Mitt Romney — Still A Bully After All These Years

Posted: June 21, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , | 23 Comments

Mitt Romney, what a prankster he is! There was that time he and five other high school senior held down a gay classmate while Mitt cut his hair off. What a riot that guy is! And what about the time he dressed up as a Michigan state trooper and stopped a car with some of his “friends” in it and scared them half to death?

But that’s nothing compared to the clever pranks the adult Mitt likes to pull. Last night all five of Mitt’s sons were on the Conan O’Brien show and did they ever tell some funny stories about their dear old dad! Watch it:

Hey, who doesn’t love having a stick of butter smashed into his or her face? Good times. And writing “help” on the soles of your “friend’s” shoes when he’s getting married. Ha ha ha, what a riot! I wonder why the guy isn’t “friends” with Mitt anymore? What a spoilsport!

Here are a few Mitt cartoons I came across tonight:

This is an open thread.

Tuesday Reads: My Objections to Mainstream Media Reporting on the Trayvon Martin Case

Posted: May 22, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 67 Comments

Good Morning!

I’ll warn you up front: I’m going to subject you to another rant about the Trayvon Martin case. If you’re not interested, you can stop reading now and just head for the comments. I promise not to take offense. BTW, it was either this or a rant about Cory Booker and Harold Ford.

I’m still following the Trayvon Martin story very closely, and I’ve been really shocked at the way the mainstream media has covered it. There has been a surprising willingness of reporters and “experts” to accept George Zimmerman’s multiple and conflicting versions of what happened on the night of February 26, 2012, when he shot and killed an unarmed minor child, for example, see here. I can’t help but wonder if some kind of institutionalized racism isn’t involved. Here are a few of the obvious inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s accounts just off the top of my head.

We’ve been told that Martin walked in circles around Zimmerman’s truck, and that Zimmerman was terrified. Yet Zimmerman was on the phone with a police dispatcher at the time and never mentioned this threatening activity.

We also know that Martin was on the phone with a friend at that time. Does it make sense that he would repeatedly circle Zimmerman’s truck while at the same time telling his friend he was frightened because a “crazy and creepy” man was watching and following him? And why would Zimmerman then get out of his truck and begin following Martin (while still on the phone with the dispatcher) if he was so frightened of the boy? We know that he did get out of his car and follow Martin, because Zimmerman told the police dispatcher so, and you can hear him huffing and puffing on the call as he either ran or walked quickly after Martin.

We’ve also been told that after Zimmerman got out of his car, he lost sight of Martin and turned back toward his truck. Then suddenly Martin attacked from behind, knocking Zimmerman to the sidewalk. Then supposedly Martin climbed on top of Zimmerman and banged his head on the pavement again and again and again. Where’s the evidence for that?

We now know that Zimmerman had a superficial cut on the back of his head and a couple of other cuts on his face as well as a bloody nose. We’ve been told that he had two black eyes and a closed fracture of his nose, but no photos of these injuries have been released. There was no sign of black eyes in the videos of Zimmerman at the police station after the shooting.

Certainly getting your head banged on cement should lead to serious damage–including brain damage or internal bleeding–not just a one-inch long cut! Here is an article about a man in Florida who fell and hit his head on the pavement and died from his injuries. Perhaps you could hit your head on pavement and survive, but pounded violently and repeatedly into the pavement? Surely that would turn the back of your head to hamburger.

Furthermore, if the fight took place on the sidewalk, how did Martin’s body end up in the middle of a grassy area? Police also reported that the back of Zimmerman’s jacket was wet and covered with grass stains. Witnesses describe a fight that moved over a distance and was witness successively by neighbors along the way.

Zimmerman also told police that Martin held his hand over his (Zimmerman’s mouth) as they fought, but at the same time that Zimmerman was screaming for help at the top of his lungs.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, even police did not believe the story about the hand over the mouth, because Zimmerman wouldn’t have been able to scream out words if his mouth were covered.

Police also had problems with some of the melodramatic quotes Zimmerman attributed to Martin, such as the claim (through Zimmerman’s father) that Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun and announced “you’re going to die tonight.” You have to wonder how many arms Martin had to be punching Zimmerman, holding his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth, pounding his head on the pavement, and also reaching for the gun. Of course we now know that none of Martin’s DNA was found on any part of the gun, yet Zimmerman told police the two struggled over it.

