if the same share of people were participating in the workforce today as on the day the president got elected, our unemployment rate would be around 11 percent,” said Romney. “That’s the real reality of what’s happening out there.”

This morning’s jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the nation’s unemployment rate dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent, the first time it’s been below 8 percent in four years. September saw the addition of 114,000 jobs, according to the report, a decrease from the 142,000 that were added in August, and  statistic that Romney emphasized on the trail today.

Yes, random variation is quite suspicious and unrealistic.  Here’s the labor force numbers straight from the report. Romney told an audience the exact opposite had happened.  There is no way he actually read the report.  Well, that or he was lying again.

The civilian labor force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1

The best article I’ve seen today explaining the job situation and the Welch Tin Foil hat theory is here at The Atlantic.

A number of conservatives have suggested the 873,000 household figure is wildly implausible, if not an outright conspiracy to help Obama on the part of the BLS. This is nonsense. As Greg Ip of The Economist points out, the employer and household numbers often diverge over the short-term, but they mostly match up over the long-term. And they still do if we look at the past three months. The employer survey showed job gains of 181,000 in July, 141,000 in August and 114,00 in September, for an average gain of 146,000. The household survey showed job losses of 195,000 in July, 119,000 in August, and job gains of 873,000 in September, for an average gain of 186,000. If you can’t see the conspiracy there, well, you just might be mathematically literate.

Wow. Is this the silly season or what?


Crib Sheet or Hankie?

The internet is abuzz with this video showing Romney placing a white object on the podium during the debate.

I saw Romney go back to the podium at the end of debate, pick something up, and then hand it off to his son that placed it in his jacket pocket.  I thought that was really weird at the time and mentioned it to BB in a phone call.  I didn’t catch the the original out of Romney pocket incident pictured in the You tube above.  We’re hearing several stories about what the thing could’ve been.  The Romney camp says it’s a handkerchief.  However, why hand off a handkerchief to your son after the debate or were those his “new” debate notes on the podium?  U.S. News has this article that says it’s a hankie but then the reference to the supposed use of the hankie later isn’t shown in the Fox video at the time suggested but they do have a picture in the link below.

Reddit was up in arms last night after video from the first presidential debate in Denver posted to the site’s politics section appeared to show Mitt Romney pulling cheat notes at the debate. About 2 minutes and 15 seconds in to the video, the GOP nominee is seen putting his hand into his right pocket and placing what appears to be white paper on the podium.

But the Romney campaign told Whispers Friday that Romney was only pulling out a handkerchief.

A close analysis of video of the debate supports that. At 1:26:35 in the video, Romney picks up the same white object—clearly a handkerchief this time—to wipe his face.

So, I still am left with the question of what got handed off to the son?  But, here’s another look at the face wipe and the pocket maneuver.

Meanwhile, I’m looking for the video that I saw on CSPAN with the end of debate hand off.  I found it and it shows him walking to the podium picking up paper and trying to put it his jacket and then when that fails, giving it to his son.  I dunno if that’s the same piece of paper or not.  What do you think?

A CBS affiliate picked up on my observations too.

The rules of the presidential debates are clear about not bringing outside notes and presidents and aspirants have followed the rule for decades.

Video of the first eleven seconds of the debate available on YouTube shows Mitt Romney reaching into his pocket at the moment he is out of view of those in front of him, he used the lectern as a shield, and removing what appears to be folded papers from his pocket.

We see this because the camera that was broadcasting was behind Romney. Those in the audience and the moderator may have been shielded from his sleight of hand, but not the viewers.

Romney then proceeds to unfold the item in front of him.

For those curious if it could have been some else, later video sheds some light on what Romney retrieves from his lectern.

After the Romney and Obama families chat post-debate the President walks off stage, leaving his notes behind for an aide, no doubt.

But not so for Romney. The Presidential challenger goes back to his lectern to retrieve his items. It is clear that the only thing that Romney takes is paper. Not a handkerchief. Not a white flag. Nothing but paper.

So, I’m waiting for Joseph Cannon to look at this!  It’s right up his alley!  Is this tin foil hat material or legit?


Friday Reads

Good Morning!

I”m finally getting over this sinus infection so I’ve had a chance to actually read a few interesting things.  First up, is yet another one of those folks that insists that baby boomers are parasites.    I really hate generational warfare, don’t you?  However, this one is interesting.  It’s put in terms of a conversation between baby boomer son and ‘greatest generation’ father and the arguments are backed up by interesting anecdotes and statistics. Still, why do have to keep score on who’s screwed up the country more in terms of age groups?

