Historic

[Image source: sent to me by a friend]

Tell Lies, Suppress The Truth

Repeat lies over and over, reinforce with propaganda, suppress the truth. It's a time-tested plan.

No, I'm not talking about the former Soviet Union, which had it down to a science. I'm talking about today's Republicans. The lies are so ubiquitous that's it's a waste of time to repeat them: they're repeated every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth. He's even re-running the "gutting welfare" ads that were laughed off the stage a while back. And continues to go with his "full-of-shit" (quoting Chrysler exec there) Jeep claim.

Suppressing truth. In a democracy, is there anything worse for a political party to do? Whether it's climate change information, or the latest analysis of their tax claims, it's their game plan. And they get away with it. "Low information voters?" How about "no information voters?"

How can anyone in their right mind, no matter how far right, who believes in democracy and the importance of an informed electorate vote for these guys? What happens if they win?

[Image source]

Long Haul

I guess if President Obama and his team had fully apprehended the depth of the economic disaster they faced at the beginning of his term, at least he'd have made more of an effort to prepare people for a long haul. Whether he'd have done anything else differently -- and whether Congressional Rs would have gone along -- is another matter. But it might have made less effective Mitt Romney's attempts to blame the slowness of recovery on Obama. (He characterized today's better-than-expected jobs numbers as "sad.")

It certainly wouldn't have kept Romney from making the claims, of course. Nor, given the right's eagerness to accept his lies, could we assume there'd be much difference in the state of the race today.

I bring this up because of an article about Bill Clinton's message on the trail: according to an economist with whom I'm not familiar other than by name (and we've heard the message before), the economic meltdown was of such magnitude that no one no way could have fully healed it in four years. Ten years, would be the expectation. And now that we know that, I assume Mitt will admit it, as he does whenever his lies are pointed out. Right.

Clinton said Rogoff is a moderate Republican. And then he related a conversation he had with Rogoff after reading his book. 

"I called him on the phone and I said, 'I read this very carefully. I just have a question. Do you believe that there's any way America could have fully recovered from that crash in four years?'" Clinton said. "He said, 'Lord no.'" "He said, 'No serious person believes that.' He said, 'The average country takes 10 years,'" Clinton said. 

Clinton did not mention that Rogoff and Reinhart wrote a column for Bloomberg News two weeks ago, arguing that the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 was not a "borderline" economic crisis, but rather a "full-blown systemic meltdown." 

History has shown that economies hit by a systemic event have taken an average of about 10 years to recover, the two scholars wrote. Their point was to counter those, including Republican Mitt Romney, who have said that Obama's policies have made the economic downturn worse by prolonging it and stifling recovery. Romney's point, made by many others as well, has been that the U.S. economy usually recovers from a crisis within a few years.

And yet, by all criteria, we're recovering steadily. Far better than Europe which, following the Romney/Ryan austerity model, is sinking back. To me it looks like it'll be less than ten years for full recovery here, unless Rs win and screw it up (although I admit I have no basis for saying that).

All political campaigns are depressing. I'm long past the point of muting every political ad, no matter from whom. And the nastiness, if no worse in general than usual, has reinforced the impenetrable polarization of our political system. But Mitt Romney, every day, every time he opens his mouth, pollutes the process beyond anything ever seen in a presidential campaign. The man simply can't tell the truth about anything. And he comes up with a new lie every day. So great is his desperation to be president that there's no lie he won't tell, no discredited campaign ad that he won't continue to run; and the upshot is that this time around it's two imaginary candidates that take most of the oxygen: the fake Mitt, who changes himself daily. And the fake Barack Obama against whom he campaigns.

In times like these, people deserve an election about real choices and real policies. Thanks to Mitt Romney, they're getting the exact opposite. Thanks to Fox "news" and Karl Rove and the Koch brothers, and Sheldon Adelson and screaming scumbags like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, they don't notice and don't care.

[Image source]

Mitt The Multiple

My life as a newspaper columnist has gotten off to a fitting start (as in "fits and starts.") Three have been published, but it's yet to be under the heading of regular columnist. As the paper is trying to figure out exactly on which day my work will regularly appear (Sundays so far), and to gin up some sort of photo-captioned banner, one of my pieces seems to be falling through the cracks. It's one I wrote about the multiple Mitt Romneys, which I intended to appear before election day. Since it now looks like it won't, and since I had fun writing it, I'll post it here, just to see it in print. Sort of.

There’s a lot to like about Mitt Romney, and I sure do. In fact, there’s a Mitt for everyone. I like the one whose argument for Romneycare was that when the uninsured go to emergency rooms, care is inefficient and expensive and the rest of us end up paying for it. You, on the other hand, might like the one who just claimed that there’s no problem with uninsured people, because they can go to emergency rooms; or the one who later said people don’t die from lack of health insurance.