In Zimmerman’s account, Martin was sitting on top of him, punching him and suddenly Martin saw the gun and reached for it and the two struggled over it. How would Martin have seen the gun if it was in the holster on Zimmerman’s waist. Wouldn’t he have been sitting at or above the waist in order to punch Zimmerman’s face? And how would Zimmerman have pulled his gun out in this position? Another problem with this story is that the autopsy showed that the trajectory bullet went front to back in a straight line. How would Zimmerman have been able to do this with Martin sitting on top of him like this?

How would the man on the bottom manage a straight, front-to-back shot from that angle? Wouldn’t it make more sense if they had been standing at the time of the gunshot?

Zimmerman also told police that after he shot Martin, the boy said the words “Okay you got it” or “you got me.” But from the autopsy results we now know that Martin was shot straight through the left ventricle of the heart with a hollow-point bullet. His lungs collapsed immediately as the bullet split into pieces. How would he have been able to speak? I think he probably died instantly.

So there are all kinds of problems with Zimmerman’s account(s) of the shooting and the events leading up to it. Yet, most mainstream media sources that I’ve read are reporting that Zimmerman’s account(S) are corroborated by the evidence. The assumption is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and therefore somehow deserved to die. I just don’t get it.

Since the release of part of the prosecution evidence, media outlets have focused on the finding that Trayvon Martin had trace levels of THC in his blood and urine at the time of his death, but have paid almost no attention to the much more powerful and dangerous medications that George Zimmerman was taking–Adderall (two forms of amphetamine) and Restoril (a sedative-hypnotic in the benzodiazepine family). Both of these are addictive drugs that are commonly abused, yet media reports have tended to minimize their mood-altering effects.

It seems to me that if Zimmerman’s attorney opts for a hearing on a stand-your-ground claim that all these inconsistencies will be brought up. That will be problematic for Zimmerman, because he will have to take the stand in order to state his case and back it up. He will have to describe the events of the night and explain any discrepancies with his previous statements. He made five different statements to police and participated in a taped recreation of events at the scene.

At Zimmerman’s bond hearing, prosecutor Bernie de la Ronda suggested that there were inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s statements (de la Ronda was referred to as “unidentified male” in the CNN transcript).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [Prosecutor de la Ronda]: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested — I’m sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?

ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the following morning. Is that correct?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn’t it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started “I don’t remember”?

O’MARA [Zimmerman’s attorney]: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.

JUDGE LESTER: We’ll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn’t it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn’t believe it, that you would say “I don’t remember”?

JUDGE LESTER: I’m going to grant his motion at this time.

O’MARA: Thank you, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?

ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.

Prosecutor de la Ronda also alluded to some e-mails and text messages that were found on Zimmerman’s cell phone after his arrest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Now, sir, you had a phone at some point and you agreed to turn over that phone to the police so they could make a copy of what was in there, right?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in that phone did you receive or send text messages sir.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to a reverend?

O’MARA: Objection, your honor. Outside the scope.

JUDGE LESTER: Sustained.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to Mr. Martin, the father of the victim?

JUDGE LESTER: Sustained. You’re getting a little bit far away.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize your honor. My question is he was asked in terms of apology to the family and I’d like to be able to address that if I could. JUDGE LESTER: I think you can classify that whether or not he asked the apology. I don’t want to get into other areas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

JUDGE LESTER: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is, Mr. Zimmerman, do you recall sending a message to someone, an e-mail, about referring to the victim’s father?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. I don’t.

The statements that Zimmerman gave to police and the e-mails and text messages from his cell phone have not been released yet. But we have learned from one witness’s statement that Zimmerman has shown himself to be a bully and a bigot toward a Middle Eastern co-worker. I suspect that the comments found on Zimmerman’s cell phone were derogatory and racist references to Trayvon Martin’s family and/or their supporters. The “reverend” might be Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Zimmerman will also have to deal with the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s friend (referred to in the media as “Dee Dee,” who was talking to Martin during the time leading up to the confrontation and the shooting. In the full interview that she gave to the prosecutor, “Dee Dee” describes hearing a confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin says “Why are you following me for?” and Zimmerman responds by saying “What are you doing around here?” She then hears a bumping sound and Martin’s headphones fall off. But she can still hear him say, “Get off. Get off.” The whole interview is posted at The New York Times (scroll down to sidebar).

