This subject always comes up during each election cycle. However, I think we can all agree that after the GOP took over all those state legislatures and governorships across the nation along with the House in 2010, a year where most independents and many liberals stayed home, the issue has been given steroids. It has gotten absolutely bizarre. The Tea Party Republicans ran on jobs for the House, yet almost all of their legislation was regarding birth control, contraceptives and defunding planned parenthood.

The majority of this nation has clearly been pro-choice since Roe v Wade, yet the Tea Party Republicans pulled a switcheroo and placed this on the forefront. As we near November, it’s gotten worse and I doubt the people calling Rep Todd Akin out on his statements will have little impact on the GOP as a whole in this election. Their Party Platform has placed in it as a plank (yet again) on abortion, written by those wonderful folks that brought you transvaginal ultrasounds and personhood. Mind you, when these issues go up for popular votes, even in the reddest of red states, they are soundly defeated. It’s only when they are introduced in state legislatures do they pass.

Many have pointed out correctly, that the Republican Party has always used the issue of Roe v Wade as a source of support and funding from the Christian Right.  As such, they would never do anything to overturn it. They point out correctly that if they were ever serious in doing that, they would have during the six years the Republicans had absolute control over the White House, House, Senate AND Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, it was never brought up. It did not start to become an issue again until 2006 when the Democrats took the House back, and then even more in 2008 when they took the White House back. I don’t think this is coincidence.

But something happened that GOP leadership didn’t prepare for. When they funded the Tea Party movement with Koch brother’s money, in an attempt to stop the Affordable Care Act, they created a monster. These people, though easily swayed and conned politically, are still true to the evangelical right-wing Christian views about abortion. Forget that there is really nothing in the Bible supports their views. It certainly has nothing in it to support “personhood” or that Jesus, let alone God really gives a damn regarding what an individual woman does with her womb, this is important only to these cherubs. So, using the financial and organizational assistance of the mainstream Republican Party in an election year where nobody showed up except for them, they took over the country. Then they went off script and tried to change the one issue Republican Party Leadership wanted left alone, abortion rights. In doing so, they started making changes in laws and acts governing contraceptives, personhood and what is actually is rape.

So now the party is stuck with a messaging problem with the rest of the country, most of whom are actually logical and humane over this issue. Try to follow if you are of the right of things.

Life begins at conception: So as a result, anything that interferes with that process is killing that group of forming cells and should be deemed illegal, murder with severe sanctions imposed on the doctors and/or the mothers.

All abortions are murder: So to protect the zygote forming into a fetus and continuing to grow until it becomes viable, no abortions should be allowed. Due to Roe v Wade, laws have been introduced requiring transvaginal ultrasounds, demeaning lectures, grilling, mind control to shame any women desirous of the procedure from having it. And it doesn’t matter why they desire the procedure. Whether it is from Rape, Incest or to protect the life of the mother, all abortions must be banned and if not banned, made as difficult as possible.

To accomplish this beyond the shaming techniques listed above, the Republicans have made it illegal for any Federal Funds to be used in this process and have worked to defund Planned Parenthood that has .02% of their operations devoted to abortions. The other .98% goes to cancer screening and prenatal care to protect the fetus the Republicans want to protect also, just not pay for it.

And there is the rub. Not only is it the agenda of the Tea Party Republican Party to make sure that all abortions are illegal or impossible by regulations, they also withhold all funding, if possible, to protect that zygote/fetus. They also will not allow any funding via “socialized medicine” for prenatal care during the pregnancy that would also protect that zygote/fetus leaving it in danger of complications and death.

And of course, once the child is out of the womb, it is the position of the Tea Party Republican Party to deny any funding to the mother for healthcare, food, education, childcare, anything to mitigate the expense for the child that woman was forced to have.

As Randi Rhodes would say, “love the fetus, hate the child.”

Now I am not a woman. I really don’t have a full vested interest in this matter other than the fact I am born to a woman and I am married to a woman. I am a believer in the privacy rights cited in Roe v Wade for the woman to make her own choice in what to do with her body if confronted with being pregnant.

It is her body, it is her health, it is her ability to be able to care for and raise a child, it’s her choice. If given proper education and access to contraceptives this choice wouldn’t need to be made as frequently as it is now. But again, the Tea Party Republican Party are opposed to contraceptives for women resulting in them having to make this choice in the first place.

Where is it in the Constitution that government officials in Washington or State Capitals have the ability to determine how women can live and how they can make choices about their bodies. There is no simile involving the same power structure doing the same thing to a man and his body. This is unfair on all counts.

They preach making government smaller. Apparently small enough to fit inside the vagina of all the women in the country who they feel have no choice in their lives. And if they do choose, or are forced to choose in their way, will offer zero assistance to aid them in that responsibility.

If you are pro-life, then logically you must also be:

Against all death sentences.

You should also be for providing all basic and needed healthcare to preserve life regardless of ability to pay.

You must also be for providing equal access to opportunities for education and employment for that life to survive in the world regardless of ability to pay.