The boomers haven’t been a total disaster, of course. They did indeed blaze huge social and economic trails for women, minorities, and people with disabilities. Those groups have gained rights that, as long as the rest of us remain vigilant, will never be reversed: Young women can grow up to be lawyers or scientists. African-Americans can grow up to be president. Boomers gave us Apple and Microsoft. They made the Star Wars movies. They grew the economy for a bit. Once, for a couple of years in the late 1990s, they balanced the federal budget.

But the numbers on the laptop remind me how fleeting much of that progress was—and how boomers chose short-term gratification when they had opportunities to secure a better future for generations to follow. Classic example: Instead of devoting the budget surpluses of the late ’90s to social programs that desperately needed them, they voted themselves tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and an expanded Medicare benefit shortly after—a move a Congressional Budget Office study from that era suggests raised the expected tax rate on future generations from 29 percent to 53 percent. They borrowed heavily to cope with the economic sluggishness of the 2000s and, in so doing, inflated a housing bubble that, when it popped, triggered the Great Recession.

Median-income growth has stagnated for women and minorities over the past decade. The typical African-American today has less wealth than his or her parents did, according to Pew. Labor-force participation for women this year hit its lowest level since 1991.

So, the Brits pile on boomers too.  Here’s something from The Economist on “Sponging Boomers” and how that relates to the next crisis.

These boomers have lived a charmed life, easily topping previous generations in income earned at every age. The sheer heft of the generation created a demographic dividend: a rise in labour supply, reinforced by a surge in the number of working women. Social change favoured it too. Households became smaller, populated with more earners and fewer children. And boomers enjoyed the distinction of being among the best-educated of American generations at a time when the return on education was soaring.

Yet these gains were one-offs. Retirements will reverse the earlier labour-force surge, and younger generations cannot benefit from more women working. There is room to raise educational levels, but it is harder and less lucrative to improve the lot of disadvantaged students than to establish a university degree as the norm for good ones, as was the case after the war. In short, boomer income growth relied on a number of one-off gains.

Young workers also cannot expect decades of rising asset prices like those that enriched the boomers. Zheng Liu and Mark Spiegel, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, found in 2011 that movements in the price-earnings ratio of equities closely track changes in the ratio of middle-aged to old workers, meaning that the p/e ratio is likely to fall. Having lived through a spectacular bull market, boomers now sell off assets to finance retirement, putting pressure on equity prices and denying young workers an easy route to wealth. Boomers have weathered the economic crisis reasonably well. Thanks largely to the rapid recovery in stockmarkets, those aged between 53 and 58 saw a net decline in wealth of just 2.8% between 2006 and 2010.

More worrying is that this generation seems to be able to leverage its size into favourable policy. Governments slashed tax rates in the 1980s to revitalise lagging economies, just as boomers approached their prime earning years. The average federal tax rate for a median American household, including income and payroll taxes, dropped from more than 18% in 1981 to just over 11% in 2011. Yet sensible tax reforms left less revenue for the generous benefits boomers have continued to vote themselves, such as a prescription-drug benefit paired with inadequate premiums. Deficits exploded.

Yes. So, all of us should just head to the ice floes.  La-ti-da.

So, here’s my weekly update on interesting historical graves.  Archaeologists believe they have found the tomb of an ancient queen in Guatamala.  A tiny jar has given them some key clues.

Glyphs carved into a tiny alabaster jar have led archaeologists to conclude that the tomb in Guatemala where the jar was found belonged to one of the greatest queens of the Classic Maya civilization, known as Lady K’abel.

“She was not only a queen, but a supreme warlord, and that made her the most powerful person in the kingdom during her lifetime,” David Freidel, an archaeologist at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a report released today. That description would put Lady K’abel in the same class as other ruling women of the ancient world, ranging from the biblical Queen of Sheba to Egypt’sHatshepsut and Cleopatra.

That’s some heady company for Lady K’abel.

Some of the most bizarre comments made by Mitt Romney was his dislike of shipping jobs to China or having China fund our lifestyle as compared to funding their own. It takes brass ones to suggest that he’s not been in favor of shipping jobs to China given this Bain Capital investment in a Chinese factory that is quite shocking.  The word sweatshop is so inadequate.  No wonder he thinks all of us are freeloaders if he thinks this situation constitutes a normal working conditions. Romney discussed the working conditions so he was well aware of where his money was going.

Economist Paul Davidson recently pointed out the truth on AlterNet : “Romney has spent his career offshoring and outsourcing American production processes — and associated jobs — to countries like China where human labor is valued in the market at a very low wage rate.” The sub-human conditions at these production facilities represent things that Americans are strongly opposed to: child abuse, squalor, forced overtime, and peanuts for pay.