One of the biggest questions is who was screaming on one of the 911 tapes called in by a witness. Yesterday, the WaPo had an article about two voice experts, one of whom concluded that the voice is Trayvon Martin’s and that he can be heard saying “I’m begging you,” “Help me,” and “Stop!” right before the gunshot silenced him. A second expert pooh poohs these findings, but give it a read. I found the article quite compelling.

I know I’m largely preaching to the choir here at Sky Dancing, but I wanted to try to pull some of these inconsistencies together to show that–despite the media seeming to favor Zimmerman’s side–he is going to have a lot to answer for, particularly if he and his attorney decide to go the “stand-your-ground” route. In a trial, Zimmerman will have a choice about whether to take the stand; but at a pre-trial hearing to determine whether he is immune from prosecution because he was defending himself, Zimmerman would have to testify and his credibility will be on the line.

I’d love to get your reactions to what I’ve written. I’d especially like to know your opinions about why the mainstream media in general has been giving George Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and demonizing Trayvon Martin.

For example, why the obsessive focus on traces of THC and little attention to the heavy duty prescription drugs Zimmerman was taking? Why was Martin described for so long as very tall, towering over Zimmerman, when he actually was 5’11” and Zimmerman is only a couple of inches shorter. Why has the media portrayed Zimmerman’s injuries as horrifying when they are actually quite superficial? Why have they exaggerated a tiny cut on one of Martin’s fingers into “scraped knuckles?” And so on. Am I wrong to suspect underlying racism as at least part of the explanation for these media attitudes?

As always, please feel free to post your own links in the comments.

Monday Reads

Posted: May 14, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Big Pharma, morning reads | Tags: , , , | 41 Comments

Good Morning!

Okay. Get ready to drag out your smallest possible violins for this UK Guardian article:Lagging at school, the butt of cruel jokes: are males the new Second Sex? Here’s the teaser subtitle: “They work longer hours, face economic insecurity and suffer worse health. Now their feckless ways are lampooned in the media. A controversial new book argues that men increasingly face a prejudice that dare not speak its name.”  Poor babies!

You might not have realised it, but men are being oppressed. In many walks of life, they are routinely discriminated against in ways women are not. So unrecognised is this phenomenon that the mere mention of it will appear laughable to some.

That, at least, is the premise of a book by a South African philosophy professor which claims that sexism against men is a widespread yet unspoken malaise. In The Second Sexism, shortly to be published in the UK, David Benatar, head of the philosophy department at Cape Town University, argues that “more boys drop out of school, fewer men earn degrees, more men die younger, more are incarcerated” and that the issue is so under-researched it has become the prejudice that dare not speak its name.

“It’s a neglected form of sexism,” Benatar says in a telephone interview. “It’s true that in the developed world the majority of economic and political roles are occupied by males. But if you look at the bottom – for example, the prison population, the homeless population, or the number of people dropping out of school – that is overwhelmingly male. You tend to find more men at the very top but also at the very bottom.”

The American men’s rights author Warren Farrell calls it “the glass cellar”. There might be a glass ceiling for women, Farrell once told the Observer, but “of the 25 professions ranked lowest [in the US], 24 of them are 85-100% male. That’s things like roofer, welder, garbage collector, sewer maintenance – jobs with very little security, little pay and few people want them.”

Okay, I hope you haven’t lost your meal and coffee!

The NYT had a good article up this weekend on the human costs or “disaster” of unemployment.

In 2007, before the Great Recession, people who were looking for work for more than six months — the definition of long-term unemployment — accounted for just 0.8 percent of the labor force. The recession has radically changed this picture. In 2010, the long-term unemployed accounted for 4.2 percent of the work force. That figure would be 50 percent higher if we added the people who gave up looking for work.

Long-term unemployment is experienced disproportionately by the young, the old, the less educated, and African-American and Latino workers.

While older workers are less likely to be laid off than younger workers, they are about half as likely to be rehired. One result is that older workers have seen the largest proportionate increase in unemployment in this downturn. The number of unemployed people between ages 50 and 65 has more than doubled.