If you are not for any of the above, you are not pro-life, you are just pro-bullying of others for personal gain and gratitude. You are not Christian or humane, you are an ass.

That’s of course the classic line from Star Wars with Obiwan responding to Han Solo complaining about following that “foolish old man.” It’s an endearing line, but I’m using it today to explain the state of our politics, and in not so much of an endearing way.

I am middle-aged. I’ve voted in every presidential primary and election since 1980. In each election cycle, as mainstream media coverage became more commercialized, the internet has picked up the slack. So today, even though the media really isn’t presenting anything that can be considered to be an unbiased, presenting only facts of who is running for president; that information is none the less more available to the average voter now than at any other time in history. The internet and social media is a great tool for those willing to, and able to use in a fact gathering (and common sense) manner to determine who is trying to lead them and whether they deserve your support.

This year, in my humble and honest opinion, we have had from the Republican Party the most pathetic, clownish group of candidates in American history running for the position of President. Even with the obvious bias from the media in their coverage, they couldn’t put lipstick on these pigs. The debate format was a clown show and the questions and responses got more clownish with each airing. We have been dealing with fools running for President on the Republican side. And now we have the biggest fool of them all about to accept the nomination next week in Tampa. I don’t say this lightly, Mitt Romney is a fool. But to take you back to the title of this rant, “Who’s the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?”

None of these candidates would have never made it on stage were it not for the support and consent of the Tea Party who have taken over the Republican Party. Mitt Romney, who already was a proven and consonant liar, flipped flopped to pretend to be just as whacked out as the Tea Party to get the most delegates to take the nomination. The Tea Party are fools.

They do not understand what they pretend to represent. They do not understand how our country was founded, how the Constitution was created and modified over the years, they do not understand what it means to be a Christian, nor do they understand that there is nothing inherently evil with being a liberal, progressive, or worse yet, a socialist. As I mentioned in an earlier rant, they get these confused with communism and fascism, forgetting that this country was actually founded under liberal and socialist values, that were incorporated into a capitalistic society. But they are fools who only listen to what they are told by Fox, without doing their own true and diligent research into the facts.

That would be all were it not for the fact that although the Tea Party is today the “base” of the Republican Party, in reality they do not really represent the majority of the party. The GOP represents less than a third of the registered voters in this country and the Tea Party fools represent a minority of that minority. So, how did Mitt Romney, the lying fool he is proven to be, be the presumptive nominee? Because the rest of the Republican Party either stayed home during the primaries, or voted for the fools being presented to them out of peer pressure. So the rest of the Republican Party are as foolish as the Tea Party.

But it doesn’t end there. As I just mentioned, the Republicans only represent less than a third of the registered voters. Polling today shows that on specific issues and specific groups of registered voters, President Obama leads on just about every facit by comfortable margins. He leads on National Defense, he leads on Medicare and Medicaid, he leads on Healthcare, he leads on economics, he leads with women, minorities, LGBTS. And yet putting everything together, he is either just ahead or just behind Romney overall. The race is still too close despite everything that is easily searchable out there to educate people on who Mitt Romney is; what his lies are, his refusals to answer questions of concern to the people, and his history as a failed governor of Massachusetts and CEO of Bain, that did not create jobs here, but did a fine job destroying them here and creating jobs overseas. It’s out there, but people either aren’t availing themselves to that information, don’t understand that information, ignore the truth of that information. In short, too many Americans are fools. It’s the only explanation as to why this race is too close.

I do not support the President on everything he has done. I believe we should have pulled out of Afghanistan at the same time we pulled out of Iraq. I didn’t agree with extending the Bush tax cuts, I didn’t agree with some of his acts that he signed off on that the Bush administration began, I didn’t agree with him placing Napolitano as head of Homeland Security. That being said, he did prevent the nation from falling into another Great Depression, he tried to get some regulations back in play with banking, he got us a good start with the Affordable Care Act, he’s made cost-effective use of military and intelligent resources to kill Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda, he eliminated Don’t ask, Don’t Tell, he’s done some good too. He’s done more good than bad in my opinion.

I would think overall, if people look at the individual accomplishments as simply accomplishments, they would agree. But instead, many of them won’t accept the accomplishments because they are attached to the name of Barack Hussein Obama, a black man in the White House. Yes, I believe the reason the race is still close is that we have far too many people in this country who think more on racial views than what’s best for the country. They are fools.

But I’m not finished. Though I don’t believe the majority of the country is racist, not enough of those who aren’t, are holding the racists accountable for their small-minded views. Whether it’s out of fear, conflict avoidance, no matter. Those who know better need to call out those who don’t. So, although the majority of the country aren’t Tea Party, aren’t GOP, aren’t racist, we are none the less foolish for not working to change for the better and supporting the best man for the job based on his accomplishments and ability.

We are foolish for allowing obstructionist idiots to be elected to Congress in 2010 due to not showing up to vote and letting the bigger fools send those fools to office. We are the fools. It’s time for us to get smart and help ourselves out.

