Mother Jones exposes Romney at a private fundraising event

On the 1-year anniversary of OWS, here's a gem for the cause:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

I guess his true colors come out when he's with his fellow 1%ers. Ironically, he sounds a lot much more comfortable, presidential, and intellectual there than when we've seen him with the press or on the campaign trail pandering to the "regular folks" (where he is usually awkward and ludicrous). I guess Romney didn't become CEO without having some verbal skills with the right crowds.

Even for him, it's shocking how explicitly he dismisses the "lower 47%" who are solidly Democrat. As a presidential candidate and a possible president, "it's not his job" to care about them - half of America! Of course his assumptions about those folks are way off, which may make it easier for him and his peers to justify policies that further disadvantage them vs. the upper class.

I did find his comments about independent voters fairly interesting. He answered an audience question that he can't go after Obama personally, because the independents who voted for Obama in 2008 still like the guy (and Mitt's likeability rating is so low). They are disappointed with Obama's performance but won't reject him as a failure, because that would mean admitting to themselves that they voted poorly. They instead blame conditions during his presidency. So all Romney can do is just keep pushing big lies about the economy to those voters, and hope that they are persuaded.

---------

Now Romney follows up with his great grasp of foreign affairs: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secret-video-israeli-palestinian-middle-east-peace

He's clearly less comfortable with these matters, as he reverted to his usual whiny, rambling, opaque nature. First the Palestinians have an inferior culture, and now none of them are interested in peace. I wonder if he's ever even spoken with a Palestinian.

--------

How much of what he said is actually wrong and how much of it is saying the right (or arguably right) thing the wrong way?

--------

I take issue with the substance of what he said and how he delivered it. It was an attack on nearly half the population. The ironic thing is that many of the 47% that don't pay taxes are actually Republicans (senior citizens, military, veterans, white working class, etc.). I imagine that a fair percentage of the voting class in the "red" America are in that class. But he just groups them together as "victims". It is very degrading.

I don't think most people who don't make enough money to pay federal income tax consider themselves victims or are necessarily content with their situation. I think the majority are working or even have multiple jobs to support themselves or their families and Romney's comments are a spit in the face. I would dare say an insult to their labor.

And, yes, I think the government does have an obligation to provide a minimum level of health insurance to its citizens. I also think the government has a responsibilty to provide for education and providing subsistance and to promote policies that encourage responsible job growth. The whole society benefits not just those who are helped.

In addition, his comments are misleading because practically everyone in this country pays some sort of tax even- even those making the least who can least afford to do so. Payroll taxes, social security, sales tax, state tax, gas tax, propert tax, etc.

What Romney and a segment of the Republican party don't understand is that everyone needs help at one point or anther. At some point everyone needs a break. Even the most successful entrepreneurs (like Romney or Trump for example) couldn't have done it alone. They mistakenly believe that by recognizing this obvious fact they would repudiate the theory that hard work, determination, ingenuity, and risk taking are the keys to success. No one disputes that these are the keys but these traits alone are not always enough.

--------

I agree with your comments and thx for writing.

For Romney, let me put it this way: what does he ever get right about socioeconomics?

Let's face it, we are ALL dependent on government to some extent, from Romney down to the homeless. Profitable companies can't exist without IP protection, transport and communication infrastructure, a central bank, etc. (unless they are criminal entities, which some are). If government somehow disappeared or became totally libertarian, can you imagine an America where everything was privately owned and unregulated? Knowing Americans, it would make Mad Max look like Utopia. 

Romney is complaining like it's somehow wrong that those who may consume more gov't services will vote Dem no matter what. Well duh, what are the GOP offering them as a better alternative? They want to cut programs and make their lives harder - why would they support that agenda? And remember Mitt when you were governor, you seemed to endorse the idea that healthcare was a right regardless of ability to pay.

It's not like Obama is complaining that all the super-rich are GOP and won't change no matter what. And Obama has given them plenty of reason to like him: the S&P500 tanked under the last GOP president, and soared under him. He hasn't cleaned up Wall St. much at all, though he probably would want to do more. But what those fools don't understand is a smartly regulated Wall St. is BETTER for business. When there is more trust and transparency, people will invest more and markets will be more efficient without costly scandals and bubbles. But despite their love for the free market, I guess they prefer to make their money through arbitrage, trickery, and other uncompetitive, opaque means.

But as L said, plenty of rich people vote Dem and plenty of poor non-taxpayers vote GOP. I think the average net worth of a GOP voter is slightly higher, but that is likely the ultra rich skewing the measurement. The 2 parties are probably more similar than they care to admit from a wealth standpoint. But who are the "freeloaders" really? Maybe during the RNC, you might have caught the Daily Show clip where they were mocking delegates from the states who had the worst "net contributions" (IRS revenues collected - federal cash inflows per capita), suggesting they should be "fired" from the Union as a private sector CEO might prescribe. Only 5 of the bottom 20 states are solidly blue. And only 3 of the top 15 "most profitable" states are solidly red (TX, AR, and NE - probably due to energy). So that suggest the Republicans are the true deadbeats, yet the GOP has amazingly been able to convince many poor to vote against their economic interests. Or maybe not, as GOP leaders seem to have no problem funneling federal dollars to their states, even through the hated Stimulus. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_spending_and_taxation_across_states

How about ducking taxes? It's true that many poor liberals don't pay any income or property taxes, but they do contribute in sales and payroll taxes as L said. Labor and consumption are being taxed at higher rates now (which hurts the lower classes more), yet capital is being taxed much less. And maybe you heard about that big $100M whistle-blower award given to the UBS employee who ratted on Americans trying to evade taxes in SWI. The IRS recovered $5 BILLION from the scheme. I don't think it was liberals on welfare who were implicated.

I find it funny and sad - some rich really seem to HATE the poor, even though the poor have never done anything to hurt them, either directly or indirectly. I don't get it. Is it just a political tactic to get the poor conservatives to blame/hate poor liberals and the Dem Party for their troubles? And these poor-hating GOP 1%ers often wear their Christianity on their sleeves, yet that religion explicitly teaches that the rich are not going to heaven and blessed are the poor. Mitt probably only gives so much because of LDS-imposed tithes, and he gives mostly internally, to church causes. OTOH, the poor have plenty to be upset about the rich, but many of them take a much better attitude: take only what you need, live and let live. We volunteer with a group that gives assistance to needy people (with no eligibility conditions attached, unlike welfare-to-work or whatever compromise programs). After meeting at least 50 Bay Area households over 7 years, I would say that only about 5% of them fit the GOP stereotype of the lazy, entitled, "victim" moocher (and I'm not sure how they vote). Most are tremendously appreciative for the little "handouts" they get, and they are facing hardships that we can't even fathom. I know that is not scientifically valid, but I don't think it would be too tough to find some supportive national data either.

A robust middle class contributed significantly to America's rise as the biggest economy and "greatest" nation. Many other empires have had a super-wealthy upper class supported by peasant masses, but many of those nations crumbled - often due to economic causes. A confident, socially secure, prosperous, and growing middle class is what separates us from the Third World. To be a great nation, we don't need more rich people, we don't need to empower them more, but we do need more poor people able to become middle class. If Romney doesn't get that, then he doesn't deserve to lead anyone.

--------

If i wanted to be kind to Mitt I would say that he is approaching this the only way he knows how, from a business perspective.  Those folks reliant on govt programs and that don't pay taxes, regardless of whatever value he places on them as people, what should he be spending on them in election effort?  He wants to lower taxes and cut programs, neither one speaks to their interests.  Why bother catering to them?  No fault in that logic.  The problem is when he keeps not caring WHILE president, or devalues them because they are poor/dependent.  Things like that.

But I think i understand where he was trying to come from.  Product of his upbringing so to speak.

-------

Yes I guess you're right that there's no point in Romney to court poor liberals, but he doesn't have to denigrate them instead. Like Obama is clearly not trying to woo voters in TX and UT, but he's not talking crap about them with ludicrous, inaccurate generalizations either (well not in public or on hidden cam at least).

The irony is that Romney is in fact indirectly pandering to the poor, but using social issues instead. Like we discussed, red states tend to be more dependent on federal money than blue states per capita. So his agenda of cutting programs should make those people angry. But they don't because I guess they take their federal assistance for granted, and instead care more about abortion, gun rights, illegals, gay marriage, etc. Romney fires up those folks with those issues so they forget that his economic agenda will actually hurt them. It's kind of sick actually, but I guess I can't blame Romney for their lack of awareness.  

-------

 I should add that his nominee for VP (Paul Ryan) routinely criticizes the stimulus but fails to mention that he voted for it and happily accepted the federal funds for his state. Spending money to help the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised, and the discrimanated against is bad but if it helps those that can raise you money and help you keep political office that's okay. I'm not saying the Democrats don't do the same thing but they are not the ones saying we need to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class.