The prospects for the re-employment of older workers deteriorate sharply the longer they are unemployed. A worker between ages 50 and 61 who has been unemployed for 17 months has only about a 9 percent chance of finding a new job in the next three months. A worker who is 62 or older and in the same situation has only about a 6 percent chance. As unemployment increases in duration, these slim chances drop steadily.

The result is nothing short of a national emergency. Millions of workers have been disconnected from the work force, and possibly even from society. If they are not reconnected, the costs to them and to society will be grim.

Unemployment is almost always a traumatic event, especially for older workers. A paper by the economists Daniel Sullivan and Till von Wachter estimates a 50 to 100 percent increase in death rates for older male workers in the years immediately following a job loss, if they previously had been consistently employed. This higher mortality rate implies that a male worker displaced in midcareer can expect to live about one and a half years less than a worker who keeps his job.

Here’s a great lesson on bullying from Michael Cohen at Alternet on “What we Learn from Mitt Romney’s Disgusting Teenage Bullying”.

There is a disturbing inference in Romney’s words – namely, that the blame should be placed as much on the sensitive shoulders of those who were hurt and offended, rather than the person who might have been responsible for inflicting pain upon them. What is missing from Romney’s non-apology is the recognition that pranks, hijinks, assaults or whatever you want to call them, can leave psychic scars that stay with the victim for years to come.

Indeed, one of the most heartbreaking elements of the Post story is that 30 years after it took place, one of the perpetrators, David Seed accidentally ran into Lauber at O’Hare International Airport and tried to apologize for not doing more to help his classmate. “It was horrible,” Lauber recounted. He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”

Here’s a follow-up to the Big Pharma drug pushers that try to market their miracle cures to us via their Snake Oil TV ads. It seems it really isn’t good for whatever ails ya!

The pharmaceutical company will pay $1.5 billion to settle criminal and civil liability charges for promoting the drug Depakote for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug is a neurological medicine labeled to treat mania, epilepsy and migraines, and can lead to life-threatening and deadly pancreatitis in children and adults.

The money will be distributed among 49 states and will go toward consumer protection, health care and other services.

Well, first it was MS touting Obama’s feminist bona fides.  Now it’s Newsweek calling Obama the ‘first gay president’.  Okee dokee then.

The cover of Newsweek magazine this week proclaims President Obama “the first gay president.”

The cover pictures Obama with a rainbow-colored halo over his head. The New Yorker’s cover for this week, likewise, is an image of the White House, with the iconic columns on its South portico arranged in the colors of the rainbow — a prominent symbol for gay rights.

The Newsweek cover goes a step further by adding the religious symbol of a halo above Obama’s head.

Obama said this week that he is personally comfortable with same-sex marriage — the first time a sitting president has taken that position.

Newsweek’s “first gay president” cover story is written by Andrew Sullivan, a blogger at Newsweek and the Daily Beast, who is openly gay.

The moniker evokes Toni Morrison’s description of former President Bill Clinton as “the first black president.”

Well, I think I’ve done enough damage this morning.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

As Governor, Romney Tried to Eliminate a State Commission Focused on Protecting LGBT Youth

Posted: May 10, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, open thread, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | 25 Comments

Gov. Mitt Romney at a 2006 press conference

Wow! Today is not a good day for Mitt Romney. First the Washington post comes out with a major article on his career as a bully and gay bash in high school and now Talking Points Memo has learned that Romney was so up-tight about Boston’s gay parade in 2006, that he threatened to get rid of an LGBT anti-bullying commission formed by previous Republican Governor Bill Weld in 1992 after he learned about the shocking rate of suicide among gay school children.

Check this out from a May 12, 2006 Boston Globe article (via TPM):

Angered that his name appeared on a press release touting a gay pride parade, Governor Mitt Romney moved yesterday to curtail the activities of a 14-year-old advisory commission on gay and lesbian youth.

The commission chairwoman, Kathleen M. Henry, said she was called yesterday by Beth Myers, the governor’s chief of staff, who told her that the governor planned to issue an executive order ”revoking our existence” and creating another youth commission whose purview would be all of the state’s youth, not just gays and lesbians. The commission would have all new members, she said.

Romney later backed down after being “inundated…with outrage.”