Was listening to Mike Papantonio today when he was covering for Ed Schultz’ radio show and he reminded us of one of the more gruesome examples of the GOP’s War on Women in recent years. This one was serious and sickening and has yet to be resolved, but no one has talked about it since it was in the news back in 2009 and we need to discuss it now.

Her name is Jamie Leigh Jones. she began working for KBR as an administrative assistant when she was 19 and started working in Iraq on July 24, 2005.

According to Jones, on July 28, 2005, one of her fellow KBR employees offered her a drink containing a date rape drug, although a subsequent blood test did not detect anything. Jones says that while she was unconscious, several men engaged in unprotected anal and vaginal gang-rape on her. She says that “when she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again.” The doctor who examined Jones gave the rape kit used to gather evidence from Jones to KBR/Halliburton security forces, and three hours later they turned the kit over to the U.S. government. According to Jones, in early 2007 a spokesperson at the State Department told her that photographs and doctor’s notes were missing from the kit.

Jones says that KBR officials locked her in a trailer after she informed them of the rape and would not permit her to call her family. After approximately one day, says Jones, a sympathetic guard gave her a cell phone and she called her father, who in turn contacted U.S. Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) who contacted the State Department. Agents were dispatched and removed Jones from KBR custody.  A 2006 EEOC investigation claimed that Jones was not locked in a trailer by KBR but placed in a “secure location” before being returned to Texas.

Because the crime occurred in a foreign country by contractors working for the US and laws were in place that essentially gave immunity to Halliburton for such acts, no criminal charges could be filed. The Bush Administration refused to take any criminal or civil action against Halliburton citing a clause in Jones’ contract with Halliburton stating that all “disputes” must be dealt with via arbitration. To the Bush Justice Department, all disputes include criminal allegations of gang rape and false imprisonment. Jones filed a lawsuit against the United States, Halliburton and a firefighter/contractor she alleged was involved in the rape. Despite a motion from Halliburton to have the civil case heard by corporate arbitration per the contract, the case did go to trial and Halliburton paid their attorneys well over $2 million dollars.

Their attorneys were good. Despite the injuries she endured, they painted the victim as a troublemaker who tried to get out of her contract and had “consensual” sex resulting in her injuries. Even though there was evidence consistent with rape, it was all turned all of it over to Halliburton’s security, who somehow lost it. The jury bought it and Jones’ case was dismissed. Then Halliburton went after Jones for compensation for their legal costs of $2 million.

Jump forward to 2009 and the Senate debating the Defense Appropriations Bill with an amendment from Senator Al Franken. It was a fairly straight forward and reasonable amendment. The amendment would prohibit the United States Government from giving funds to contractors, who include clauses in employment contracts that prohibit employees from bringing claims against the companies for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination. The amendment was put forth after he learned of the case against Halliburton brought by Jaime Leigh Jones. The Amendment passed, but a remarkable 30 Republicans voted against it, instead siding with companies like Halliburton. All the votes against the amendment came from Republicans.

So what do we have here? First of all, it would seem that the Bush Justice Department, as well as Halliburton were then, as the GOP is now, stating that rape isn’t always rape. There appears to be caveats to it. Despite her injuries and subsequent reconstruction of those injuries, from their view, the sex act was consensual. They victimized the victim.

The reputation of Halliburton and her male employees are far more important than the reputation of a young women working for them in a foreign country. They belittled and demeaned a person that any reasonable person could see was clearly a rape victim and set up a system where those responsible would not be held to account and the victim would be victimized more as time went on.

Then when an amendment is introduced to protect potential victims of this sort of behavior, 30 Republican Senators voted to side with the Corporate Personhood over the reputation and well-being of any potential victim. Business is Business and Rape isn’t always Rape. Who were the 30 Senators who don’t give a damn about keeping and holding corporations accountable to protect the people who work for them?

They were:

Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-NC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS)

Some of them are already gone, Kyl is retiring, but many still remain and we shouldn’t forget their vote on this amendment that placed corporations over women’s rights. Many of them, as with most GOP continue with their war on women. Denying them the ability to control their own bodies, to have equal pay, healthcare at the same cost as men.

The facts are clearly out there, this group of GOP do not think women are of equal importance to men, nor to corporations. Our government is supposed to be of The People despite what the Supreme Court and GOP want to twist it into. If they can’t recognize that, they should all be voted out at our first opportunity.

As the news broke regarding Mr. Akin’s comments about “legitimate” rape, the one thing people focused on is the fact he currently sits on the House Science Committee. Odd that a man so obviously out of touch with real science would have such a title. But people forget, this is the GOP Tea Party House. These are the people who don’t believe in science, think that climate change is a hoax and that man lived with dinosaurs ala “The Flintstones.” So it’s no wonder that he chairs this committee. In true keeping the Republican way however, it is now the Medieval Science Committee and Mr Todd’s recent comments are only the tip of the iceberg regarding his and his party’s ignorance.