The income gap in this country is growing higher and higher, especially at the top one percent. If they are reaping the rewards of this new economy, why should the poor and middle class have to make all the sacrifices. In addition, they are the ones who caused the current financial crisis for their failure (to put it kindly) to identify systemic risk in their transactions out short sighted greed. Instead of holding them responsible, we reward them and encourage their behavior in the name of free market capitalism and pursuit of the American dream. Romney can't understand this because he is the poster-boy of this flawed ideology. 

--------

Didn't he also call 'those Iranians' crazy people?  boy, he's a funny guy.  

--------

Yeah and by his definition, Israel and the US are also "crazy" then:

- Led by a religious political party (more so in Israel)
- Developed a nuclear weapons program covertly
- Engages in espionage/terrorism overseas in violation of international laws
- Launches first strikes on other nations
- Blackmails other nations with force (more so for the US)

 -----------

With this new info, one could argue that Mitt and George Romney's successes are partly due to welfare!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/19/161409916/welfare-wasnt-always-a-dirty-word-in-the-romney-family

Why do the Romneys have the right to utilize government benefits to climb the ladder and make the American Dream a reality, and now that Mitt reached the top, he wants to cut off millions of others just as deserving as his family back then, if not more. Don't the new generations have contributions to make if given a chance? I wonder what George would have told to a politician who was campaigning to cut off his assistance back then.

I know America is different now and we have new fiscal realities. But personally if I knew these were my roots, I couldn't live with myself to adopt such an conflicting platform. Funny that Mitt tries to campaign like he knows how to make something of oneself, and that his family embodies the American Dream of moving up (not to mention all the hating he does on people who have not demonstrated such success). Maybe that is a legit case to make, but then don't leave out the inconvenient details that you were only able to achieve what you did because the US government, the nanny government, the socialist activist government, the source of all our problems, the thing Grover N and the TP want to kill... gave you a handout when you needed it most - and that was the catalyst to your better life.  

Moyers interviews Sanders on Obama

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-challenging-power-changing-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+moyers+%28Moyers+%26+Company%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

Sanders brought up a good point: with Romney-Ryan showing their hand and betting the farm on the Ryan budget that aims to severely cut popular entitlements (and many conservatives have acknowlegded this liability too), why hasn't Obama come out more vociferously on the issue and slammed them for it? Does that mean that Obama would also consider cutting SocSec or Medicare if needing to compromise with the GOP in his 2nd term? Obama could win the election right now with a statement along the lines of (and I hope he busts it out before it's too late):

My fellow Americans,

You have worked hard and played by the rules your whole life. Your parents and friends had a fair shot at the American Dream and many of them achieved it, but you're trying just as hard (if not harder), and haven't seen the same results. There are many reasons for this, and most are not my fault as some would allege. America means more than just markets and profit. We want a life, not just a paycheck. I love serving the American people in my job, but trust me I can think of better things to do that working late on national problems every night. That is what Social Security and Medicare are for, to reward you for your decades of hard work, for your decades of being good Americans, so you can have the most precious thing in your old age - health and peace of mind. And for those who aren't seniors yet, you also get the peace in mind that your loved ones will be supported, and you will too when the time comes. It's a promise, and some promises must be kept - even in Washington.

Social Security is not a pie-in-the-sky dream, but a basic right of civilized, free, democratic people. Some conservatives believed and supported this over the years, but the Republican Party has never acted on it at the highest levels. It was brought to you by Democrats, during some of the most challenging economic times - times not so different from today. Great Americans like LBJ, FDR, and many others were working for you, not the fat cats. I know the modern Democratic party has sadly chosen to pander to big money too (but remember that I and my party opposed Citizens United), but in my 2nd term I hope to remind us of our roots. Big businesses and the rich, who will want for nothing in their golden years, don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so that just-as-worthy other Americans can have a comfortable retirement too. I got mine, so forget the rest of you. Pensions are getting slashed, the retirement age is getting higher, and it will all get worse under a Romney-Ryan America. Yes there is some waste and abuse associated with retirement benefits, but I would rather have an imperfect system than no system at all, where everyone is on their own. That is the Romney-Ryan vision of America my friends.

So hear me now, every hard-working American concerned about his or her future and the country they love. Your labor not only goes to feeding your loved ones, but seniors all over America whom you've never met - and they are so thankful for it. Those old folks supported others in their younger days, and now they are getting taken care of by you. We honor our commitments, that is how a society works. That is how America should work, instead of every billionaire for himself. So this is my promise to you, my fellow Americans. If you give me the great honor and privilege of a 2nd term, I will improve - not gut - Social Security to make it viable for at least 75 years, so that you can be 100% assured to have it when the time comes. You did your part, now your leaders must do theirs. Make no mistake we should and will cut the deficit smartly, but not at your expense. I won't rob the Social Security trust to give tax breaks to the super-rich, as Romney-Ryan and many in the GOP Caucus plan to. That is a BETRAYAL. I do not, and Democrats do not, punish people for doing the right thing. So vote with your conscience, and let's do the right thing together. Thank you and God bless.

Hey Barack - I will write your speeches for $20/hour plus US gov't retirement (of course)!

--------

1 - Of course Obama will consider cutting Social Security and Medicare to compromise with the GOP. He's already proposed that as part of his "grand bargain" with Boehner and Cantor in summer 2011. This is the hilarity of all those asshat DC centrist column-writers who claim to want a centrist politician to come to a compromise to cut SS and Medicare in exchange for tax hikes: that politician exists, he's currently President, and they're still looking.

2 - Campaign finance realities prevent Obama from echoing FDR's "I'm hostile to the rich, they hate me, and I welcome their hatred." If you're mean to the rich they don't give your campaign money, and you don't get elected. Campaign finance really is the root of all our political evils.

--------

Agreed, thanks J. I was more suggesting that Obama hasn't fully capitalized on the SocSec issue, even if the data suggest he won't be the ideal protector of that program. So for the GOP to make their stand (for a campaign that is nearly devoid of substance, I'll give them credit for being this ballsy), and Obama not exploit it, is inexplicable to me. Maybe he's saving it for the debates, but I think it will work better on the trail or even in TV ads. Even if Obama may cut entitlements later, he probably will do less damage than Romney-Ryan. So for the binary choice (ignoring the possibility of voting boycott for now), Obama is the SocSec champion as far as many people are concerned. Plus the revenues gained from the grand bargain may go to some other social good. So I'm just saying he should run with that, and it will probably lead to a win for him considering the current campaign environment.

From FDR's famous "welcome their hatred" speech: about 3/4 of Republicans voted for the SocSec act in 1935. But in the 1936 campaign, the GOP leaders in Congress tried to use that issue (along with the passage of unemployment insurance, anti-monopoly reforms, Glass-Steagall, etc.) to show that FDR was an anti-business pinko. It didn't work then, and shouldn't work now even if Obama is clearly not FDR.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3307

Middle East protests over video

What do you think of the Muhammad video causing an uproar? I know we've discussed this issue after the South Park episode and the Danish cartoons. I guess some Westerners can't get enough of provoking crazy Muslims, and some Muslims can't stop themselves from overreacting to a few Western a-holes.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-rejects-white-house-request-pull-mohammad-film-015300781--sector.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/search?q=muhammad+cartoons

Apparently Google/YouTube refuses to censor it unless it violates local laws. I find it interesting, because when copyrighted material appears on YouTube, and Viacom, HBO, or other big corporate entities protest (or threaten to sue), of course Google blocks the video. But now when "free speech" is causing violence and anti-Americanism, then they tolerate it and even defend it. I know it's part of their terms of use, company vision, and all. Money over lives again I guess.

I am not a fan of censorship, but I find it so stupid when people produce hate or slander speech designed just to offend others. It's not political, educational, or meant to sway opinions - it's just to provoke irrational people who are already overly-sensitive about their religion. And they don't care about the blowback to innocents (in fact they may have even anticipated this outcome and were apparently OK with it). Do I approve of the violent protests? Of course not, and you'd think that someone in those nations would stand up and remind the protesters that most Americans do not disrespect Islam, and burning a KFC won't make it better. In fact those retaliations make Muslims look even worse to the world, which sullies the reputation of their prophet whom they claim to defend.

We don't celebrate free speech if we use that freedom to disseminate the lowest, most vile, most worthless forms of speech. So when people don't treat their freedoms responsibly, we could consider taking them away (as we do with bad drivers, criminals, etc.).