Administration sources said Romney’s aides were angered by an ”unauthorized” news release issued by the commission March 27 announcing this weekend’s Youth Pride parade. The release, which described the celebration of ”gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth and their supporters,” went out on official state stationery, with the names of Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey appearing with the names of the commission chairwoman and vice chair.

They were apparently also freaked out by a meeting with Brian Camenker, a right wing “activist,” who showed them pictures of the previous year’s parade and suggested Romney wouldn’t go over well as a national candidate if he lent his name to such shocking goings-on.

”Last year [at the parade] they had boys in fishnet stockings and high heels parading down Boylston Street,” Camenker said. ”They had boys dressed as women embracing. We presented stuff, and they were visibly sickened by what they saw. I said, basically, this group has to go. It’s so manifestly destructive to kids that you have to get rid of it. They said they’d do something.”

Allowing the commission to remain in existence demonstrates ”pure cowardice on the governor’s part,” he said. ”This shows that Romney probably doesn’t have what it takes to run the country if he can’t even make a decision about this.”

Eventually the anti-bullying group started an independent commission so they wouldn’t have to deal with Romney’s squeamishness about homosexuality. And this guy is running around the country claiming President Obama is living in the past.

Feel free to use this as an open thread.

Mitt Romney: Prep School Bully and Gay Basher

Posted: May 10, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, A My Pet Goat Moment, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 65 Comments

Mitt Romney, teenage jerk

Jason Horowitz has a must-read article about Mitt Romney’s high school days in today’s Washington Post. As I read the piece, I could feel the anger rising in my chest. At the same time, I must say that I wasn’t really surprised to learn that Romney was an obnoxious jerk and bully as a teenager.

The year was 1965, and there was a new kid at the exclusive Cranbook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. His name was John Lauber, and Romney took an immediate dislike to him.

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

After that, Lauber “seemed to disappear,” and he did not graduate from the school. Horowitz learn that he died in 2004.

Horowitz got this same story from five of Romney classmates, all of whom were interviewed separately. The four who agreed to be named each remembered the incident clearly and expressed guilt and remorse at their participation or lack of action.

Decades later, in the ’90s, one of the men, David Seed ran into Lauber at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport and took the opportunity to apologize.

“Hey, you’re John Lauber,” Seed recalled saying at the start of a brief conversation. Seed, also among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident, had gone on to a career as a teacher and principal. Now he had something to get off his chest.

“I’m sorry that I didn’t do more to help in the situation,” he said.

Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”

And this wasn’t an isolated incident. Another classmate of Romney’s, Gary Hummel, described Romney yelling “Attagirl!” whenever he tried to speak in class. Romney and his friends also mocked and played pranks on an elderly teacher who had impaired vision.

Is this the “wild and crazy” guy that Ann Romney claims is hiding inside her stiff, robotic husband? If so, I hope he stays bottled up.

And guess what? Romney claims to have no memories of any of these incidents! His campaign scrambled to respond to the Horowitz article this morning, and Romney “apologized” on an Oklahoma radio show with the now common “if I offended anyone…” routine:

“Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that,” Romney said in a live radio interview with Fox News Channel personality Brian Kilmeade. Romney added: “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.”

On the attack on Lauber, Romney claimed:

“I don’t remember that incident,” Romney said, laughing. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case.”

Really? I was born the same year as Romney, 1947, and I also graduated from high school in 1965. I clearly recall fellow students using the words “queer,” “homo,” and “fag,” to mock and bully classmates from junior high onward. Actually, I think most were over that by later in high school. Obviously Romney was not, and IMO he still acts like bully with his blatant lies and vicious negative attacks on his political opponents. I can only imagine what he must have been like as boss.

On Gary Hummel’s claim that Romney made fun of him by shouting “Attaboy!” at him in class, Romney also couldn’t remember doing it, but he had more meaningless excuses:

“As this person indicated, he was closeted,” Romney said. “I had no idea that he was gay and can’t speak to that even today. But as to the teasing or the taunts that go on in high school, that’s a long time ago. For me, that’s about 48 years ago. Again, if there’s anything I said that is offensive to someone, I certainly am sorry for that, very deeply sorry for that.”

I don’t know what else to say other than this just makes me sick to my stomach. I didn’t care for bullies back when I was in junior high and high school, and I like them even less now.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →