Are We #1 at Being BAMBOOZLED?

How many times must we get “sucked into” some huge brouhaha or issue or circumstance that often turns out to be of little value or of limited consequence?  Many blame the media.  I concur.  Others blame politicians.  Why not?  They are to blame for many of our unnecessary problems and debacles.  And, let us not forget the so-called "Elite" who basically have too much money, power, status and access resulting in political, social and economic control over the rest of us.  Victims of this triumvirate are ordinary citizens who either don't care, aren't informed, or get left out and left behind.  Many have simply dropped out of the political, social and economic merry-go-rounds.
 
Notwithstanding, let us look briefly at some examples of bamboozles that are happening now, or that happened in the very recent past with effects lingering into our present.  We start with the most obvious right now.

1)  Donald Trump.
Remember the presidential election in 2007-08 when it appeared in early 2007 that Rudy Giuliani, mayor of the City of New York during the 9/11 attack, was leading the Republican pack of candidates by a comfortable margin?  The media was going crazy, making Rudy’s campaign the focus of just about every news-related article and TV show (some that had little to do with news).  Not only did he have the lead, but there was story after story about what Rudy’s stance on issues might do to the Republican Party.  Wikipedia helps to tell more of the story in summary fashion:
In 2007 early polls showed Giuliani -- America's Mayor -- with one of the highest levels of name recognition and support among the Republican candidates. Throughout most of 2007 he was the leader in most nationwide opinion polling among Republicans… and most polls showed Giuliani to have more support than any of the other declared Republican candidates, except in some per-state Republican polls. 
However, Giuliani's campaign hit a difficult stretch during November and December 2007, during which time his recommendation for Secretary of Homeland Security was indicted on 16 counts of tax fraud.  It was also reported that while Mayor, Giuliani had billed to obscure city agencies several tens of thousands of dollars of mayoral security expenses incurred while visiting a mistress. 
Giuliani's national poll numbers began steadily slipping and he finished a distant fourth in the January 8, 2008 New Hampshire primary. Similar poor results continued in other early contests.   On January 29, 2008, Giuliani finished a distant third in the Florida result…  Giuliani withdrew from the race on January 30, endorsing McCain.

Admittedly, Donald Trump’s current situation and campaign differ in themes, strategies and issues, but a general similarity is beginning to emerge:
1) This is a media campaign, meaning that Trump and the media are using this as an attention-getter, bringing attention to themselves mostly, and perhaps some money flow as a result;
2) Donald Trump is the obvious leader over several other candidates, but enjoying only 25-28% of essentially neo-conservative Republican support.  Although he retains that support, like Giuliani, he does not seem likely to capture much more;
3) Trump, like Giuliani, varies from Republican base conservatism, but has maintained his lead; question is, will that lead hold steady through states like South Carolina and Florida, or will it begin to show itself for what it is – the protest vote of a limited number of dissatisfied Republicans and independents?  We shall soon know.

One thing is clear: we are once again being bamboozled by the media and the analysts and the prognosticators just to capture our attention and our viewership.  The media and others already know how this will end up – they’ve seen it all before.  And so have you, my friends – but being drawn in once again by people who want to control our responses is standard fare for too many of us. 

2)  Hillary's Email.
Republicans and the media are hyping this right now.  Yes, 300+ emails have been set aside by the federal agents examining the emails, but so far there is little indication that anything really secret has been violated by those emails. While I believe that it was not a good idea for Hillary to use a private server for her State Department-related email, I also recognize that she was not the only one doing so.  It was not that unusual for high-ranking officials in State and other departments to do so.  There were protocols established in the State Department (and other departments) as to what could be used or discussed while using such servers, and what could not, but those protocols were not strictly enforced nor entirely clear.  There were even disagreements as to what should and should not be 'classified.' 
Those disagreements were within and across various departments.  The agents now examining these documents may themselves have entirely different views of what should be classified than what was considered by State Department to be "classifiable" or "secret" back when Hillary was Secretary of State. 
The point: there is no such thing as one unqualified definition across all of government that is determinant of what is considered "secret" or "classified" because it is difficult to determine the meaning of vague terms in those definitions.  But the Republicans continue to flail away hoping you will believe this fiction.

Wikipedia has some helpful information in summary form regarding levels of classification.
"The United States government classifies information according to the degree which the unauthorized disclosure would damage national security.”

Top Secret
"Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe." 
Secret
This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause "serious damage" to national security.  Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity level.
Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization.

Those now 'hyping' the situation are focused on what might in retrospect be seen as 'secret' but may not necessarily been so classified at the time the emails were written.  What is being missed in this whole issue are several questions of major importance:

• When did each email occur?
• What State department protocols, policies and rules governed the situation at the time? 
• Were any of these clearly violated, or were they too vague or open to interpretation? 
• Who determines if something in Hillary's emails might have been "reasonably expected to cause serious damage to national security" at the time they were written?  Not the Congress, although they can investigate and criticize all they want.  Not the President, although his State Department can determine if any of their rules were violated.  Certainly not the Republican candidates for President. 
• In the final analysis, the Courts get to decide whether there was a reasonable expectation that exposure of certain information in those emails at the time could have caused 'serious damage' to national security. 

It is obvious from the reporting engaged in so far, there is nothing but hype, innuendo and inference governing this situation to make us pay attention and to make this story seem like something huge in implication, but to date, nothing substantiates that judgment or claim.  Meanwhile, it seems we just enjoy being bamboozled, or at least, teased.
  
(3)  War on Drugs.
This is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon our society.  It has unhinged our concept of crime, has over-burdened our prison system, and ended-up incarcerating one particular group of people beyond any reasonable concept of punishment fitting the “crime.”   In addition, it has devastated our cherished principles of human rights and dignity, and has led to an on-going system of punishment and restriction that goes beyond “serving one’s time” and “paying for what one has done.”  It is a response out of all proportion to the so-called ‘crime,' and in fact, may have never really been about 'crime' in the first place.  Let's have a brief look at some history.

A war on drugs was actually initiated long before we might have expected.  At the turn of the 20th century, the drug market went mostly unregulated. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 targeted toxic drugs, and was expanded to address misleading drug labels in 1912. But the piece of legislation most relevant to the later War on Drugs was the Harrison Tax Act of 1914, which restricted the sale of heroin and was quickly used to restrict the sale of cocaine as well.  Prohibition ended in 1937 and more meaningful federal health regulations came about under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938, following upon the 'Marihuana' Tax Act of 1937, which attempted to tax marijuana into oblivion.   An alleged popularity among Mexican-American immigrants made marijuana an easy target.

The Boggs Act of 1951 established mandatory minimum federal sentences for possession of marijuana, cocaine, and opiates, and Congress further increased federal penalties with the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.  It was Dwight Eisenhower's establishment of the U.S. Interdepartmental Committee on Narcotics, in 1954, by which a sitting president first literally called for a war on drugs. 
Then, Richard Nixon got the "War on Drugs" rolling in a special message sent to Congress on July 19, 1969 in which he cited a dramatic jump in drug-related juvenile arrests and street crime between 1960 and 1967.  Marijuana was ultimately caught up in a broader cultural backlash against the perceived permissiveness of the 1970s.  The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established federal anti-drug policy as we now know it.  In June of 1971, Nixon officially declared a "war on drugs," identifying drug abuse as "public enemy No. 1" (or was he targeting young protestors?).  In July of 1973, Nixon set up the DEA to be the federal drug law enforcement agency and the coordinating agency for all the anti-drug efforts of other federal agencies.  (for more detail, see NPR Timeline: America's War on Drugs published June 02, 2008).

In the late 1980s, a political hysteria about drugs led to the passage of draconian penalties in Congress and state legislatures that rapidly increased the prison population.  "The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997."

Our drug war history begs for this question to be asked:  just why do we have a War on Drugs?  Civilliberty.com reminds us:

"The War on Drugs has always been a rhetorical convention--you can't declare war on inanimate objects, social phenomena, moods, or abstractions--and it's a rhetorical convention that has determined the way our country views drug policy enforcement. In other words:  it's a colloquial term that does not refer in any meaningful way to a specific policy or objective, but rather to a series of anti-drug initiatives that are vaguely directed towards the common goal of ending drug abuse." (emphasis added).

It might not be untruthful to say that we have little concept of why certain drugs should be legal and others be declared illegal.  The Drug Policy Alliance (drugpolicy.org) says that's because "it's not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs – but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs."  For instance, the "first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at Chinese immigrants. The first anti-cocaine laws, in the South in the early 1900s, were directed at black men. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans. "And one could easily add the targeting of Black men again for use of "crack cocaine."

