Romney's Wrong on the Strength of the U. S. Navy

Another major screw up on Mitt "I'm a Liar" Romney during the foreign policy debate was his attempt to depict U.S. Naval strength as greatly diminished and used the number of Navy vessels in 1916 as an apparent bench mark.   While the absolute number of ships is smaller now than in 1916, the power and capabilities of the ships the Navy has now are far superior to those of 1916.  Worse yet for Romney, the ranking of the U.S. Navy relative to other nations has increased enormously since 1916 when it ranked 3rd in the world with 11% of the world's naval power to now when it ranks 1st in the world with 50% of worldwide naval power.  Here are highlights from an analysis of 1916 versus now:

In the last debate, Governor Romney made the claim that the US Navy is the smallest it’s been since 1916 implying that the US Navy is regressing in terms of overall strength. How accurate is this claim? We recently compiled a new data set on naval capabilities and created a measure of state naval strength for all countries from 1865 to 2011. As such, we are in a position to address the claims of the Romney campaign.

In 1916, the US controlled roughly 11% of the world’s naval power. This is an impressive number that ranks the US third in naval strength behind the UK (34%) and Germany (19%), and just ahead of France (10%). What about the US navy in 2011? In 2011, the US controlled roughly 50% of the world’s naval power putting it in a comfortable lead in naval power ahead of Russia (11%).

The US Navy has decreased in absolute size as Governor Romney argues (although this decline has been ongoing since the end of Cold War). U.S. warships are more powerful now than in the past, as President Obama implied. However, neither the number of warships nor the power of our ships is what is most important for understanding military and political influence. It is relative military power that matters most. In this respect, the U.S. navy is far stronger now than in 1916.

Mitt Romney Flunks Basic Geography

For a man who wants to be U. S. commander-in-chief and who claims that he has a better plan for the Middle East, he sure doesn't know even the basic geography of the region.  During the debate on Monday night Romney made this statement:

 "Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea." 

Is the man an idiot or does he think all of the rest of us are?  As the map above mockingly indicates, Romney apparently is oblivious to the fact that (1) Iran and Syria share no common border and (2) Iran has a lengthy coastline on the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.  It's pretty frightening and puts Romney in the same league as Sarah Palin who claimed she could see Russia from her house in Wasilla, Alaska (which is impossible).  If Romney doesn't know this basic geography, he's to stupid and far too uninformed to be president.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

The Republican Party, Racism and Mormonism

There are many who believed that the Christofascist base of the Republican Party might not support Mitt Romney even though Romney has done everything short of selling his soul - or maybe he has - to win the support of religious extremists in the GOP base.  But perhaps there is something that ties Romney to these religious extremists: racism and the belief that white privilege must be protected.  This could be particularly true in the South where racism has long flourished for many reasons, one of which is that poor whites have always needed someone to look down on in order to fell good about themselves.  In my New Orleans belle grandmother's view, nothing was worse than "white trash."  Well, the white trash used racism against blacks to convince themselves that there were not the lowest of the low.  How does this tie in with Mitt Romney and Mormonism?  What denomination continued open discrimination as Church policy longer than any other?  The Mormon Church, of course.  The Church in which Romney was raised and to which he gives millions of dollars each year.  Which political party had only 2% of its attendees made up of blacks?  The GOP, of course.  Andrew Sullivan looks at this bizarre double standard that would never allow to go unchallenged in a Democrat candidate and asks some hard questions that need to be asked of Romney.  Here are excepts:

Imagine for a moment that Barack Obama had never attended Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago and had decided to attend services, and proselytize for, a black separatist, nationalist church that refused to allow whites to participate in crucial religious services because white people had been condemned by God for their iniquity in the ancient past and had been for ever marked white so black Americans would know instantly to keep their distance.