His views on a women being able to prevent a pregnancy based on the trauma caused by rape are probably his most modern scientific belief. He of course is on record supporting personhood laws along with GOP cohorts Paul Ryan and Steve King (who incidentally has never heard of any pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest. He appears to be deaf to the 32,000 documented cases each year).

Todd Akin also believes that climate change science is a hoax. It has to be a hoax. Afterall, even though there is no real money in it for anyone who supports it, even though over 90% of climate scientists (including some who until recently worked for the Koch Brothers) agree it’s man-made, even though the lives of billions are negatively impacted, to address it can impact the revenue for a handful of oilmen like the Kochs. So to support climate change as man-made is a hoax because those who profit from allowing the seas to rise, droughts to run rampant, could lose a few billion a year in profit.

Todd Akin doesn’t see any problems with Fracking. I mean it’s only natural for there to be flammable water coming from well taps. And earthquakes near no known fault lines, but in vicinity of fracking operations? It’s all coincident and so what if well water becomes contaminated by chemicals nobody is allowed to know exist, there are again profits involved for people like the Kochs.

I’m sure if Todd Akin had the time, he would begin Congressional Investigations in the Medieval Science Committee on whether white men are more intelligent than any other race? (after recent events, I’m beginning to doubt that)

Is homosexuality caused by demon possession from the scion of Liberace?

Is Christine O’Donnell really a witch? Should they use new methods to find out or does the old method of seeing if she weighs the same as a duck work?

Should we go back to the moon to mine some of that good green cheese?

Did man cause the extinction of the dinosaurs by allowing them to co-mingle with unicorns and dragons?

To pay off the national debt, can we use alchemy to turn lead into gold? Or better yet, shit into Shinola?

Todd Akin is the man of the hour. However, I think he’s also a bit of a welcomed distraction in this race for the GOP. With all the coverage and the opportunity for GOP to openly distance themselves from his comments (while secretly thanking him for saying it out loud, to get the base out in support) few are paying attention to Mitt Romney right now. And another sad fact is that despite all of this, he still leads Claire McCaskill in the polls. He could still win in Missouri.

On the other hand, he could also be the RWNJ Canary in the mine to see how toxic his views are to the public to give them an idea for how to proceed in November. I think the weak condemnation from those who are clearly on record supporting his stance is evidence of that.

Though Mitt has yet to give out the specifics, or as both he and Paul would say, they “haven’t run the numbers yet” his goals would be far worse than all the devastation we know the Ryan Budget would cause the nation. Based on what little he’s projected and some critical thinking (that aspect of learning that many Republican school boards want to eliminate from curriculums) gives us a picture that would destroy the fabric of this nation, or more specifically, the majority of the people who live here.

Romney has already made it clear that he and Paul have the same budget now; his. So what does that budget entail? As we all know, the basis of the Ryan Budget was to slash the Federal Income Tax rate of the wealthiest Americans (like Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers) to less than 1%, while at the same time increasing spending on the military. This to be paid for by slashing all non-defense spending and increasing the effective tax rate of the middle, working and poor classes of the nation. Even at this, the budget isn’t balanced for 30 years.

Let us remember that currently, the United States is responsible for 40% of the total global spending on military, which is 6-7 times what China spends and is greater than the amount of the next 20 nations combined, many of them our allies. But neither Mitt nor Paul think our spending on military is enough. Does the term “Industrial Military Complex” come to mind yet?

The Ryan Budget calls for an increase of Military Spending from 2013 through 2022 in the amount of $5,700,000,000,000.00. That’s a lot of money. The Romney plan, which is now the Ryan plan, increases Military spending for that same time period to $7,900,000,000,000.00. It would increase military spending as compared to GDP to over 4%. The chart below is the current trend of total Federal Budget compared to GDP. The increases to Military Spending with no increased revenues would be significantly higher without massive cuts to non defense spending:

Studies show that it would actually be even higher. No matter, it would be higher than it was during the height of the Cold War. They Ryan plan calls for cuts of $504,000,000,000.00 to non defense spending while cutting revenues from the rich. The Romney plan would simply require more cuts to meet his goal of higher military spending, cuts in revenue from the wealthiest Americans and balancing in budget. However, keep in mind they won’t say how long it would take to balance the budget or what programs or by how much would be cut, or by how much everyone elses’ Federal Taxes would be increased to pay for this increase in military spending. However, based on analysis, this is essentially what we are looking at:

Now both Romney and Ryan, as well as the Republican talking heads would say that the cuts to the wealthiest would expand the economy. The same way the Reagan people said it would when we started “Trickle Down” economics over 30 years ago and the way Bush and his cronies said his tax cuts would also trickle down and expand the economy. Keep in mind that it has yet to do so. How can we now expect it to work? What was it Bush said? “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

Now what exactly is non defense spending? The chart below is what Federal Spending was for 2011:

Non Defense Spending is: Social Security, Medicare, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, US Marshals, Courts, Probation and Parole, Prison System, NASA, HIghway Funding, etc. All those things that a lot of Americans want to keep, and like Social Security and Medicare, need in order to survive and/or stay out of poverty.