We could rightfully say that we have been bamboozled for at least a century into thinking that if we declare certain drugs "illegal" we are addressing the problems of crime, addiction, or social disruption.  As a matter of fact, that is not necessarily the result.  In fact the point could be made, and often is, that the War on Drugs has been more deleterious for society than the drugs themselves, and has produced outcomes that have actually added to our problems as a country.  Had this nation continued along a path of treatment and rehabilitation (as others have done) instead of embarking on over-incarceration, we might have saved money and lives.

1. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 55% of federal prisoners and 21% of state-level prisoners are incarcerated on the basis of drug-related offenses. This means that over a half million people are presently incarcerated as a result of anti-drug laws--more than the population of Wyoming.
2. The illegal drug trade also sustains gang activity, and is indirectly responsible for an unknown number of homicides. (The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports describe 4% of homicides as being directly attributable to the illegal drug trade, but it plays an indirect role in a much larger percentage of homicides.)
3. As of August 19, 2015, according to the Drug War Cost Clock, the federal government has spent over $9.6 billion and states and local governments over $16.3 billion for a grand total of $25.9 billion in just under 8 months of 2015! 
4.  Arrests for drug law violations this year are expected to exceed the 1,663,582 arrests of 2009.  Someone is arrested for violating a drug law every 19 seconds
5. Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 per cent are sentenced for drug law violations.

The hype and the falsity surrounding our rhetoric of the "War on Drugs" is a diversionary and misleading con job of the first order.  This bamboozle has led our society into anti-social, anti-constitutional and anti-rehabilitative modes that are at this very moment corrupting our democratic ideals. 

(4)  Iran - the War Game
Here we go again.  The War Hawks are squawking.  They demand toughness and eschew diplomacy.  They want to scare us into war with the nation of Iran by blocking an historic Agreement that is designed to at least delay, if not deny, nuclear bomb capability to the Iranians.  The Agreement is a major diplomatic accomplishment of the Obama Administration, and some Republicans cannot abide that possibility so they invent reasons for War with Iran just as they did for War against Iraq.  And guess what? 

The similarity in the drumbeats for war with Iraq and Iran is no accident: it is just one example of the most common justification employed by US (politicians) to influence public opinion in favor of the use of military force overseas, a justification which is formulated as: the necessity to deter foreign aggression, protect the United States and defend freedom. Similar justifications have been employed for overseas interventions on numerous occasions in the past.  These appeals to public opinion employ a variety of standard techniques of rhetorical persuasion.  Let me give you a few samples of the same old war rhetoric that sends us down a path to destruction every time we accept what we hear:
1)    The Bush administration’s ability to connect the invasion of Iraq to the tragedy of 9/11 was a textbook example of diversionary rhetoric.  “Iran must not have a nuclear weapon”, (and) “the international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate the construction of nuclear weapons” are current equivalents.

2)     A form of fallacious argument used in the build-up to the war on Iraq:  the phrase “Iraqi WMD programs” was bandied about so much that it became unquestionable fact, even though inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had failed to find the alleged WMD
    Rather than proving the existence of a widespread nuclear-weapons program in Iran, it is easier to let people assume that its existence has already been established and is an incontestable fact.  In addition to overt references to Iran’s “nuclear-weapons program”, there may be references to Iran’s nuclear “threat”, or vague statements about Iran’s nuclear “ambitions”, or even more tenuous allusions to Iran’s “intentions” to obtain a nuclear-weapons “capability," or more specifically, to "build a bomb."

3) The generic form of the "slippery slope" justification for war is usually, “If we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here;” like the “domino theory” which was used as a justification for the US role in Vietnam: "if we don’t stop the godless communists in Vietnam, ultimately all of South-East Asia could succumb to communism." Of course, although we abandoned the war, that proved not to be the case.

When applied to Iran’s nuclear program, the slippery slope fallacy usually predicts that if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear technology, the result will be an uncontrollable wildfire of proliferation and a regional arms race.
It is highly ironic that Iran’s mere capability to build nuclear weapons will supposedly spark this uncontrollable cascade of nuclear proliferation, and yet "Israel’s existing nuclear weapons are not considered to have this same effect."