And of course Romney has to put his foot in his mouth yet again over this. While Stevens' corpse was still warm he just had to take a cheap shot at Obama. No one on the right but the talk radio jerks are supporting Romney on this, so you know he went too far. Everything Obama does hurts America's standing abroad apparently. No one is "siding" with the protesters or condoning the killing of Americans who had nothing to do with the video. Shut the F up you moron. I wouldn't cry over taking away Romney's free speech rights. We should denounce the makers of that video, as well as those who committed violence in response to it. Romney and the Reps think that Obama just wants to take every opportunity possible to make America look weaker and "embolden" our enemies. For the first time in decades, the Dems are slightly stronger than the GOP in terms of voter perceptions on defense and foreign policy, so Romney is really grasping at straws to try to level the game. He claims that he will never apologize for America. Well Reagan apologized for Japanese internment, LBJ apologized for Vietnam, and W Bush apologized for Abu Ghraib and slavery (I guess better late than never). It's not just weak appeasers who apologize. Humble people who are in touch with REALITY apologize when it's warranted. Arrogant, delusional pricks don't.

--------

True (so far), but what is the value/point of such an image (apart from raunchy humor)? :) Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And by restraining ourselves from doing stupid (but legal) stuff, does that really make our lives worse? In fact it often makes us better. We could exercise "free speech" and tell off our boss, hit on hot girls (with unstable muscular BFs), and act offensively in public, but probably we will suffer for it. That is why we SELF-CENSOR about 60% of our speech (or 10% if you're lucky enough to be a comedian - these aren't official stats, just for argument's sake). But when we don't directly suffer for our speech (and others do), well that is the classic moral hazard, negative externalities problem. And we all know that causes dysfunction and makes some extremists embrace even riskier speech. So if only the perpetrators suffer, then by all means make speech universally free. But the perpetrators are cowards who hide behind their money, status, insanity, or human shields.

So most of us can handle our speech responsibilities, but for the few degenerates who don't have the ability to self-censor, how does society step in? There are some laws, like those banning hate speech. Does this video qualify? It's debatable. Hate speech laws are even stronger in Germany, and I don't think many Germans are complaining that they feel so restricted. And I guess the law may not even be necessary for most Germans because they don't see any value in denying the Holocaust or other crap.

Below are some comments from a Lebanese friend of mine who has seen a lot of stuff in the Middle East. He makes a very good point: now with instant viral info dissemination, what about speech that directly endangers the interests and people of the US (like when Ahmadinejad blurts out stupid stuff about Israel, it hurts Iranians)? Freedoms are supposed to make us stronger, not hurt us right? If people are exercising their freedoms too selfishly and detrimentally, then how do we deal with that? Again, the violent retaliations are clearly the bigger crime here. But if you knowingly provoke someone into committing a crime (and from history and common sense you know there is a high probability of them doing so), I think you bear some responsibility there. I'm fairly sure there are laws about that stuff. We should "fix" violent, fundamentalist Islam too, but for now the "easier" fix is censoring some rare, especially dangerous hate speech before it does harm.

The Arab Spring is sputtering out (and the most critical nations are still under tyrants, apart from Egypt). People living under dictators for decades are traumatized and unsure what to do now. Their economies are broken. There is a battle for the hearts and minds between Islamists, former regime elements, and democratic reformists. Islamists thrive at filling the chaotic vacuum, especially fueled by anti-Western sentiment to exploit as a scapegoat. When Westerners pull this stuff, it just makes it easier for the Islamists to win. The people who made that video are supposedly anti-Islam, yet their actions make the Islamists politically and socially stronger in those affected nations. What folly. Meanwhile, the US is trying to help rebuild and promote good governance over there at some risk (taking off my cynic hat for a moment). It's hard, delicate, slow work. Now all their efforts since 2011 are set back a lot, if not ruined. All so a few morons can exercise "free speech"? Unacceptable. There's a lot more going on here, but the ignorants and ideologues don't see beyond their narrow agendas (not calling anyone here ignorant of course).

-----

I find it ironic that the man behind it is an Egyptian American who just sent his home country back into chaos.

I thought Google and YouTube do not tolerate hate speech, and I would think this video falls under that. 

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

"We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity)."

"Hate speech" refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group. For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech. Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/google-wont-rethink-anti-islam-videos-status.html

"Google said it had already determined that the video did not violate its terms of service regarding hate speech, because it was against the Muslim religion but not Muslim people."

So the video was not against a group of people, but against the religion, which happens to have many groups of people following? Nice lawyering work. Regardless, I don't think Google and YouTube censoring or not censoring the video at this point will do anything, and blocking it from countries as the violence spreads is stupid, the people are and will still be able to view the video.I think it is time the government steps in and tries to find a way to punish the parties involved with making the video because it is hurting its foreign policy. 

I also assumed this would be contained in those countries that are not as well off. I wanted to rank muslim countries by GDP and see if the violence correlates with low GDP, but there are riots in richer nations too.
 
--------

I won't try to defend the onion since it is a known satire publication  but that picture is EXTREMELY graphic.  Has anyone seen the video in quesiton?  It is comically stupid.  I had a hard time understanding where the offense came from.  Did the middle east riot when indiana jones came out and made the middle east look bad?

Do you really think these riots have ANYTHING to do with this video?  I mean, at all.  The video is a scapegoat at best.  These are organized demonstrations.  Thousands of people.  The number of people showing up to these rallies and the demographic makes it near impossible for a significant number of them to even have seen the video let alone translated from English to their native language.  There is some central authority figure fomenting the masses.  Plain and simple.  

You could argue "why would he make the video, why don't we all go and turn off the internal filters" but we do not self censor out of fear for our lives.  We self censor to avoid social awkwardness, potential relationship damage, etc.  And the real reason I believe you argue to stop the film (or cartoon or fill in the blank) is because it is so simple to do so.  Would we make those arguments if people rioted and killed every time someone said the word Muhammad regardless of context?  Would you then suggest that we should avoid using it at all?  Why is it ok to censor something that is easier to avoid?  It isn't hard to say "the prophet" or whatever instead of Muhammad, is it still ok?  It feels a little like blaming the rape victim.  What was she wearing?  What was she doing alone at night in that area?  All of those things are valid in the sense they could have helped avoid the final outcome, but it is still completely and totally NOT the victims fault. 

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

I think it's pretty unassailable that the video (or news of it) triggered the riots, and you don't need to see it to be offended by it. I think it has to do with the act of audacity to make such a film rather than the actual film content. And sure, like with Occupy, it started on a narrow, justifiable premise, but then when it got popular other wackos came out of the woodwork and polluted the movement. Supposedly in Egypt on the 2nd day of riots, the people didn't even care about the video anymore, but were protesting the police, economy, and government. But that's my point - those nations are barely hanging onto order as it is, why do we push them over the cliff for a frivolous reason? It's against reason. I doubt there is some "Islamic-industrial complex" pulling all the strings here. There is no authority figure in Libya or Egypt anymore, the dictators are gone. It's unclear who holds stable power, apart from the military. I mean, extremist Islam is organized, pervasive, and shouldn't be underestimated, but it's not like they were waiting for this trigger to strike like with 9/11. We saw from the Arab Spring that mobile phones and social media can mobilize people really effectively. I surmise the same happened here. It's "grassroots", but I'm sure the Islamists and other special interests are trying to fan the flames where it benefits them.

Well, we are lucky to live in a nation where it's highly unlikely to be murdered based on what you say. But in other placed, people definitely self-censor out of fear of their lives (in Iraq and Afghan. I'm sure some people didn't vote because of the threats). Sometime innocent speech can get you killed, but ill-advised speech can too - like in Northern Ireland in the '90s if a Protestant went into the wrong neighborhood and started talking crap. Yes, part of my argument is that if it's so easy to avoid these problems by censorship (that causes little pain to us), then we should. If a girl doesn't want to be raped, it's easier for her to dress conservatively and avoid bad neighborhoods than reform all the potential rapists. It's not fair, but I think most people would find that reasonable. And sure, if the Islamists and people offended by insults to Islam go too far (like Americans can't even say "prophet" without riots as you said), then of course we put our foot down. But so far and for the foreseeable future, the Islamic side hasn't become that intolerant, so I am not really worried about that possibility. They drew a pretty clear line in the sand: don't mock (or depict) their prophet, and it's all good. But some people keep trying to push it for no constructive reason.

My main argument is what to do about free speech that harms your country's interests and millions of people? America is TRYING to "reform the rapist". We're trying to spread democratic values, education, and other reforms so that people don't just let religious dogma (or phony religious zealots) dictate their beliefs and actions. We're trying to improve the rule of law and good governance so that people have peaceful, civil means of redress. We're trying to build economies so that people have a lot to live for and don't feel the need to riot desperately. If we do all those things, then no one will die when some wacko makes offensive media. Problem solved! It will be like the US then (no Muslims are rioting about the video here as far as I know, but my friend says it did happen in AUS which is wealthy and Western). But for now, when things are still volatile and it's a work in progress, offensive speech is setting all that back. 

In your rape analogy, I am not sure who the "victim" is here. The makers of the video? They got what they wanted and no harm has come to them (unlike Theo Van Gogh, who at least made a political movie to protest the mistreatment of Muslim women). Were the victims the consulate workers who died in Libya? Those people respected Islam and would condemn the video, so they did nothing to provoke the attackers except for being American. Is free speech the victim? It's not in any more danger today than a week ago. I really think the victims are everyone who practice free speech respectfully and responsibly, and the people who are working tirelessly to build a better Middle East (and US for that matter). The rest of us suffer and feel shame/sorrow because of the excesses of a few, and their violent, crazy "accomplices" overseas.