Imagine further that backing this racist church was not a youthful folly on Obama's part, but a profound commitment - that he went on a mission abroad to convert Christians to a new religion based on black racial supremacy, and has often said that the most important thing in his entire life to this day is a church whose sacred scripture declares white people to be cursed by God for their past sins - and the sign of this curse is their white skin.

A simple question: Do you think this issue would not come up in a general election or a primary?   .  .  .  .  I raise this because it is a fact that Mitt Romney belonged to a white supremacist church for 31 years of his life, went on a mission to convert Christians and Jews and others to this church, which retained white supremacy as a doctrine until 1978 - decades after Brown vs Board of Education, and a decade after the end of the anti-miscegenation laws.

[T]he key question: what did the Romneys do to confront their own church's non-secular position on the inherent spiritual inferiority of blacks? Nothing, so far as I can find. If any reader can find some, please send it to me and I'll post it. And Joseph Smith's admirable early abolitionism was soon trumped by Brigham Young who took the Book of Mormon seriously:

2nd Nephi 5:21 "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

The inherent spiritual-racial iniquity of blacks places them at the very bottom of the pile on earth, and they will achieve salvation only in the hereafter - and then only after every other race has had their turn. Now listen to Romney's response to Russert again:

My faith has always taught me that in the eyes of God every individual merited the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and blacks generally would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had.

My italics. There's nothing in Romney's answer that violates the old Mormon doctrine - still there in the Book of Mormon - that for some reason, people with black skin suffer some kind of inherited curse that will only be lifted after everyone else has been saved in the hereafter. 

people still don't see how Mormonism - its utilitarian use of truth, its studied mainstream all-American appeal, its refusal to be completely transparent to outsiders, and its insistence on never having to account for itself - isn't integral to Mitt Romney's personality and beliefs. Romney will no more let outsiders look at his finances than the LDS church will allow non-Mormons inside their Temples after they have been consecrated. 

[I]f you asked a Catholic candidate whether it was wrong for the Church to have treated Jews as cursed and sub-human for so long, I cannot imagine any Catholic politician not saying yes. Unequivocally. Is there a mite of evidence that Mitt Romney ever challenged the white supremacism in his religion and its active racism while it was in existence and he was still a missionary and member for 31 years of his life?Listen again to the last question and answer in the Russert interview:

Russert: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude [African-Americans] for as long as it did?
Romney: I've told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there is no discrimination in the eyes of God and I could not have been more pleased when the decision occurred.

Why could he not just have said "yes"?

You see, Romney is in some ways the PERFECT candidate for white racists, particularly those in the South where viewing others who are different as less than fully human has a long tradition.  Perhaps Romney's Mormonism is the dog whistle that is attracting racist and bigoted whites who cannot tolerate a black president and who find the Mormon Church's historic white supremacist past comforting.  Perhaps even validating.  What do others think?

Bill Gates Gives $500,000 for Washington State Marriage Equality

Brace yourselves for more spittle flecked boycott threats from hate groups like the American Family Association and Family Research Council and the Catholic Church front organization, NOM, in the wake of Bill Gates announcement that he and his wife are donating $500,000.00 to support the effort to secure approval of Referendum 74, the ballot measure that would put Washington State's legislatively-passed marriage equality law into effect.  Komonews has details on the donation and the latest polling results in Washington State..  Here are excerpts:

Bill and Melinda Gates have donated $500,000 to the campaign to uphold the state's gay marriage law.

The donation was announced Tuesday by Washington United for Marriage, which is working to approve Referendum 74. The donation was made on Oct. 15, but didn't publicly post online with the Public Disclosure Commission until Tuesday. Referendum 74 asks voters to either approve or reject the law allowing same-sex marriage that was passed by the Legislature earlier this year.  Bill Gates had made a $100,000 contribution to the campaign earlier this year.

A poll released last week showed that 56.3 percent of registered voters back gay marriage in the state, compared to 35.6 percent who oppose it, with 6.1 percent undecided.