Romney’s penchant for bragging about his business activities at fundraisers helps underscore just how vile his brand of capitalism really is. While CEO of Bain, Romney invested in a Chinese sweatshop which he appears to be describing in detail at the very same Boca Raton fundraising event where he made his infamous case that nearly half of all Americans are freeloaders.

A report recently released by the Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights reveals that while Romney was deeply invested at a firm called Global-Tech, low pay and horrific conditions were status quo at its Chinese appliance factory.

Here are some really horrifying details from the same article.

From April 1998 through August 2000, Romney and his Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain affiliate, poured around $23 million into the Global-Tech sweatshop in Dongguan, China. Among the details outlined in the report were the following:

  • Factory workers made 24 cents an hour in 1998 and less than $2 a day. Wages in Global-Tech were less than 2 percent of U.S. wages.
  • As CEO, Romney appears to have been uninterested in calling for improvements at the facility. Today, the sweatshop is still a horror where starvation wages prevail and workers’ rights are nonexistent. Overcrowded, filthy dormitories; rotten food; routine 15- to 16-hour shifts; and backbreaking 105- to 112-hour, seven-day workweeks are the norm.
  • The appliance factory has 800 student “interns” — 16-years-olds forced to work repetitive, exhausting 15- to 16-hour shifts on assembly lines with no overtime pay.

There’s a story in Vanity Fair on Jamie Dimon that’s also an eye-opener.

… Dimon’s sanguinity is somewhat belied by the formidable lobbying machine that he’s built in Washington. JPMorgan’s shop is much bigger than that of other banks, and it is chock-full of politically connected former congressional staffers. The firm has become known for the regularity with which its top people show up in Washington.

Dimon has put himself front, center, and uncensored in the debate about tougher oversight. He’s lambasted regulators for failing to recognize that, while some companies were “too big to fail,” others were “ports in the storm,” and for making “hundreds of rules, many of which are uncoordinated and inconsistent with each other.”

Part of the explanation is purely pragmatic: Dimon is trying to preserve his firm’s profits—and maybe the firm itself. But it’s hard not to hear something more emotional when you listen to Dimon. “This country would be flying if we had gotten stuff right and all worked together, but we haven’t,” he says. He frequently says that banks and bankers are being “scapegoated” for their role in the crisis, and he is full of righteous indignation. He often invokes Abraham Lincoln: “I’m a Democrat, and I tell Democrats and Republicans, you guys are busy simplifying and scapegoating—well, Abe Lincoln wouldn’t do it.” He says he’s heard the story of a young officer telling Lincoln during the Civil War, “We’re going to win because God is on our side.” Lincoln responded, “Son, let’s hope that we’re on God’s side.”

I watched Amy Goodman on Democracy Now after the end of the Debates.  She did a great segment on the difficulty of getting outsider candidates into the presidential debate.  You may want to watch it if you get a chance.

President Obama made a good point in late 2011, when he told “60 Minutes,” “Don’t judge me against the Almighty; judge me against the alternative.” If only the public had a full range of alternatives against which to judge. In fact, most people do. They just don’t know it. The reason they don’t know it is because the media don’t report on third-party politics or campaigns. These campaigns also lack the funds to purchase television airtime, or to compete against the Democratic and Republican campaign fundraising juggernauts. This leads to less diversity of voices, and far fewer alternatives on the ballot.

It hasn’t always been this way. In 1980, the League of Women Voters ran the debates, and independent presidential candidate John B. Anderson was allowed to participate (President Jimmy Carter opposed his participation and boycotted the event). In 1992, billionaire Ross Perot used his personal funds to overcome the media blockade of his presidential campaign. His successful debate performance temporarily propelled him ahead of both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in the polls.

Since then, no third-party candidate has been allowed into the presidential debates. The debates are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization described by George Farah, founder and executive director of Open Debates, as “a private corporation financed by Anheuser-Busch and other major companies, that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties to seize control of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters.”

Farah told me that in 1988, “you have the Michael Dukakis and the George Bush campaigns drafting the first-ever 12-page secret debate contract. They gave it to the League of Women Voters and said please implement this. The League said, Are you kidding me? We are not going to implement a secret contract that dictates the terms of the format. Instead, they release the contract to the public and they held a press conference accusing the candidates of ‘perpetrating a fraud on the American people’ and refusing to be ‘an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people.’”