I like the version of Mitt Romney who said he wouldn’t impose his personal beliefs on women’s health choices; you might prefer the more recent model, who says he will, then won’t, then will. You’ve also got your choice of Mitts who approve and disapprove of employers covering contraception, and choice is good. Tea Party people like the Romney they’d seen until the first presidential debate, the one who said he’d lower everyone’s taxes by twenty percent. I haven’t heard what they think about the guy who appeared onstage claiming his tax changes would be revenue neutral, so government keeps the money. I didn’t much like it when campaign Romney mocked President Obama for saying we need more teachers. “Didn’t he get the message of Wisconsin,” he inquired, to applause. Debate Mitt Romney, though, was all in favor of more teachers, which I think is awesome.

When debate Romney said to President Obama, right to his face, that the president had “doubled” the deficit, I was impressed. To me, one-point-two trillion was a big number, all right, but it didn’t used to be “double” one-point-three trillion. I like that Mitt Romney isn’t bound by such old-fashioned ideas as arithmetic. Same with claiming our president hasn’t signed trade agreements. I believed three was different from none, which is another good thing about the ex-one-term governor: I learn new stuff. Words, too. Like “exceptional.” Here I thought when President Obama used it to describe America, it meant he’d said America is exceptional. Mr. Romney cleared that up for me. And “blind trust.” Few years ago, he said it’s a well-known ruse. At debate two, he touted his. I’m going with Mitt number one on that. You? I was with climate-change Mitt, too, until the other one showed up. There are two Romneys on assault-weapon banning, also. Your turn to choose. I got next.

It takes a patriot to increase defense spending by two trillion when the Pentagon says they don’t need it. What do generals know? If Mitt Romney says he can do it and cut taxes (or not) and balance the budget, I believe him. Ronald Reagan couldn’t, but Mitt Romney is ten times the men he was.

I’m still confused about the tax cut thing, though. I was sure Mr. Romney said he planned big ones, but “revenue neutral” has taken me aback. Sure, it’s hard to know which Mitt is talking when, but one of them said he’d lower taxes, and everyone sort of took it on faith. Then, economists (Yeah. “Experts,” right?) said his cuts would decrease revenue by nearly five trillion dollars. With increased military spending, that’s seven trillion to make up. Elitists, probably using math or something, have said there aren’t enough loopholes and deductions to do it. But Mitt Romney has already told us about Big Bird and Planned Parenthood, so we can be sure he’s got more savings up his sleeve. He’s taught me things about numbers I never knew, so I’m confident they’ll be magical, won’t cut spending for things we need, like education, health, environmental protection, research, cops, or roads. This time it’ll work. It’s just a feeling I have. Third time’s charm. I can’t wait for when he makes people stop hiding their money in the Cayman Islands, can you?

Back here along Puget Sound, where the rest of us keep our savings, we say if you don’t like the weather, just wait ten minutes and it’ll change. Hey!! I think I just figured out why I like Mitt Romney. Of course, since there are so many of him, we can’t know for sure which version is going to be president, but I bet it’ll be one of the good ones.

[Update: looks like it'll begin as a regular feature, on Sundays, in a couple of weeks, take or take. I went in for the official picture today. Hope the guy is good at Photoshop.]

[Image source]

Hurricane Sandy Means a Second Shortened Golf Season for Some

Puddle Ducky Golf              photo: ©GolfGirlMedia

It was a storm that uprooted massive trees and tore the roofs off buildings. Many quaint coastal communities were inundated and millions of residents... in numerous states... are still without power.

Here in Danbury, CT,  Halloween was postponed... and schools will be closed for the remainder of the week. We've been hauling huge branches from our yards, assessing damage to our homes and assisting neighbors and relatives with their storm-related issues.

Personally, I feel very fortunate; other than a flattened fence and some sheered off shingles, Sandy spared my sturdy centenarian mansion,  and after several trips to the mulch yard my property is largely clear of fallen limbs.

And, I SO appreciate the emails, tweets, texts and phone calls I received from all over the world. Thank you so much for your concern, it means more than you can imagine.

Needless to say, our area golf courses have been impacted by Sandy; flooded fairways and washed out cart paths are unavoidable with a freak Frankenstorm like we saw earlier this week, and many courses remain unplayable. Some that have shut their doors for the remainder of the season.

The crazy/odd/implausible thing is that exactly a year ago, it was an ultra-rare October snowstorm that closed numerous courses across the northeast. Thus 2012 is... for some... the second year in a row that the golf season's been cut short.

What's truly remarkable however, is that so many courses are actually set to open tomorrow... or this weekend... despite being hit hard by Sandy. This has surely meant long hours and herculean efforts on the part of superintendents, greenskeepers and staff... and considering that many of them have substantial storm-related issues to deal with at their own homes... their dedication is beyond commendable.

We're hoping to get a round in sometime in the next few days because, as we said last year at this time as we dug out from the historic snowstorm, the golf season isn't over for us quite yet.