Among likely voters, support decreased to 54.1 percent, with 38.4 percent saying they would vote against the measure, and 5.7 percent undecided.

The poll, conducted by the University of Washington, also included a third prediction, based on whether people answered honestly. Matt Barreto, director of the poll, said that because sometime people answering poll questions feel social pressure to answer a certain way, results can be skewed. In this poll, they weighted the poll based on how they answered two additional questions: if they lied on the survey and if any topics made them uncomfortable. That third prediction reduced those supporting the referendum down to 52.9 percent, and those opposing 46.6 percent.

As with so much else in this years elections, voter turnout will be critical and no one should sit back and think it is safe to stay and home and assume that the good guys will win.  The fear and hate motivated voters of the far right won't be sitting home and neither can those who believe in equality and religious freedom.

GOP Senate Candidate: Pregnancy from Rape Something "God Intended"

Republican candidates are for the most part trying very hard to hide their extremist agenda from voters and women in particular.  The GOP party platform calls for nothing less than the outlawing of abortion and the sharp curtailment of the availability of contraception..  The latter goal is beyond insane and, in fact, will only assure that the number of unwanted pregnancies increase.  Fortunately, GOP candidate for the U. S. Senate in Indiana, Richard Mourdock (pictured at right), has reminded everyone of what the GOP agenda - war on women if you will - is really all about: even if a woman is raped, she is expected to carry the unwanted child and "get over it."  Her situation is "God's Will."  Yes, it horrible batshitery, but that IS today's Republican Party all the way down from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who support the overturning of Roe v. Wade and defunding of Planned Parenthood, to the lowest level GOP extremists here in the Republican Party of Virginia.  These folks are in many ways the face of the Christian Taliban in this country.  CBS News has coverage on Mourdock's pronouncement for women,  Here are highlights:

In a Tuesday night debate with his Democratic rival and a Libertarian candidate for one of Indiana's U.S. Senate seats, Republican candidate Richard Mourdock suggested that pregnancies resulting from rape are "something that God intended to happen," despite the "horrible situation" from which they derived.

Mourdock, a Tea Party-backed candidate who beat longtime moderate Senator Richard Lugar in the state's Republican nominating contest earlier this year, expressed his view that "life begins at conception" and that he would only allow abortions in circumstances in which the mother's life was in danger.  .  .  .  .  "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

While to the right on Lugar with regard to issues relating both to reproductive rights and others, Mourdock's stance on abortion is hardly an anomaly in the Republican party. His comments echo similar remarks made by former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a staunch pro-life social conservative, while he was still in the midst of a bid for the White House. 

At the GOP convention in Tampa this year, the party approved a platform with language calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. The language, which is the same as in the party's 2004 and 2008 platform, did not provide exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Romney, who has endorsed Mourdock, recently appeared in a campaign video on behalf of Mourdock, and campaigned with him in Evansville, Indiana, on Aug. 4. Paul Ryan, who, like Mourdock, opposes all abortions except to save the life of the mother, appeared at an open press funder with him on Sept. 17.

As I have tried to tell long time Republicans, today's GOP is NOT the party of past decades.  It has turned into something extreme and is the antithesis of what the party once stood for.  These Republicans need to hold their noses and vote Democrat and send a message that extremism is the route to the political wilderness or at minimum, minority party status.

Quote of the Day: Dustin Lance Black on Why Romney is Dangerous

I have had the pleasure to meet Dustin Lance Black three times now and he always comes across as insightful and able to have empathy for others.  Moreover, with family members still living in Virginia he is fully attuned to the vengeance that the Christofascists have taken against gays in Virginia in the form of GOP backed anti-gay legislation and the constant blocking of all laws which would provide non-discrimination protections.  And as a former Mormon, Black has a perhaps unique perspective on the mindset of Mitt Romney who he sees as a danger to all minorities.  Here is the telling quote via Pride Source:

What would a Romney presidency mean for the gay community?