The Democratic and Republican parties wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters, and have controlled them since.

So, I love Japanese woodcut prints and had quite a collection of them prior to the divorce.   Fortunately, older daughter has been ensuring they don’t disappear to E-bay and into her step mother’s casino fund.  The one above is called Beauty and Violence.  I wanted to end with a really interesting and inspiring story about the elderly in Japan.  Japan has an extremely large population of long-lived seniors.  This story is about them and their participation in athletics. Notice that Japan is not promoting the ice floes like Paul Ryan and a lot of Republican leaders even though Japan’s debt is substantially more worrisome than ours.

Saddled with record public debt, Japan is promoting social interaction to curb the cost of caring for the 32 percent its people older than 60 — the highest proportion globally. By 2050, one in five people worldwide will be over 60, from one in nine now, according to the United Nations. Japan’s approach may help other countries also facing rising numbers of elderly.

“It enables them to participate quite actively in community life,” said Babatunde Osotimehin, secretary general of the UN’s Population Fund, which is leading UN efforts on aging. People with strong social networks “will probably not fall ill as frequently,” he said in an interview in Tokyo, where the UN released a report on aging this week.

Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare released policies on health and aging that focus on strengthening seniors’ community involvement in July, a shift from previous approaches that centered only on individual behavior.

Finding cost-effective ways to promote healthy aging will be critical for countries trying to reconcile rising welfare costs and a shrinking tax base. By 2050, 42 percent of Japan’s population will be at least 60 years old, according to Global AgeWatch.

Read on about Japan’s 10 point plan for Healthy Aging. It includes subsidizing exercise for seniors and rewarding them for doing civic and group activities with coupons.

In Tokyo’s Suginami ward, where Doi lives, authorities award points in the form of stickers to seniors who participate in government-approved activities from picking up litter, to attending health and sporting events, to cultural activities. Each point has a value of 50 yen (64 cents) and can be exchanged for grocery coupons. The Suginami local government has allocated 80 million yen for the project this year, according to its website.

“People who are disadvantaged socially and economically have more health problems,” the health ministry in Tokyo said in July.

Each year since 1988, the ministry has hosted the “Nenrinpic” carnival in which seniors compete at a national level in sports such as tennis, petanque and croquet. Doi’s petanque team has represented Tokyo five times, been a finalist three times and won the championship in 1999, she said.

Health clubs are benefiting from a growing enthusiasm for exercise among seniors. Koshidaka Holdings Co., which operates 1,200 women-only fitness centers in Japan, says 50- and 60-year- olds make up more than 60 percent of its 500,000 members.

“The core customers have never really exercised in their adult life before, so they feel the benefits from an easy, 30- minutes of weight training,” Hiroshi Koshidaka, the company’s president, said in an interview. “Many come three times a week, feel improvement, make friends, encourage others to join, and stop people from quitting.”

The purpose of the plan is to end the isolation that many seniors feel and support them in a healthy, connected life style.  Wow.  Imagine that.

So, I’ve gone way past my usual length and MABlue always gives me a hard time about that so, I’ll leave the rest of the day’s news reporting to you.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


“Winning” in the Sheen/Romney mode: Does truth matter?

Okay, so my first impression of the “new” Romney was actually thinking he came off like the old Charlie Sheen. How can people be impressed with some one that continually lied, presented himself and his agenda as something diametrically opposed to what he’s been saying for the last year, and continually, frantically interrupted both the moderator and the president?  Is this really WINNING!? Are we after a debate where we learn about issues and facts or a reality show meltdown?

Obama has never been a spirited debater.  Any one that was paying attention to the 2008 primaries knows that.  The big difference that I can see in this debate performance and the 2008 performance is that Obama actually has a grasp on policy this time out and he can talk about it.  Evidently, that’s not enough for the punditry these days.  They want tingly legs. They want something akin to a reality show. IMHO, only Romney gave them that.

The morning after appears to be filled with fact checking in the print press.  Romney is losing on substance and facts.  I posted a series of fact checking posts early this morning.  There’s more today.  Here’s the shrill one.

And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.

Above all, there’s this:

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.

I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.

And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.

Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.

So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale.

Here’s another one from Jonathan Chait.  Most of the print press is picking up on the lies big time.  However, the TV punditry personalities are still enthralled with the Romney Sheen-style “WINNING!”. Romney’s successful debate strategy was manically and aggressively lying. WINNING!!!

Romney was forceful and articulate and dodged his association with almost all the most unpopular aspects of his platform. But his success at doing so was built upon two demonstrable untruths.

