The Looking Glass Syndrome

Alice’s mirror in full effect! Let’s see. Count the Republican compromises: zero. Count the number of times the Republicans offered compromises: zero. Count the Republican jobs bills: zero. Count the Republican health care proposals: one, the one passed that they disavowed. Count the Republican willingness to provide comparative care for women’s health: zero.

Instead, in the states, we have bills about the widths of halls, the numbers of drinking fountains, and the mandated, legislated requirement that forces women to ungo, without consent, “medical” probes interior to their bodies only before certain procedures the states spelled out in the capitol chambers, without the review of the physician, patient, or standards of practice.

Obama is an ideologue: who offered to cut the safety net in order to return to the Clinton tax rate for those at the top of the largest desparity of income and wealth ever in the nation’s history of freedom. Obama is an ideologue: who “led from behind” in granting rights to service personnel already in place in macro democracies. Let’s not forgot saving the US auto industry, where we are number one again. Are the largest cases against the $23 billion + in health care fraud that happen every year. Of course he doesn’t feel free speech allows radio hosts to smear young women with hurtful names. And what about those guns you can tote into National Parks? Those ended wars? The broken Gitmo promise, surely there is angst about that!

I Question the Logic

To the over populationists: for over a century, low population density (and wages!) had no positive effect on the economy of the South (now the world’s fifth largest economy if separated!), while dense urban landscapes prospered. Densely populated India prospers (with inequality), while sparsely populated Africa, Asia, and South America mostly lag in growth. Singapore and Hong Kong, extremely dense, concentrate wealth and disparity.

Ongoing Note: There is nothing “competent” objectively or subjectively, about Romney, for a long list of very obvious reasons, evidenced by his lack of integrity and courage by running a campaign of lies that offers minimal details of his solutions or policies; the ones we know unabashedly favor the rich, How can he be trusted if “unfortunately” he has to campaign as an “ideologue” and “act accordingly.” Is this an example of his “deeply analyzing” a situation–running on something he doesn’t believe–and who is his “constituency?” Can this approach be “competent”?