--------

The victim in my analogy was the exercise of free speech.  Because the speech was unpopular and easy to avoid it is their fault.  No, it isn't.  And you say yourself that the riots became about something else and that and are barely hanging on to order.  When the straw breaks the camels back how do you blame the straw?  Why is it ok to go 1984 on free speech when it is a small loss or it is easy.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Small compromises all the way to the police state.  I don't understand why your slippery slope arguments don't go for both sides.

Intelligence, as reported in the media, shows the deaths of the Benghazi riots were caused either by pre-planned units (in which case the video is completely unrelated) or opportunistic based on the riots.  Now i'm not saying riots are good but they are a whole different thing than killing.  And it appears, from what we know from the media reporting, that the deaths are NOT a direct result of the video but either an opportunistic response or a pre-planned attack.  

And do you honestly believe that if this video was never made nothing else would exist in the world to set these people off?  I mean seriously, watch the video.  There are things spoken on fox news regularly that are as offensive.  Additionally the anger is based on an incorrect premise that the US is backing the video in some way.  I just really really struggle to  blame the film for this.  

Back to your main point, where do we draw the line on free speech.  We will always struggle.  Fact of life.  But just because something is easy to avoid doesn't mean one SHOULD avoid it.  Should's are important and I try to be careful when discussing them.  And I haven't heard from you (or anyone) a reason that someone SHOULD limit their free speech because of an irrational and likely unrelated response.  If the response was rational, if it could  be predicted, there might be an argument.  But what about all the other anti-Mohammad material in between this video and 5 years ago?  What about the hateful videos in response to the Benghazi killings?  How many died from southpark?  There just isn't a causal link that one can draw.  

--------

Thx for your thoughts, and I can't find fault in anything you wrote. In a perfect world I wish we could all say whatever we wanted, and the worst that could happen is a few feelings hurt. There are forces out of our control that weakened the camel's back, but we actually control the straw. So yes, I do blame the straw because it is preventable. We can't turn back time and make these nations more functional. Maybe if we showed restraint here, another straw would have come along and broke it eventually, but at least by refraining this time, we bought the camel more time to hopefully heal. Wow I really milked that analogy to death.

I don't think censoring the video would ultimately lead to a police state, but I get your point. Remember that a lot more censorship takes place behind the scenes and society generally condones it (all the problems with for-profit news, special interests dictating what politicians say, PATRIOT Act stuff, etc.). I think we should fight those battles first as bigger challenges to democracy and freedom. The video arguably violates Google's terms of service as hate speech, so they have somewhat of a case to pull it. But maybe they figure if they relent now, the ACLU and free speech camp will raise even more hell (and those people are actually tied to customers than Google cares about, whereas angry poor Muslims don't buy ads with them).

Elements of violent Islam have infiltrated Arab Spring nations (again, Jihadists thrive in a power vacuum and chaos). To what extent I don't know. Maybe they were planning a hit on the US staff in Benghazi for a while. It's possible that they would have tried irrespective of the video. But now the video gave them cover, so they can say they're not the bad guys, the infidels are. And now maybe the locals tend to sympathize with them, while without the video they would have rejected their violent acts. You are right that other things may set the people off, and maybe they deserve to be mad given their situations. There could be riots, but at least they wouldn't be so anti-American. All those riots make the US more fearful and hostile to Muslims too, which erodes relations and leads to a downward spiral (revenge actions we may take in response to the US dead could lead to escalation). I wish Obama would make a statement saying that America rejects the video and respects the practitioners of Islam, but also condemns violence against Americans and the killers should be punished. There are wackos on both sides who love this and want a clash of cultures, but they do not represent the vast majority who just want to live in peace. They are the real enemy for the rest of us. I guess he could be concerned that the GOP would label him as a weak appeaser, when they want him to settle the score.

It's true that the right wing media say truly racist, prejudiced, anti-Islamic things almost every day. And mostly that goes unnoticed in Muslim nations - maybe either due to unfamiliarity or dismissal of the sources, or they're just used to it by now. But apart from free speech activities, Muslims have rioted after they learned US personnel (1) tortured-humiliated people at Abu Ghraib, (2) desecrated or did something bad to the Korans at Gitmo and elsewhere, (3) urinated on dead insurgents, (4) killed civilians in Pakistan, and other stuff. They don't take to the streets because they're bored - we've given them plenty of fodder over the years.

Yes I suppose censorship is a slippery slope. It's a matter of tolerance. Some feel we need to make a stand now, others are OK with letting their rights take a back seat to other priorities in this case. There's no way to know which path leads to a better net outcome, and better outcome for whom? You are right though, I should watch how I use the world should. I don't mean to be presumptuous. But my goal is to minimize suffering here. I am OK to sacrifice the rights of a few (who don't seem to be wielding those rights very responsibly) in order to preserve life and diplomacy for many. I don't mean I would throw them in the slammer, but if there has to be a victim, I guess I would choose their rights. But it's not my call, just an opinion. You would probably prefer to preserve their rights at the risk of some potential international hostility (and the size of the risk being unknown, but possibly nil as you argue). Though there is a track record of Muslim violence directly in response to certain Western "insults" to Islam, so it's not inconceivable. Yes not every offensive-to-Islam event has caused violence, but enough high-profile cases have occurred to warrant some belief in a causal relationship. But you may disagree, and it's hard to prove either way.

Will McAvoy pwns the Tea Party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

I know we've talked about the TP before, but it's scary and shameful on all of us that we allowed a group of such hateful, delusional people to participate in gov't and even push it around (maybe now we know why corrupt Karzai isn't thrilled about a power-sharing peace deal with the Taliban?). I wish Anonymous or some other tech-savvy group would hack the GOP convention and play this during a big speech. You can start watching at 2:25 if you're pressed for time.

Again, shame on the MSM that I actually learned a lot of new things from the Daily Show and HBO's Newsroom during this campaign season. I know Sorkin can be over-the-top (and did he accidentally compare an old black lady to a stray animal, or accuse the TP of doing so?), but I think Newsroom is refreshing and you actually care about the characters' struggles (and admire them for it). Too bad it won't shame any of the current big anchors into being actual journalists.

Obama screwed over by current fundraising environment

...more like it's screwing everyone over but the rich donors.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159768245/jane-mayer-obama-in-impossible-bind-over-donors
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/27/120827fa_fact_mayer

As we know, Obama got a lot of corporate money in 2008, but also got an unprecedented amount from small and/or online donations. Though what really won the fundraising battle vs. McCain was his success with "medium donors". His campaign got many people to donate the $5K max directly to Obama, and those people spread the word and got their friends to do the same. So it was really grassroots, viral fundraising - but of course the demographic that is able to give $5K and expect nothing in return (apart from a photo and a fancy dinner) is not your typical Democrat or American. Nevertheless, he won partly by "democratizing" the fundraising process more than any other candidate in our lifetimes.

But in 2011-2012, his base is less enthusiastic (also the curse of the incumbent with several unrealized expectations), and some of his corporate backers have fled because Romney and the GOP are just a more lucrative investment (with a better chance of victory than McCain). Plus Obama's "tough talk" on corporate excesses and financial reform (even if mostly toothless) didn't win over many fans in the business world. Obama is still heavily beating Romney on individual direct donations, but those $5K gifts here and there pale in comparison to the indirect, limitless giving enabled by Citizens United and other loopholes (casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has given $40M to pro-Romney superPACs and has offered to give as much as $100M total). Some nonprofit groups can also raise basically limitless donations and don't even have to divulge donor identities. Technically they just can't be under the "direct control" of the campaign or party, but their objectives are clearly aligned. And since the election will pretty much be decided by less-educated, less-informed swing voters in 7 states (6% of our population or less), having a ton of cash to blitz those folks with endless ads could be the key to victory.

Why haven't Obama and the Dems jumped on that bandwagon to fight fire with fire? Well first of all, Obama and the Dems of course opposed the CitUtd ruling, and did not participate as enthusiastically out of principle. Second, fewer rich people seem to favor Obama over Romney, for obvious financial reasons. Third, Obama isn't a social butterfly pandering to the big donors like some other candidates, either due to his personality or political philosophy. I am sure he and his team are holding the secret VIP retreat now and then, but not to the level of W Bush or Clinton (who was known to "rent out" the Lincoln Bedroom). Big Dem donors are a fussy bunch, so if they don't feel that the POTUS is showing them enough love, they keep their checkbooks at home. If they're not giving out of financial self-interest, then they have to give to a cause (or just hate the thought of a GOP victory like Bill Maher). Bezos gave a lot of money to support a pro-gay-marriage nonprofit that is also supporting Obama. But other liberal causes (green energy, civil rights, antiwar, organized labor, etc.) have pretty much suffered under Obama (though less than under Romney of course), so the rich people who care about those causes are probably less likely to give big to the president.