The most important was taxes. Romney asserted, “I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans.” Let me explain how this is untrue even by his own campaign’s accounting.

Obama badly flubbed this topic by allowing Romney to change the baseline of the discussion. Romney is promising to extend all the Bush tax cuts and refuses to accept even slightly higher revenue as part of a deficit deal. On top of that, he is proposing a huge, regressive income tax rate cut that would reduce revenue by an additional $5 trillion, but promises to make up for it by closing tax deductions. Obama directed his fire almost entirely at the additional tax cut, leaving mostly untouched, until the end, Romney’s pledge to never bargain away any of the Bush tax cuts.

Obama’s case was sound. The Tax Policy Center has shown that the stated parameters of Romney’s plan don’t add up — even under favorable assumptions, there are not enough tax deductions for the rich to close to pay for the rate cuts. Romney has disputed this and cited a series of studies that, in various ways, change the parameters of the Tax Policy Center study. Some of these studies find that it could be theoretically possible that Romney could cut rates and, by closing loopholes, do so without losing revenue or raising taxes on the middle class — if you lower the bar on who is middle class from $250,000 to $100,000, or count the repeal of Obamacare to help pay for the tax cuts, or use really wildly optimistic growth assumptions.

None of these studies back up Romney’s claim that he won’t reduce taxes on the rich. They confirm that he will reduce taxes on the rich. They merely suggest that he could make up the revenue some other way than taxing the middle class or increasing the deficit — that the economic growth will help the tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves, or that some of the lost revenue can be made up for by cutting off subsidies for the uninsured. Romney flat-out misstated his position.

My first reaction to the opening Romney statement was “WHOA, Nellie”.  He basically made statements on policy that were 180 degree turns from everything he’s previously said.  No wonder the President look flummoxed.  You basically prepare for a man whose entire platform is based on tax cuts for the rich and calling 47% of the population moochers and the guy says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich?  Then, he says he thinks regulation is okay?  AND, he’s back to saying that his plans actually keep the popular parts of “ObamaCare” when they don’t?  Lying is WINNING!

I called my dad–who could serve as an archetype of the Republican Small Businessman–immediately after the debate and nothing about the debate impressed him.   He said it wasn’t a debate at all.  He was nonplussed.  My immediate reaction was to be appalled by the degree of Romney rudeness and aggressiveness   I don’t consider ordering a moderator around and calling him out for not keeping to the exact second of the time rule to be anything but extremely rude and bullying.  I don’t like that kind of disrespectful behavior.  I don’t consider aggressive lying and hyperactive speed talking to be “WINNING!”  It certainly hasn’t taken Charlie Sheen any where but to cable reruns.  But of course, both Jim and Big Bird seem to be “likeable enough” for Romney.  Just not worthy of a few tax dollars.

Here’s “The Four Most Misleading Moment’s in Romney’s Debate Performance” from Jonathan Cohn at TNR.  These are my thoughts exactly.

The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.

Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.

My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.

My question to every one is how does any one prepare for a debate with some one who lies and recreates himself and his positions continually?  It’s like a trying to catch a greased pig who is also shot up with methamphetamine and testosterone to amp up the squeals. Which Romney do you prepare for?  The Romney who continually says he’s going to lower the tax rates for the rich or the one who says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich?  The Romney who wants to repeal everything in Obamacare or the Romney who insists that preconditions are covered by his health care policy which is basically pre-Obama care which means it’s NOT covered. The Romney who hates regulation or the Romney who finds things he likes in Dodd-Frank?  Romney’s statements make Charlie Sheen look decidedly un-Bi-Polar by comparison.

The only hint of Romney that actually came out in the debate was the one who insisted that he supported Medicare Vouchers but only by reassuring his older voters that the sucky plan wouldn’t impact them. Not so coincidentally, Obama’s counterargument was the best one on this topic.   Obama held a rally in Denver this morning.  He made the arguments at this rally that he should’ve made last night.  Unfortunately, that’s a little late for the TV pundits who should take notes from their print colleagues and start fact checking Romney’s “WINNING!” performance.

It didn’t impress me and it didn’t impress my father. It turned both of us off.  Are we alone on this?   I saw the bully and the liar in the Romney performance.  Didn’t you? But then, I think both of us were looking for substance and not a reality show meltdown where Obama out-Charlie Sheen’d Romney.  I wasn’t looking for “Fire-breathing Fists” or “Tiger Blood”.  Were you? It seems that Tweetie wants tingly legs and Tiger blood.  That’s not what a debate should be about.  So, shut up about already and get on with dismantling the lies and inconsistencies.