So if those programs are significantly slashed, or turned over to private industries so they can place a profit margin on those services that only serve to increase cost to the public for fewer services, the majority of the people in the nation would be financially devastated to pay for massive and uncalled for cost in military spending. The generals themselves aren’t calling for these increases. So, if we do this, what exactly would this military, that we are paying more for, protecting?

To sum up (here’s the critical thinking part),

30 years of trickle down and deregulation have led to poorly managed banking system.

The Bush administration, with its tax cuts to the wealthiest and increased spending for two illegal wars and Medicare Part D, along with banking deregulation led to the economic crash of 2008,

This has led to more people in this country now in poverty since The Great Society.

The Romney plan would put the Bush economic plan on steroids

This would increase the financial destruction of the majority of people in the nation in order for the few of the wealthiest having even more money while we have the most expensive military in the world.

This military would be protecting the world’s largest and most devastated third world nation (which is what we’re becoming).

The fall of the world’s ancient societies took centuries. The Republican plan would accomplish the fall of the United States’ Society to less than a few generations. It’s already started.

This will be the last rant regarding the psychological/psychiatric make-up of Mitt Romney and/or those who support them. As fun as it is to make these diagnoses, I am not board certified and these are serious issues of mental health and their potential consequences. I merely throw these out for conversational purposes. Only professionals should be making these diagnoses. This ends the disclaimer except to add that your mileage may very. That being said:

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is described by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by “…a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

All any of us know about Mitt Romney in particular is what we hear or observe of him in the media, how he himself responds to reports and what others have said. So does he meet three of the six factors stated above?

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others: Mitt says himself “I like to fire people.” Now that could have very easily been in jest, just an “off the cuff” remark that gets bad play and is taken out of context. However, his business model at Bain thrived under his directions to saddle businesses with debt, that funded the purchase, and then selling off the assets to make profits, while those who worked for the companies lost their jobs, benefits, pensions and healthcare. The “common people” as many of Mitt’s supporters and friends would call them lost everything and suffered. Did Mitt revel in that? We don’t know but he certainly profited from it and continues to this very day. And of course the issues involving how he treated that fellow student with his hair and all. Didn’t really demonstrate any concern for his feelings as noted by Mitt’s “Friends” of the time. And of course, both his and Paul Ryan’s candidacy exhibits complete callousness towards the needs of the elderly, poor and disadvantaged by design.

Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations: Going back to his Bain experience, Mitt essentially created the whole premise of Vulture Capitalism and Outsourcing of Jobs. This by many of his close associates was a form of business of Mitt’s own design. He perfected it. It ran counter to everything that preceded it. Leverage buyouts of failing companies and companies that weren’t failing, only to decimate them for personal profit. The social rules did not appear to apply to the goal of increasing profits at all costs, real and moral. The contracts these companies had with their employees were thrown out the window upon Bain’s actions that forced them into bankruptcy, again for profit.

Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them: As a politician, Mitt has to establish relationships with others to get elected. However, Mitt is famous for being disliked. The stories in Game Change mention how he was the most disliked person by GOP leadership and nothing in the most recent campaign season has shown that this has changed. The anger the other candidates showed him on stage and many still have for him is interesting. He created a quick relationship with Paul Ryan to cement his support of the conservative wing of the Republican party. Yet only a week out, there are signs of strain with that relationship with Mitt reminding people that it’s his budget, not Paul’s that will be implemented. Much to the apparent surprise of Paul Ryan. How long will this relationship last?

Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence: I don’t really see anything that would apply to this criteria. No one has seen Mitt lose his temper. They’ve observed his frustration, they’ve seen him get testy in some media interviews, and he has that nervous laugh. But the violence does not appear to be there. At least none that we are aware of.

Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment: When running for governor of Massachusetts, the issue of Mitt Romney’s tax returns came into play. Not necessarily for what he earned, but to see if it was legal for him to run for Governor of Massachusetts. After much stalling and despite his pleas to “trust me” it turned out that he filed as a resident of Utah, not Massachusetts. But no matter, he was able to “retroactively” re-file his returns to show he was a Massachusetts residence and was allowed to run and win the office. So despite the mess the whole issue conjured up, he really suffered no punishment for his acts. Yet he is essentially doing the same thing again. I place this as a maybe, but we need more examples.

Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society: On one hand, this is where his already noted and discussed projection comes into play. Actions and behaviors that clearly belong to and are orchestrated by him and his campaign he blames on the Obama campaign. The campaign has gotten dirty and personal yet he blames Obama for it. He’s even justifies some of the more immature stunts from his campaign like hiring people to chant at Obama rallies or driving a bus around honking as “Justified” because the other side does it, even though they never had. And though he blames problems in healthcare today on Obama, where did his idea come from?