A Romney win is not just dangerous for the gay community but for anyone interested in equality. This is a president who seems to have trouble seeing outside of his own experiences. I don't think this is a man who has demonstrated any kind of empathy or understanding for people who are very, very different. The danger is not that he will get a lot of legislation passed that will hurt gay and lesbian people; the danger is he is likely going to appoint two Supreme Court justices, making this the most conservative court in history. That's what is at stake. And that doesn't just go for gay and lesbian people; that's gay and lesbian people, women, workers - they all are about to see their protections stripped away. He explicitly said he believes these sorts of protections should be allowed to be put up for a vote. I find it absurd and criminal that he would say that minorities should have their rights put up to votes.

Mitt Romney and those of the far right are a clear and present danger to the rights of all minorities who cling to the days where a white majority reserved to itself rights and privileges denied to other Americans.   Equally frightening Romney and his Christianist supporters seem to have open contempt for the concept of religious freedom for anyone other than themselves. 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

The Truth About Mitt Romney's Health Care "Plan"

Click image to enlarge

I had conversations today with those who refuse to accept the fact that Mitt Romney's health care plan will cause much harm to millions of Americans - yes, most of these conversations were with republicans.  These conversation caused me to take another look at just how toxic the Romney plan would be for so many Americans in order that I could "re-educate" these apparent Fox News viewers.  In this process, perhaps the most effective explanation of the difference between "Obamacare," Romneycare as enacted in Massachusetts id applied nationwide, and Romney's current health care "plan" can be found at Think Progress which includes the chart above.  Take a good look and make sure your non-engaged, Fox News watching friends look at this chart and stop drinking the Romney/Ryan Kool-Aid.  Here are highlights from the Think Progress article:

A new study from Families USA compares both Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health reform law and proposed health care plans as a presidential candidate with President Obama’s health care reform. The report finds that on both a national and state-by-state level, Romney’s proposed reforms would lead to a substanitally higher uninsurance rate and considerably less financial support for American families trying to access health coverage than Obamacare would. A key element of the study notes that Romney’s plan uses tax deductions (relief on the amount of taxable income workers have to claim) as opposed to Obamacare’s tax credits (an actual reduction in the total taxes workers pay) as its method of premium support, thus reaching fewer Americans and providing them with less subsidies. 

Romney’s proposals would provide working families little more than half the subsidies that Obamacare does, and by 2022 Romney’s plan would lead to a net 50 million more uninsured Americans than Obamacare would.

Don't be afraid to challenge the ignorance of your Romney loving friends.  Whether they like it or not, they need to get their heads out of their asses and stop drinking the GOP/Christianist/Tea Party Kool-Aid.

Quote of the Day: Andrew Sullivan on Mitt Romeny's Patent Dishonesty

Should Mitt Romney win on November 6th, I will concede that I will be devastated.  Indeed, I may well rethink remaining in the United States and pursue my dual citizenship that I have through my late mother.  What will upset me the most, however, should Romney win is the obvious stupidity and lack of seriousness of the American public.  The same public that obsesses over freaking pro-sports teams and embarrassing reality TV shows while ignoring issues that most effect their lives while falling for the lies of a seeming pathological liar.  Andrew Sullivan sums up Mitt Romney and his campaign most accurately:

Yes, it's amazing that a human being can have so few scruples, such an effortless ease with lying, and literally junk his entire program overnight with nary even an explanation. It's amazing still that polarization in this country would allow evangelicals and Tea Partiers not to start worrying about this chameleon. But this is Romney. He aims to please. He markets "himself" as a product to different demographics. And marketing works, if you are prepared to turn yourself into a soulless, content-free, power-seeking robot.

 I remain optimistically hopefully.  But if Romney wins, the majority of voters will fully deserve whatever misfortunes their vote brings down upon them.  For the rest of us, I will feel real sympathy and some of us will have to decide if it is forth staying and fighting or leaving and watching America sink into the foul future that it will deserve.