Money troubles and humble living according to Ann Romney

You know what's annoying... when people who want for nothing try to make it sound like they struggled through money problems. Some rich people are so greedy, they want your sympathy too! Case and point Ann Romney: Marie Antoinette thinks she's Cossette! These quotes were taken from a Boston Globe article from 1994, when Mitt was making his US Senate run vs. Teddy K. The Romneys were not well known in MA at the time, so I guess this was Ann's attempt to endear themselves to the working-class New Englanders?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/16/1083802/-Ann-Romney-s-tale-of-struggling-We-learned-hard-lessons-living-off-our-stock-portfolio

I'm sorry for harping on poorly chosen words uttered decades ago, but stuff like this is ignorant and disrespectful to the people who actually do have to live with hardships. That's one thing that money can't buy (in America at least) - no matter how much you exaggerate, lie, and reframe your own narrative, you can't pretend to be a self-made man if you're not. They could have given away all their assets and tried to make something from nothing to see what they were really made of. But that is just too hard and risky (though it's knows as "reality" for most humans). It must chafe them so much to have to campaign against an actual self-made man who is a better communicator to everyday Americans and is generally better liked by them (and he is the POTUS). That is the difference between a real rags-to-riches story and a poser. The real deal doesn't feel the need to shove his/her story down our throats until we shower them with admiration (we may forgive Obama's self-promoting books because he was trying to launch a national political career at the time). The real deal is grateful for his/her success, and wants to give back so others can have it too. Conversely, a poser feels entitled, egocentric, and superior. The rich love judging and psychoanalyzing the poor to make themselves feel better, so I am just trying to return the favor (not that I am or speak for the poor). I know I haven't struggled much financially in my life, so I don't act like I did.  It's not a difficult concept to grasp. And for one's biggest struggles, or triumphs for that matter, there is a certain dignity in keeping it private unless there is some edifying, inspirational purpose - and winning a campaign to "save America" (i.e. help rich people) probably isn't a valid reason.

I know that millions of poor people will end up voting for Mitt in November, but I hope not a single one of them votes because they truly believe that the Romneys care about their plight and will make their lives better. Well to be fair, I don't think the Romneys are cruel a-holes, and they probably do care about the suffering of the poor - to the extent that most Americans care about Darfur. We feel bad, but not enough to lift a finger about it, because we have higher priorities (like shopping and dressage). Also if you don't understand a problem, it's hard to truly care about it.  

So getting back to Ann's speech about their student days at BYU... I think most students are short on cash (plus it's not like the cost of tuition and living in UT back then was terrible). There's a certain romance to being a "starving student", and it can be liberating. But for millions of students now facing much more daunting costs, family constraints, and uncertain futures, it's a big deal. They take out loans with crappy terms or work several part-time jobs, but not the Romneys. They were so poor in their youth that Mitt needed to sell his American Motors stocks (gifts from daddy, probably bought at employee discount) to pay the bills! Ann recounted the story like a true out-of-touch aristocrat. And for the record, Ann is the daughter of a Michigan industrialist turned mayor. She first met Mitt at an exclusive private school. Les Miserables indeed!

Some highlights from the article:

- Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had [stocks]. (Ah, so they didn't work because they didn't NEED to, not because they couldn't find a job like many of the 25M unemployed today whom Mitt claims to fight for)

- [Mitt's dad] invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year — it wasn’t much, a few thousand... (Aw what a meager bday gift, especially in 1960's dollars)

- Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it. (I thought this was supposed to be a sob story! She just couldn't resist bragging about their capital gains - of course in those days they had to pay a 35% tax rate for long term)

- We were living on the edge, not entertaining. (They were so poor that Ann was too ashamed to host dressage parties)

- Right after Mitt graduated in 1975, we had our third boy and it was about the time Mitt’s first paycheck came along. So, we were married a long time before we had any income, about five years as struggling students. (Hm, 3 kids with no steady paycheck - is Ann a "welfare mom" who needs to learn, as Mitt said, "the dignity of work"?)

- ...I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing, it can be here today and gone tomorrow. (this quote was uttered more recently. So how much net worth does it take to be wealthy then, a billion? And "interesting" is not the first word I would use to describe that comment)

------

In the current campaign season she's changed her tone a bit:

"Look, maybe I haven't struggled as much financially as some people have," she said recently on Fox News. "[But] I can tell you — and promise you — that I've had struggles in my life, and Mitt and I have compassion for people that are struggling." -NPR

Does compassion for struggling people entail endorsing the most draconian budget in modern US history that slashes social services spending (that millions literally depend on for survival and social mobility) in order to fund tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses? Yes, their humble roots at BYU certainly shaped their future values.

The GOP's disenfranchisement efforts

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/
158869947/do-voter-id-laws-prevent-fraud-or-dampen-turnout
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-
04-28/politics/scotus.voter.id_1_voter-impersonation-voter-id-laws-voter-fraud?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
itsallpolitics/2012/08/17/158982853/federal-court-reinstates-early-voting-days-in-parts-of-florida?ft=1&f=1014

Of all developed democratic nations, the US is probably the one where it's hardest to vote. In the last few elections, conservatives have tried to make that process even harder (presumably for some voting blocs that lean Democrat). They claim that it's meant to prevent fraud and tampering, but there is pretty much zero evidence of in-person voting fraud in the last couple decades (most fraud cases have involved mail-in ballots). They respond to that by saying one fraudulent vote is one too many. But in order to stop that one fraudulent vote, how do you justify disenfranchising dozens or even thousands of legit voters? Faux News and others have done a great job implanting the idea in Americans' minds that voter fraud by the left is rampant. Dead people, illegals, and felons are on the voter rolls, etc. Well as we saw in FL 2000, that wasn't the case at all, and in fact authorized voters were being mislabeled as felons.

What are they so afraid of? If their candidates are better, and their ideas are superior, then no need to play games - the voters will validate their cause. Or if they think the voters are dumb and don't know what's best for them, then spend the corporate billions to blitz the airwaves with propaganda and get out the vote as insurance. Both parties are doing that plenty. But now they have to go one step further and block unfriendly voters from exercising their American rights? That is unacceptable. The GOP is supposedly the party of freedom, liberty, and small government. Then why are they so hardcore about enacting these new bureaucratic laws that undermine some people's liberty? They want to be the populist party instead of the elitist party, but moves like this reveal their true colors. Heck we have so much gerrymandering and don't even allow winner-by-popular-vote in many cases, precisely to be undemocratic. But is  this a gov't "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - or something else? By the way, that quote was from a certain Republican president during the Civil War.

-----------

Can you imagine who would be elected of we didn't have a system that disenfranchised voters? That's why the Republicans are so afraid. They complain about fraud and want to require govt issued ids but they can't point to any cases where this has been a problem.

Also, why not vote on Sundays (like in France which has much higher turnout) or make election day (at least for presidential) a holiday?

-----------

Yeah I agree. Voting is already so inconvenient here (and many Dem-leaning voters like students and the poor don't participate as it is), that the voter ID stuff is almost a joke. In some nations voting is mandatory (that probably wouldn't fly here). But at least in other places, the voting window is like a month, and/or voting day is on a weekend as you said. There is NO good reason voting should occur on a Tuesday (in the winter) here, with so much at stake. I know there is some law stating that employers must give workers unpenalized time off to vote, but that is probably not practical for many hourly lower-wage jobs (again, poorer minorities who may lean Dem). So the system is already so whack and undemocratic as it is, these new laws are just salt on the wound. I don't understand why there isn't more outrage over this. If only the ACLU and NAACP speak out, then the issue appears liberal and partisan, not a matter of rights and liberty that it truly is.  

Madeleine Levine on successful parenting

“The cost of this relentless drive to perform at unrealistically high levels is a generation of kids who resemble nothing so much as trauma victims,” Levine writes. “They become preoccupied with events that have passed — obsessing endlessly on a possible wrong answer or a missed opportunity. They are anxious and depressed and often self-medicate with drugs or alcohol. Sleep is difficult and they walk around in a fog of exhaustion. Other kids simply fold their cards and refuse to play.”

...as parents and as a society, we’ve reached a tipping point, in which the long-dawning awareness that there’s something not quite right about our parenting is strengthening into a real desire for change. Families, their fortunes tracking the larger economy that encouraged so much of their excess, are crashing after bubble years in which they spent their every penny, and then some, on cultivating competitive greatness in their kids. Now exhausted, often disenchanted and (conveniently enough) broke, they’re reconsidering whether the mad chase was worth all the resources that sustained it.