I focus on Mitt Romney, but these criteria should be applied to those in the media who speak for him and those in the streets who support him. Even those who do not support him but will vote for him anyway. Of course I mean the rank and file of the Tea Party. If anyone exhibits most if not all of the six components of anti-social behavior, it’s them. Hell, they don’t even like the work “socialism” how more anti-social can you get?

Despite what I write and cite here, I don’t know if Mitt Romney is able to be clinically classified as being sociopathic. He certainly can be classified as an asshole who is more concerned for himself than those he says he wants to lead, but that in of itself doesn’t make one a sociopath. However, many of his most vocal and ardent supporters I think do fit the criteria of antisocial behavior. They exhibit it every time they rally against anything designed to aid and assist those things that will help the disadvantaged, every time they place themselves as more important, more correct, more valuable because of their race and social standing than others of a different race, standing or political persuasion.

That being said, the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson are clearly sociopathic creeps in my opinion and Mitt at best, is only learning from them.

We’ve already discussed Psychological Projection, but here’s one that is a real poser in this campaign season.

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements. An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the smoking is worth short-term benefits. A general view of cognitive dissonance is when one is biased towards a certain decision even though other factors favor an alternative.

Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. We engage in “dissonance reduction”, which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. This bias gives the theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.

So essentially, one with reasonable intelligence and confidence, when confronted with issues or realities that do not fit what they believe in, will try to explain things or alter reality in order to meet their beliefs knowing deep down, it’s all bullshit. How does this apply to Mitt Romney?

We can assume that Mitt is of some intelligence. He has two degrees from Harvard and has actually been very successful in business, unlike the previous GOP CEO to occupy the White House. The issue is however, his success was only “profitable” for a small select group of people. Though he destroyed long-standing companies, threw thousands out of work, destroyed pensions that they paid into for years, leaving them destitute and without healthcare, Mitt sees this as successful. Is this dissonance? Not necessarily.

We can speculate on what Mitt’s personal beliefs are and how they place in society as a whole and how his actions impact society. Is he altering his reality to gain cognitive coherence with his beliefs? Maybe not. This may play into another psychological/psychiatric disorder known as Sociopathy. We will save that for another rant. However, we are not done discussing Cognitive Dissonance.

This may or may not apply to Mitt Romney, but does it apply to those who choose to follow and support him? There is the problem in this campaign season. I am of the view that the majority of his supporters suffer from Cognitive Dissonance.

Mitt Romney needed the support of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party to secure the nomination (which he actually has yet to acheive) and in doing so, needed to convince the Tea Party fringe that he was of their mind. As you all know, the Tea Party do not believe in government spending, taxes, the nanny state or regulations. At least that’s not what they are supposed to believe in. The Koch brothers, who fund their infrastructure, have given them those talking points for obvious reasons.

Now Mitt Romney has in the past as a citizen, candidate and elected official supported pro-choice, gay rights, signed an assault rifle ban in Massachusetts and worse of all, fathered and enacted “RomneyCare” for which “ObamaCare” came from. All of those issues run counter to the belief system of the extreme right.

The extreme right are convinced that Obama has raised or plans to raise their taxes despite the fact that Federal Income and FICA tax rates at are their lowest rates in generations. Both the Romney and Paul Ryan Budgets, in order to pay for additional tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country, will raise taxes on the middle and working class by eliminated only those tax deductions that apply to them. This has been documented. And as important as a balance budge is to the extreme right, the Romney/Ryan plan won’t balance the budget for at least 30 years.

The extreme right-wing, when complaining about ObamaCare, famously spoke of keeping government out of their Medicare. Despite the obvious dissonance in that statement, the Ryan record and Romney rhetoric is clear, they want to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare. Both would take services and financial support away from the seniors and disabled, costing them far more than they can afford. These facts are indisputable. Yet they support the claim from the candidates that their plans would strengthen both programs. They believe it.

Their dissonance in my opinion, the reason they alter their reality to accept these defendable positions is the right’s core value that no matter what a black man does, if he is Democratic, he is not “one of them” and anything he supports, even if it’s something they support, is wrong, foreign, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Kenyan, whatever. The cognitive dissonance comes from the Romney supporters because they cannot bring themselves to accept that a black Democrat is the best choice and is closer to their views. They alter, change, blur their reality to fit their narrative.

The Romney supporters, deep in their minds know Mitt is not the answer. They know he is a liar, despite him running neck and neck with Obama, he has higher negatives than the president. He is seen as untrustworthy because of all the flipflops and out and out lies he has been caught in. He is uncomfortable with the “common people” that clearly shows, yet the man is getting support. His supporter block all of that out because they cannot accept a Black Democrat has done, and will do better than this man who they know will make things worse because they do not support anything he’s ever done in his life. They don’t like him outsourcing jobs, not paying his fair share of taxes, not releasing his taxes, not being transparent, seeing himself as privileged, enacting RomneyCare that they know is ObamaCare, outlawing assault rifles, and being on record supporting gay rights and freedom of choice and then spinelessly changing those views without any explanation.