Since the end of the Second World War, the USA has been greatly worried about Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and others who have acquired nuclear bomb capability.  However, unlike the U.S.A, none of them has ever actually dropped a bomb on another country.  Even the bellicose and threatening North Korean government has been fully restrained in not dropping a nuclear warhead on someone else. 

Amazing isn't it, that now we are terribly worried that Iran will all of a sudden wish to bomb us and the Middle East into oblivion.  Doubtful, given past history.  What appears to be the pattern is that these more bellicose nations seem to want to have nuclear capability "just in case..."  Iran is probably no exception to that desire.  But a slippery slope, a wildfire of proliferation and a regional arms race?  Again, unlikely. 

There is more deterrence out there than one first imagines.  Sanctions, inspections, cut-off of trade, isolation from the world, nuclear disarmament treaties and fear of total retaliation have so far been enough to hold back the use of nuclear weapons by other countries   Will that continue with Iran?  Will they dare to release a nuclear bomb on Israel or the United States?  It's just not realistic given the total retaliatory annihilation of Iran that would ensue.

So just what is realistic in regard to Iran? 

• They probably desire nuclear weapon capability, as have many other nations
• Without the Iran Agreement being approved by the U.S. Congress, they will most likely accelerate their nuclear weapons program
• Without the Iran Agreement, they will probably increase their leveling of threats at Israel
• If the provisions of the Iran Agreement are allowed to die, and there is no Agreement, there will be no formal restrictions, no inspections and no verification process, and we will have difficulty knowing what steps Iran is taking to progress toward a bomb
• Some sanctions will be lifted by the likes of Russia and China; but more may be imposed by the US and its more sympathetic allies
• War will be much more inevitable because Republicans will push for it, along with their guest speaker and fellow warmonger, Bebe Netanyahu
• With the Iran Agreement in place, there is hope for a delay in nuclear weapons capability - perhaps 15 years, but some monitoring aspects will last up to 25 years
• With the Iran Agreement, investigations of a variety of facilities by outside observers will take place on a permanent basis
• The Agreement is the best course of action simply because it stands as an alternative to war; allowing for diplomacy, verification and even cooperation on some levels, and for re-imposition of sanctions if necessary. 
• Give Peace a chance.

We have become a people virtually enslaved to forms of rhetorical fallacy that literally capture and twist our minds, our thoughts, our ideas and our actions toward the aggrandizing of corrupt capitalists, dishonest politicians, poorly informed prognosticators, prevaricating media, dubious public servants and other bamboozlers.

We may have finally reached a new #1 in the world:  the most bamboozled, misled, and misdirected citizenry on this planet.  It is time to free ourselves from such manipulation and to begin to believe little or nothing that comes across our television screens or that is contained within social media on electronic devices until we can thoroughly examine and research the facts behind the bamboozling rhetoric.  The time has come to stop being victims of falsity and fallacy, and to begin to be the purveyors of facts to a fact-starved, and non-investigatory public.
Put a stop to bamboozling whenever and wherever you can!

Republicans Debate -- NOBODY WINS!

One thing I must say about this first debate: it was made for Republicans!  The answers had to be kept so short they didn't need to use anything but the same old bumper-sticker rhetoric for which they are famous.  Here are just a few samples, some of which are summaries; others of which are quotes:

"I'll always tell you the truth," "Leading from behind is a disaster." (Cruz)

"I'm rich!"  "I will straighten out the debt problem." (Trump)

"Obama abandoned Iraq" and left a void for ISIS to take control (Bush)

"I have always been Pro-life, unlike Hillary Clinton who supports Planned Parenthood" (Walker)

"Shift power back to the states;" get rid of the IRS; establish consumption tax (Huckabee)

"Let's have tithing instead of taxes" - everyone pay 10% of their income (Carson)

"Have to negotiate from position of strength -- Obama didn't; how going to get Iran to comply? (Paul)

"All human life is worthy of protection; Planned Parenthood is murdering millions of babies" (Rubio)

"Federal budget spends 71% on entitlements and debt costs; I have a 12-point plan to deal with that" (Christie)