-NYT

Another best-selling child psychologist chimes in about the dangers of obsessive, hyper-expectations parenting leaving even "successful" kids feeling burnt out, worthless, and unable to cope with adult challenges. I guess it's natural, but privileged US parents seem more concerned with the external indicators of their kids' success vs. harder-to-measure internal. The guest likens it to building a house, but being more concerned about the home decor instead of making sure the structure can actually stand. They love their kids and want them to do well, but they're taking the wrong approach and doing a disservice instead (a common theme for America in recent years - we mean well but we end up making it worse). And at least Levine dares to ask the obvious root question: are you doing all this crap for your kids, or yourself?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/raising-successful-children.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general (seriously one of the best article's I've ever read, and not just because I'm in agreement with her - it's amazingly written)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/books/review/teach-your-children-well-by-madeline-levine.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201208071000

The 1% are outliers, and not something we should all aspire to (and clearly not something we will all achieve). Yes that life has a lot of benefits and opens many doors, but what does that person (and their loved ones) sacrifice, often permanently, in order to get there? To some it's worth it, and to others maybe not - especially since attainment is not guaranteed regardless of how much extracurriculars/tutoring you do, what your degree says, and how great you think you are. All parents think they and their kids are "above average", but of course that is impossible. Most of us and our kids will be sub-rich and "normal". There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you are at peace with yourself. Easier said than done I know, and I feel inadequate about my professional and personal development almost every day (sometime justified, sometime foolish based on dumb social influences). I just hope those feelings don't lead me to bad behaviors described by Levine. And I would say that my control-freak dad was edging towards being a helicopter parent ahead of his time, but not that I blame him for all my issues. It's not the "losers" who are messed up, but this world's value system and economics that are perverse in my view (yes a critic would say, "of course a loser would blame the system to explain his failure"). Winners love and praise the systems that enabled them to thrive (Romney), and the opposite for the losers. What does that say about the system? Clearly it works for some but not all, though hard to judge its merits since we haven't really experienced a viable alternative, because those who profit from the system will resist reforms.

Romney's disastrous foreign tour

MITT actually stands for "totally not presidential material." He might have some business smarts, but if his worldview, reasoning, and understanding of history are so out of whack, then he is probably a more dangerous candidate than a total business-economics novice with a better "personality" (for lack of a more descriptive term at the moment).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/mitt-romney-palestinians_n_1718496.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I seriously think that you or I would have more foreign policy credibility and competence. I can't imagine what he'll pull on his final leg of his foreign tour, "dumb Polack" jokes? And the sad part is his campaign chose the UK, Israel, and Poland precisely because they are totally uncontroversial pro-America (and pro-GOP values) states - low-hanging fruit for Romney to build up his foreign policy chops. Or maybe it was just an overseas donation tour overshadowed by the Olympics?

For him to make those Israeli-Palestinian comments without historical context (and context is not exactly one of his strong points) is lower than grade school. It's the opposite of the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" argument by Diamond, who did extensive research to disprove the telologists who suggested that Eurasians came to dominate the globe simply because they are superior races/cultures (in actuality, they had massive geographical and environmental advantages, i.e. luck). Romney totally doesn't get the thesis of the book, even though he cited it to support his bizarre claim (I doubt he read it, and I really doubt Diamond is going to vote for him). Diamond does refer to culture, but only in a later and less important chapter. He basically wrote that geniuses and visionaries are about evenly distributed among peoples, societies, and eras. But effective cultures have institutions and norms in place to allow those great people to reach their full potential (which obviously helps their societies), while other cultures squander such human capital for various reasons. Diamond didn't even talk about wealth gaps or median incomes. But when a culture is under foreign occupation, obviously that's a different story and it's hard for the Einsteins and Pasteurs to fulfill their destinies. Like I said before, would Romney be Romney if he grew up in inner-city Detroit instead of his parents' suburban palace?

You can't just look at the end result from a particular set of circumstances, then make an overall value judgment. Phelps did not with the 200 fly recently - does that mean he's not a very good swimmer? If the Israelis were poor, persecuted, and plagued by inept government, embargo, air strikes, infighting, and being used as a proxy war pawn for 60 years, and the Palestinians got massive Western support and diplomatic cover, their histories would be quite different. It's pretty sad that a presidential candidate doesn't already get this. Actually it's kind of an interesting reflection on our times that Obama and Romney are even presidential candidates. The fact that America would seriously consider, and even elect, a person of Obama's background is a credit to our open-mindedness and tolerance today (as well as major Bush and DC fatigue). We're not post-racial and harmonious, but it's at least improving in some ways. And the fact that the GOP would nominate a guy like Romney (plus he has a decent chance to win) is a travesty, and may be an indication of our economic desperation and Washington dysfunction. Also contributing to that is of course backlash from all the groups that feel threatened by Obama's rise. These two men would have been inconceivable as candidates just 10 years ago, for better and worse.   

-------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-goodman/mitt-romney-israel_b_1721396.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

To simpleton conservatives, the narrative is just so much cleaner and palatable if you try to explain the inequalities in the world as purely based on merit and just consequences. Of course poor minorities are doing worse because they are lazy, and of course WASP and Jewish people are rich and powerful because they are just superior people with superior culture and a superior god. Obama's disruptive, compelling narrative is obviously incompatible, which is maybe why they hate him so much. Race is part of that, but I think it's also about a sense of order of the world - their traditional unjust order. Some people realize that there are many causes of inequality, and several are due to foul play, so we may want to enact reforms to try to ameliorate those problems - but of course the establishment forces will push back and cry socialism and treason. Inequality is inevitable, and maybe it can be beneficial. I forget the actual source, but someone on the right recently went so far as to say that a big wealth gap is good and motivating because it gives the poor a "role model" in the super rich, to aspire to and emulate. Maybe that is what US capitalism is, but it is not a recipe for a healthy society. Inequality may have its benefits, but it should not be achieved through cheating and injustice. I think we learned that in kindergarten (and I know it is part of the Church of LDS teachings). But if these "winners" are just so genetically and culturally superior, and destined for greatness anyway, then why the need to cheat your way to the top and keep others down? Though for Romney types, I guess the ends justify the means and he won't "apologize" for his success. How about Saddam and Escobar - they were among the richest people in the world for a time. They don't have to apologize either? Romney made his TV rounds and accused Obama and the Dems of being envious of people like him, and therefore wanting to tarnish his business reputation. When a football player injures his opponent with a dirty play and the referee issues a penalty, I don't think he's doing it out of envy or vendetta (well, maybe for everyone but James Harrison). For the good of the game (and the safety of the players), there has to be some order, respect, and standards of conduct. But people like Mitt just can't understand that it's not always about him. 

The Republican nominee must feel perpetual temptation to stimulate white discomfort with Obama while subtly celebrating white superiority -- a message that surely appeals to a core segment of voters.

Obama's rise (which inspired and emboldened some marginalized groups: minorities, immigrants, and the youth), plus the recession and erosion of the American Dream for many whites, has really upset some Americans out there. They feel like the "wrong people" are getting ahead. They're right, but they should be targeting their ire at other folks. The Tea Party tended to attack greedy, corrupt business at first, but then when the movement got corporatized and backed by the Kochs and such, then of course it's the federal gov. and unions at the heart of all those problems - those poor Fortune 500 firms are just like Blue Collar Joe, under Obama's jackboot. And for all their hating on "welfare moms" and "nanny government", isn't it comically hypocritical that some conservatives whites have a sense of entitlement that only they are allowed to succeed in America?

This ties back to Romney's Israel-Palestine comments. He believes it's the system and culture that make societies succeed or fail. If so, then why do he and conservatives want to gut the modern US system that, despite its warts, has created unprecedented prosperity for millions, as well as huge technological and intellectual advances since WWII? Why does he espouse policies that will make it harder for more Americans to realize their potentials (I know he doesn't feel that way, but sorry it's still voodoo economics)? Culture and system are the key, yet Romney wants to make it tougher for regular people to afford college, wants to make it harder for average people to access critical social services that will enhance their productivity and contributions to society, and such. I really hope Obama, the Dems, and the press call him out on this blatant contradiction.

Good discussion on Penn State scandal

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201207240900

I took a class from the guest on this radio show (Cal sports sociology prof and 49ers consultant Harry Edwards) when I was in high school and he is really insightful (C - were you in that course with me too?). He described how PSU football has become "too big to fail" (biggest student body and alum network in the US, one of the most famous football programs, huge $, TV contracts, scholarships, etc.), and there are so many emotional and financial vested interests that they couldn't tolerate any loose ends, even if it meant keeping child abuse quiet.