The Cognitive Dissonance is within the registered voters of this country and there is too little time for therapy to correct the issue before November. So you all need to get out, get registered, get your ID’s and vote.

I think its possible that Mitt has a lot of psychological problems. Now I’m not a psychologist, but I play one on Twitter and the Blogs, but I’m only going to address one right now. I heard a speech from Mitt today and felt a need to bring this up. In his speech he said of the President that he is running a campaign “of enmity and jealousy and anger,”  he thinks Obama is “running just to hang onto power, and I think he would do anything in his power” to remain in office. “These personal attacks, I think, are just demeaning to the office of the White House,” he added. He later made reference that the President wants to hold on to power and is only trying to get to that 50.1% of the vote to do it while dividing the country. I found that line very interesting.

“Psychological Projection: or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.”

It was Mitt Romney who famously told everyone who would listen to him during the primaries that he wasn’t responsible for the SuperPac negative ads against his opponents and added his goal was to get 50.1% of the vote to win. “You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” Romney said. “But I need to get 50.1% or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

As for the Obama Campaign playing it personal, getting dirty, not focus on issues. Well, when confronted with his first major ad that showed that he was altering the tape when President Obama in 2008 was quoting John McCain to make it seem like Obama was talking about himself, Mitt said he was allowed to do that in a campaign. When confronted about those speaking on his behalf questioning the President’s citizenship, education, religion, political ideology Mitt refuses to distance himself from any of those people making extremely vile personal attacks. People like Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump. I guess these are the good people he referenced during the primary.

When Mitt Romney and his surrogates discuss important issues like Medicare, he and they clearly lie. There is no doubt they are painting a false narrative. The issue of the President taking $716,000,000,000.00 from the trust fund has been clearly debunked by independent sources. No services to Medicare patients have been cut to the slightest degree. The amount cited is savings by eliminating fraud, waste and give-aways to the Insurance Companies that do not go to patient care. The money is diverted to the American Care Act and goes directly to patient care. Mitt says services were cut, but he won’t say what services. Sounds like a bit of misdirection on Mitt’s part. Or more simply, a fucking lie.

As to the demeaning level the White House has gone to, without really citing anything, Mitt proudly admits he had paid political stooges boo David Axelrod at an Obama event and had his bus driving around an Obama event honking its horn. Very professional Mitt.

Whenever asked to provide details to the claims Mitt makes against the Obama campaign, Mitt deflects, throws up smoke, innuendos, but cites no specific examples. The most he would say is that “the people know what they hear” but he doesn’t say what they hear or observed.

I find the President citing historic facts about Mitt Romney regarding his time at Bain, his time as Governor where things he stood for didn’t work out so well for others. Mitt is running on his record as a CEO and former Governor, at least he used to. So bringing up those issues is as Dick Cheney would say, Fair Game.

The truth is not an attack. Citing specific actions and specific results is not an attack. Mitt Romney is accusing Obama of doing what Mitt’s campaign has already been doing and cannot bring any facts to support it. Mitt is lying and projecting. Later we will discuss Cognitive Dissonance.

Class Dismissed.

Mitt “Don Quixote” Romney Attacks the Wind

In Ohio coal country today, perennial asbestos pants wearer Mitt Romney spoke with coal miners and told them how Vice President Joe Biden said that “coal was more dangerous than terrorists.” It would be a damning statement, if alas, it were true. Remember, we’re talking about Mitt Romney here.

In a 2007 interview on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher; Biden, then a 2008 presidential candidate, was asked which is more likely to contribute to Americans’ deaths – air pollution from coal, high-fructose corn syrup or a terrorist attack. Biden responded: “Air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, then a terrorist attack. But that is not in any way to diminish the fact that a terrorist attack is real. It is not an existential threat to bringing down the country, but it does have the capacity, still, to kill thousands of people. But hundreds of thousands of people die and their lives are shortened because of coal plants, coal-fired plants and because of corn syrup.”

Poor Mitt Romney, quotes when heard in context just won’t support his narrative. While continuing his fairy story to his audience he added that the Obama Administration has declared a War on Coal. He went on to cite declining usage of coal in the country, but left out the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency, following through on mandates that existed long before President Obama took office, have been devising court-mandated rules on air pollution at a time when low natural-gas prices are pushing out coal-generated electricity. He also neglected to point out his own little issue with a proposed coal power plant that was being considered in 2003 in Massachusetts, that he opposed, in which he declared that he would not “create jobs that kill people”. When asked for clarification, his spokespeople said that Governor Romney had concerns about the safety of that plant.

Mitt Romney has ridiculed the President’s push for Wind Energy. Of course, he would have to. A number of right-wing organizations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support for solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which also has financial links to the Koch’s, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy. I heard or read somewhere that the Koch’s are really big financially in both oil and coal. Go figure.

The think-tanks have placed a lot of effort into dealing with the threat of wind and solar. They came up with a memo:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/may/09/wind-power-memo

According to The Guardian: “Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing “subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it.”

It suggests setting up “dummy businesses” to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a “counter-intelligence branch” to track the wind energy industry. It also calls for spending $750,000 to create an organisation with paid staff and tax-exempt status dedicated to building public opposition to state and federal government policies encouraging the wind energy industry.”

Remember, Mitt Romney is now a good Conservative in order to get the backing of the Koch Brothers, the Tea Party (sponsored by the Koch Brothers) the Conservative think-tanks (sponsored by the Koch Brothers) and the Republican Party (sponsored by the Koch Brothers). Do any of you see a strange connection here?

So Mitt Romney, doing the bidding of his economic superiors, the Koch Brothers has declared War on the Wind. But he leaves things out yet again. Go figure. As President Obama pointed out today while in Iowa in response to the Mitt Romney Declaration:

“My opponent and I disagree when it comes to homegrown energy like wind,” …. “Wind power is creating new jobs all across Iowa. But Governor Romney says he wants to end the tax credit for wind energy producers.”

“America generates more than twice as much electricity from wind than when I took office. That’s right. The wind industry supports about 7,000 jobs right here in Iowa. Without these wind energy tax credits, those jobs are at risk, 37,000 jobs across the country would be at risk.”

“So my attitude is let’s stop giving taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that don’t need them, and let’s invest in clean energy that will put people back to work right here in Iowa,” he added. “That’s a choice in this election.””

As they say, the first casualty in War is the Truth. In Mitt Romney’s case, the casualty occurred long before he declared the war.

Those of you who have followed me on Twitter and on this blog may know my story. At age 18 I joined the Republican Party and though saw myself then, and in many respects today, as a conservative on traditional conservative values, the degrading of the party beginning 30 years ago and it’s accelerating degradation in the past 5 years have caused me awe. Though my deep core values have not really changed, the definitions have appeared to have changed. The Tea Party proudly calls me a RINO, (Republican In Name Only) as they do all “non crazy folks” not happy with the how the party has become essentially domestic terrorists, assaulting democracy in its purist form. Taking a once effective progressive and rational party and letting the children and deranged take over. My posts on twitter and this blog have been very derogatory towards those on the right and those in the Republican Party. One can make the correct assumption that I’m not so much a Moderate as a Lefty. However, I think it’s more changing definitions than core values. What was once Conservative is now Moderate, Moderate is now Liberal/Progressive, and nut jobs are now Conservatives, you get the idea.

I asked on Twitter today something new to rant about and Lynn @illiter8 gave me a great idea. A man who I admired has really blown it. On twitter, most of the people I’ve gotten angry with and blocked have of course, been Right Wing Nut Jobs. However, there have been a few Lefties who I have not seen eye to eye with. Though I tend to treat them with more respect, there have been some nasty exchanges and one or the other of us have blocked each other. No side is free of doing surprisingly stupid things that run counter to common sense or what you would expect of that person.

General Wesley Clark once ran for President on the Democratic side. At the time, though I was still in the Republican camp, I admired the man. What was not to admire? A Four Star General, led NATO, did an outstanding job in Kosovo. Intelligent, articulate, and as a soldier, knew the futility of war and had nothing but concern for the reputation of the Army and of course, the United States. So what has he done?

http://m.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2012/08/wesley-clark-todd-palin-nick-lachey-blow-things-america-stars-earn-stripes-nbc

NBC is launching a new reality show, just what this country needs, another show of people pretending to be real, doing and saying things they never would if cameras weren’t around. The name of the show is “Stars Earns Stripes” where C-List Celebrities essentially play war-games with real weaponry. The show is hosted by General Clark. How does that go? WTF!

You would think a General who commanded men in battle beginning in Vietnam and culminating in Kosovo would have more respect for what War really is and wouldn’t stand for treating the weapons of war like fire crackers on the Fourth of July. I am offended by the concept and the decision General Clark made by being part of this. Idiots who have no business being anywhere like Todd Palin will get to blow things up in the desert and play army like real children only using real weapons. Considering the timing too. With our soldiers still dying in Afghanistan, domestic terrorism with assault rifles at movie theatres, 9 mm semi-automatic guns at Temples, the shootings that are getting more and more common using weaponry designed for war, but being used against unarmed civilians. And this is a reality show?

No doubt the show will be successful. In our culture today, crap like that is successful. It attracts sponsors who pay to get advertising on the show, everyone gets rich while those who may not be properly medicated watch, masturbate and wonder if they can go get an assault rifle or bazooka and blow something up themselves. The show was going to happen. But Wesley Clark agreeing to Co-Host it? As Bill O’Reilly would say, he is a pin head. I think he is making light of the seriousness of the military, their missions and the weapons they use. This is not for children wanting to play war, this is for trained professionals who risk their lives for those of us who stay at home. Bad move General.

See, I can be snarky to those on the left too.