Paterno has a long record of showing above-and-beyond concern for his players and community (promoted high standards of conduct and graduation rates among his players, even spoke out against black athlete exploitation ahead of his time), so it's unlikely he just didn't care about those kid victims. That's what makes this lapse so shocking, and strengthens the argument that even such a historic and principled personality was powerless to speak up. I guess he was the victim (not meant to denigrate the true victims of this tragedy) of cognitive dissonance: he knew that even if he "did the right thing", the PSU-football-industrial-complex wouldn't have, so what's the point of fighting an impossible battle? It would have been "noble" for him to resign in protest and maybe go to the media (not the style of old school guys like him), but he knew that his players and the fan base were also counting on him. He didn't want to let his "family" down either (and PSU football is really serious about the "family" thing - it's not just cliche), so that meant letting the kids down instead. Though how can Paterno teach his players about living life right and being good men when he didn't walk the talk when he needed to? Like the Catholic sex abuse, the reputation and preeminence of the organization come first. Big money sport is very similar to big money religion and business, so unfortunately we've seen a lot of this stuff contributing to other scandals too. Powerful organizations and culture can enable their members to reach new heights, but ironically they can also force even moral, prominent individuals into bad decisions that end up hurting/destroying the org.

I don't know much about the NCAA and college sports, but the punishment is also kind of fishy and may not produce the intended results. From the Reggie Bush mess, USC was punished similarly (though much less) with wins erased and postseason ineligibility (not sure if they were fined also). They are another football powerhouse, with a coach who doesn't nearly have the likability and integrity record of Paterno, at least pre-2012. They bounced back rather well, and may now be a top ranked team coming into the new season. So it may not be the end of the world for PSU football (but who cares, it's just amateur football played by barely-literate teens?). Some wondered why the NCAA didn't give PSU the "death penalty" as they did to SMU for illegally paying players and other violations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Methodist_University_football_scandal). They were banned from intercollegiate competition for a year, but it really hurt the program for a decade since they needed to rebuild recruiting and such. Also SMU de-emphasized football and actually tried to be an institution of higher learning, so while they did recently appear in a minor bowl, they are not a top-ranked program anymore. Obviously that can't be so for PSU, where people literally enroll there for the football team (silly I know, but it's a free country). Though the NCAA's ruling has basically communicated to schools that they can practically kill someone, and their programs will not get the death penalty. But pay players a small fraction of the huge sums you are making off their talents? That is somehow worse than covering up child rape - because it perturbs the system. And we wonder why others think Americans are crazy! And it's not like SMU and USC are the only culprits. The big programs east of the Mississippi are probably just as corrupt, but the NCAA doesn't go after them out of fear, favoritism, or other COI.

I have always had a problem with collective punishment. 99.9% of the PSU community didn't know about the criminality going on (unlike SMU where it was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain). Now their lives will be forever affected. I know they can't expect to have everything go back to the way it was after a big scandal. The program would change even if Sandusky never existed; Paterno would retire someday, PSU would go through slumps, etc. But now innocent people are hurting because of the misdeeds of a few. It's like economic sanctions against Iran/Cuba, or more extreme - nuking Hiroshima. Why not just ban the perpetrators for life, but leave the rest of the program alone - apart from assigning a special auditor and requiring extra training, charity, etc.? I guess the PSU punishment is kind of like letting Lehman fail out of principle? But it's not like other schools are going to clean house now and make sure they haven't been hiding any abuses. They're just going to hide their misdeeds more carefully.

I just don't know the point of it all, it's just college sports. The universities in most other nations don't even have organized intermural sports - if athletes are serious and good, then they are cultivated at a young age by the pro clubs using private money, and don't attend school anymore. You can be a big time jock or a serious student, but not both. The highest paid people in US academics now are not Nobel winners or historical figures, but football coaches. The coaches at Cal and UCLA make over $2M a year (the highest paid public employees in CA) and have probably gotten raises while academic staff were furloughed/laid off and tuition has gone up 50% over the last few years. But football is part of the college "arms race". Schools want to look awesome in order to attract better employees and students. Everyone loves a winner. Some sports make a lot of money for powerful people. Sadly or not, it's more valuable for Cal to spend big $ to get 2 more wins per season, rather than continue to fund an ethnic studies program or expand a medical research lab. And who knows - those intellectual enterprises could be total wastes or money, or possibly lead to significant, lucrative discoveries for the school and humanity. But the +2 wins are definite financial, recruiting, and PR boons, so I guess it's easier and less risky to invest for that goal?

Colorado movie shooting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-the-aurora-shooting-wont-likely-change-the-gun-control-debate/2012/07/20/gJQA6qWpxW_blog.html?wprss=rss_politics

My wife and I recently saw "Bowling for Columbine" again and it's sad how not a damn thing has changed in a decade (except that Heston died in 2008), or maybe got worse (gun and ammo sales have spiked since Obama took office http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/why-the-gun-industry-secretly-loves-obama-09012011.html). This is despite VT, Oakland, Giffords, and many other incidents. Aurora CO is another suburb of Denver not far from Littleton, but this time the accused shooter is not a local but a neurosci PhD student who grew up in SD. Last time the pundits blamed Dylan and Eric's bloodlust on their enjoyment of Marilyn Manson music and violent video games. I guess this time techno music and Batman will be implicated (or stress and financial hardships from grad school?). Not that those are the real root causes.

If anyone watches "The Newsroom" on HBO, interesting fact that gun paranoia over Obama is totally unfounded: gun control watchdogs have given Obama an F rating, yet some people are convinced that he is coming for their weapons (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f

). I am not sure if "Fast and Furious" is part of that grade or not. Yet the NRA has declared Obama is the most anti-gun president ever. I guess anything to warp perceptions and try to kick him out of office?

It's the middle-class whites and Asians who perpetrate the mass killings in the US, but the public is still most scared of and hostile to poor urban blacks and Latinos.

-----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/obama-gun-control_n_1704246.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Yeah I forgot about Obama's 2008 comment about blue-collar whites "clinging to their guns." I wonder how much those 4 words really affected his future policy.

America is the only industrialized, non-wartorn nation with the following combination of conditions:
- A ton of legally and easily available guns (many with the capacity to inflict mass murder)
- A well-funded and entrenched pro-gun lobby
- A heritage of violence and individualism
- A media-consumer-social culture of paranoia, combativeness, and hostility towards each other
- Apathetic and/or reelection-obsessed politicians

Some nations have one or a few of those conditions, but no nation but us has them all. Maybe that would explain why we have the highest gun violence rates in the G20?

PS - in the slideshow at the bottom about the pivotal moments of the gun debate, for the image of the Reagan-Hinckley shooting, the Secret Service are carrying Uzis! To me that weapon doesn't seem appropriate for politician protection. 

MITT stands for "Moron, Idiot, Total Turd"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-gets-aggressive-against-obama-wants-americans-ashamed-190113055.html

Who makes arguments like this? And if you say "me" under your breath, I will go to your home and slap you. :)


"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive," Obama said Friday, citing the teachers and people who build "roads and bridges." He continued: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Romney seized on Obama's comment, calling it "foolishness" and "insulting to every entrepreneur and every innovator in America."

Typical individualist bias. Of course people like Romney are winners just because they are personally so awesome, right? They deserve all the credit. It didn't have anything to do with the facts that he:
- Was born the son of a governor, and grew up in a peaceful community, stable home, and with good role models
- Was born a white, heterosexual, Christian, rich male with no major physical or mental handicaps (except for being lame and boring to a clinical degree)
- Was born in an advanced nation with functional institutions, rule of law, and markets
- Attended elite schools (through merit and connections)
- Didn't have to go to Vietnam

You're a stellar guy Mitt, but other people made you who you are also. Don't act like it's not true. You got so much help on the way up (on top of the people you stepped on or out-competed in order to win), it's not even funny. That's why more average Americans can relate to your opponent, a half-black guy who grew up on tropical islands and has the middle name of Hussein. He actually had to struggle against disadvantages to reach the pinnacle of success (with some luck along the way too), and never forgot to thank the people who made it possible. He wants to use his time in office to give more people a fair chance, not to help the rich get richer like you want. That's why you can't connect to the average voter. Ignorant frustration over the economy and media misinformation are the only things keeping you in this race.

"I'm ashamed to say that we're seeing our president hand out money to the businesses of campaign contributors," Romney said at one point.

Wow, like that's never happened before, especially under Republican leadership.

"President Obama attacks success. And, therefore, under President Obama, we have less success," Romney said. "I will change that." ...But Romney largely focused on the larger picture of what he called Obama's hostility toward business—which he argued has been a setback to efforts to revive the economy and has, in turn, made life tougher for struggling Americans. He accused Obama of "crushing economic freedom" in the country with burdensome regulations.

Increasing access to college, extending the Bush tax cuts, and enacting several new private sector tax cuts of his own were such terrible attacks on success. Hostility towards business huh? That must be why the S&P500 has risen 50% over the last 3 years under Obama (not that the president controls stock prices, but you'd think a leader who is so anti-business wouldn't preside over such huge equity growth). And which is it Mitt? First you say Obama is giving $ away to his allies' businesses, and now you say he's anti-business?

And I think the abuses enabled by 3 decades of steady deregulation have made life tougher for struggling Americans than any new regs Obama has pushed through (most of his campaign proposals didn't pass Congress of course).

"I'm convinced he wants Americans to be ashamed of success," Romney declared. "I want Americans to welcome and celebrate success and to encourage people to reach as high as they can. … I don't want government to take credit for what the individuals of America accomplish."

Great deductive logic. No comments needed here, the guy is just a textbook d-bag.

--------

Follow-up to this thread from the 7/25 Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-july-25-2012-joseph-stiglitz

"Mr. Romney, hanging your attack on a person's slight grammatical misstep is what people do in an argument when they're completely f**ked and they know they have no argument!" - Jon Stewart

Basically the DS described how the MSM misrepresented Obama's recent comments about society enabling individual businesses to succeed, presumably to reduce the significance of Romney's private sector success record and legitimacy of his minimal government model for prosperity. They made it sound like Obama was suggesting that business owners don't get credit for their success, as it was due to the government only. Anyone with half a brain would know that Obama would never make such a claim, and the confusion was due to a "slight grammatical error" as he chose to say "You didn't build that" instead of "those" (referring to roads, bridges, internet, and other state-funded infrastructure that enable commerce). "That" could be misconstrued as Obama claiming that businesspeople didn't actually build their businesses, which of course doesn't make sense. And if you read or listen to the speech uncut (see link at end), you can grasp the context of his comments and would never jump to that erroneous conclusion. But of course the conservatives and Romney campaign pounced on it hard. The president is saying that the government is the economy, not the small business owners! Apparently the Romney camp is even selling shirts and other merchandise saying "I built my business, Mr. President!"

So the Romney campaign is showing its true colors (and FNC too - by busting out their "big guns" interview with child lemonade stand owners!). They don't have a legit plan for improving the economy and employment for the sub-rich, so they are resorting to misrepresenting the president's words (or should I say word singular, out of the thousands of words he has uttered about the economy over his short political career) in order to make him look like an anti-business, Marxist a-hole. Unfortunately many people do not see through this, and may even buy their argument.

I was surprised that "The Ticket" by Yahoo! News (source of the article I cited originally) was no better than Faux News. They failed to provide context for Obama's quote, and did not include his key summary statement of, "The point is when we succeed... we succeed from our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." Why exclude a sentence starting with "The point is..."!?! Actually that sentence was all they needed to show, and there wouldn't have been any criticism (actually Romney said basically the same thing during a campaign speech too). But they didn't, because twisting the message makes this a more juicy, buzzworthy story. I doubt that was part of a big anti-Obama, Koch-funded conspiracy, as probably the author just wanted to ignite a fire where there isn't even smoke. Still, it's reprehensible and shameful "journalism". It's also a sad reflection on the MSM that we needed the Daily Show to point this out. However, despite Y! News not providing context for the Obama quote, I could clearly understand what the president was trying to say. It's not exactly cryptic or novel. So the conservatives actually had to exert a lot of effort to twist his statement into something offensive and untrue. I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. They're resorting to desperation attacks yet the polling is enigmatically neck-and-neck. Maybe if Obama's lucky, they'll swing for a home run with the VP pick a la Palin style, and select a total loser like Jindal or something.

Obama's unedited comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q&feature=related

It's actually kind of sad that in 2012 Obama still has to explain the obvious, but laissez-faire classical propaganda has been working hard since the Guilded Age.

Right wing media's take: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK19WEwOIOo&feature=related

FNC host: "[Obama's statements are] all in an effort to justify increasing taxes on the so-called 'rich' in this country... Joining me now for a 'fair and balanced' debate..." She then introduces the panel guests, of course a hot blonde conservative chick who hosts another FNC program and a black small business owner (see the GOP is diverse!) vs. an old, ugly, meek liberal former Clinton-Gore strategist (and she even pronounces his name wrong, despite him being a repeat FNC guest a.k.a. self-hating Democrat punching bag). 

Argh typical crap from their playbook... I haven't watched FNC in years so I forgot how bad it was. #1 cable news network, booyeah!!

FDA spies on dissenting staff, possibly illegally

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/fda-surveillance-of-scientists-spread-to-outside-critics.html?_r=1&hp

F.D.A. officials went to the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a criminal investigation into the possible leak, but they were turned down. The inspector general found that there was no evidence of a crime, noting that “matters of public safety” can legally be released to the news media. Undeterred, agency officials began the electronic monitoring operation on their own.

Rep Van Hollen: “It is absolutely unacceptable for the F.D.A. to be spying on employees who reach out to members of Congress to expose abuses or wrongdoing in government agencies.”
Senator Grassley:  “[The FDA] have absolutely no business reading the private e-mails of their employees. They think they can be the Gestapo and do anything they want.”
Just freaking ridiculous. 6 PhD scientists at the FDA were concerned that their agency was approving scanning devices (made by GE Healthcare) for mammograms and colonoscopies that were giving patients too much radiation. They tried to voice their opinions, but were shut down. So then they attempted back-channel communications with Congressmen, the press, and even the White House to try to get some leverage against their management, whom they felt were making a mistake and putting patients at risk.

What did the FDA do about it? They hired a security firm to use off-the-shelf spyware to monitor the communications of these "trouble-makers". They have also since terminated those employees. But this could be illegal under new laws on retribution against whisteblowers. Of course when the news broke, the FDA said that was not their intent, and instead they were building a case that these employees were leaking confidential information (discussions between the FDA and companies are confidential to "protect trade secrets", though I don't think they should be). I find that argument bizarre, since it's not like Wikileaks and national security here, putting spies or diplomats in harm's way. And even if the scientists were leaking info, if GE and the FDA did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide. If the scanner gets approved, then we should be able to know everything about it, right? But the whole secrecy concern was moot anyway, because the moron contractors that the FDA hired to snoop on the scientists accidentally posted all the classified reports the scientists were working on online (they have since been taken down). One of the scientists happened to discover this when he was Googling one of his "co-conspirators". Obviously GE is not happy either: the Keystone Cops FDA was ostensibly trying to protect its secrets, and ended up exposing them to a worse degree. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up.

So is this about a medical device company using its leverage to get its regulatory agency to rubber-stamp its next big-money product, even if it's not entirely safe? Those FDA managers probably want "real jobs" after they do their time in gov't, and GE is a big, rich employer. When principled, concerned scientists try to DO THEIR JOBS, then they are threatened and spied on. The FDA was concerned about those "defaming" their agency. What are they, the Islamic State of Iran? In America we TOLERATE DISSENT, especially when it's in the interest of public safety. After Nixon, I thought we weren't supposed to have "enemies lists". And it's not like one disgruntled quack scientist here; 6 were putting their careers on the line because they felt so strongly about this issue. Maybe they're not all noble saints and other things are going on here, but at least this justifies a second opinion on the scanners, especially now that Americans are starting to express their disapproval over excessive radiation and diagnostic costs imposed on us by device companies and doctors.

Housing market news

1) Wells Fargo to pay $175M (unfortunately just 4% of their quarterly profit) settlement on discrimination against blacks and Latinos for mortgage terms:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wells-fargo-justice-department-settle-discrimination-case-for-175-million/2012/07/12/gJQAX66ZgW_story.html

"...Even when black and Hispanic customers got prime loans, they paid higher fees than white borrowers, Justice alleged. The average African American taking out a $300,000 prime loan was charged $2,064 more in broker fees than a similarly qualified white customer. Latino borrowers paid an average of $1,251 more."

This wasn't an isolated incident, it occurred in at least 36 states affecting 34,000 borrowers over 5 years. It was obviously policy, set forth by higher rungs of leadership. I supposed there is more "risk" associated with borrowers living in certain neighborhoods and holding certain jobs, but borrowers had the exact same credit scores as whites but got worse terms. Prime borrowers of black and Latino heritage were 3-4X more likely to receive subprime terms than whites. Similar settlements were hashed out with SunTrust and CountryWide/BofA, so it wasn't just WF. And to be fair to WF, the implicated brokers were independent affiliates, and now WF no longer works with independents.

2) San Bernardino County (part of Southern CA where HALF of mortgages are underwater) considering a plan to use eminent domain to expedite voluntary refinancing:
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/13/156683302/county-considers-eminent-domain-as-foreclosure-fix

An interesting concept. Fed and local gov'ts have tried almost everything to get banks to stop dragging their feet on re-fis, and it hasn't really worked. One person interviewed for the story had a good point: when your mortgage is underwater, you feel poorer and therefor spend less, which further depresses the economy. So re-fis are a "public good" (and therefore arguably covered under eminent domain), especially when borrowing rates are at record lows but too few people can take advantage of it. Of course the realtors and mortgage brokers are against this, and they have a point - unfortunately at present the County plans to work with a single lending agency to issue new mortgages. That smacks of corruption. Maybe if they opened it up to a few or all lenders to bid for the mortgages, it might make lending rates more competitive and the process more transparent? This process will be probably tied down with red tape for years, but maybe the threat will pressure the banks to streamline re-fis a bit more?