I just love watching these clowns!  They are entertaining.  I especially found Ben Carson's rendition of "color of skin doesn't matter" to be laughable!  He implied that the brain is where the essence of a person resides.  Can't argue with that, but can argue with "skin color is not important."  It's extremely important if you are the black-skinned person on the wrong end of police brutality.  It matters a whole lot if you are seeking a personal loan from a bank to establish a business, to buy a car or a home.  It matters if you just want to live in the suburbs.  And it matters a great deal if you want to actually vote in certain parts of this country.  It matters a whole lot if you find yourself  before a white judge and jury.  Skin color matters -- it may not be the locus of intelligence, but it is the target of prejudice, bigotry, hatred, isolation, inattention, and abject intolerance.  Carson said something like: "it's time to move beyond skin color and not let dividers like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama define us." Shame on you Dr. Carson for standing with a Party that takes away voting rights, assistance programs, and the opportunities of affirmative action while ignoring police brutality and unequal justice directed toward people of color.

After the principal debate was over, we heard from Frank Luntz's test group that was present to record their reactions to debater utterances.  Luntz said that one of the largest positive reactions ever recorded in a (presumably, Republican) debate occurred when Huckabee said we got nothing out of the Iran negotiations; that instead of verifying what Iran does, Obama vilifies everyone who disagrees with him on Iran.  Ted Cruz also scored well with his remarks that any American citizen who goes to the Middle East and has anything to do with ISIS should lose their passports immediately; and any who actually train with or join ISIS should be understood as having signed their death warrant!

One headline the day after did not surprise me.  It said that Fox News was the winner, and I must say that I was impressed by the questions and follow-ups - even some rather unusual pressing for answers to questions asked.  It appeared to me that the three questioners actually took their jobs seriously, did a lot of research, and wrote some dynamite questions that lit a few fires along the way.  Chris Wallace lambasted Trump about flip-flop positions of his; he even at one point said something like "now that you have had your say, would you please answer my original question."

Megyn Kelly definitely irritated Trump when she questioned him about his attitudes and actions toward women.  She also pressed him on other questions he did not like, and Trump basically accused Megyn of not liking him and attacking him.  (Worse than that, he used some stupid words about blood coming from her at him which needs no further comment from me!).  The Luntz group again had some things to say about Trump's performance that were not complimentary.  They felt he skirted questions, was mean and angry, and offered no solutions for problems.  By Friday, news reports indicated that 'the Donald' had been dis-invited to a gathering of conservatives known as the RedState event.  His possible replacement - Megyn Kelly!

With that said, it makes sense to look at a few of the avoidance tactics as well as some pointed references to Hillary and President Obama, and finally at what we as citizens can expect from these candidates.

Avoidance of tough questions is nothing new to politics, or to politicians.  It happens all the time; and often it happens because the candidate knows he is in deep trouble with donors, with voters or with the media, and sometimes with his party colleagues.  Trump avoided several questions of what he would actually do to solve certain problems and instead emphasized his wealth and what that means in terms of governing.  Rubio surprised a bit with some thoughts about people emigrating from countries other than Mexico.  He thus avoided having to talk about building a border wall or using troops to stop immigration of miscreants.

The former and present Governors - Kasich, Bush, Huckabee, Walker and Christie - all touted their state records as proof of their ability to govern and to turn around our "failing economy."  Unfortunately, we only have time and space for two examples of their avoidance by exaggeration.

Jeb Bush claimed twice that as governor of Florida, he cut taxes by $19 billion dollars.  According to FactCheck, a big chunk of that came from cuts in Florida estate taxes mandated by federal law with which Bush had nothing to do.  Moreover, not all of the revenue changes were due to tax cuts, but included various fees, license changes, sales tax holidays and lottery proceeds.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker claimed his state “more than made up” for the job losses from the recession.  According to FactCheck, that’s a stretch.  He made a campaign promise to create 250,000 jobs in his first term.  Reality check: In December 2007, when the recession started, the state had 2,878,000 jobs, and as of June 2015 it had 2,882,000 jobs — a net gain of just 4,000 jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics), putting Wisconsin 34th in job growth rate during his time as governor.

Another avoidance tactic, used quite often to divert attention away from the real problem or the real issue, included references encased in a few words that denigrate an opponent.  These clowns are masters at that tactic.

Cruz:  Obama never tells the truth; Obama won't even say "radical Islamist terrorist"
Paul:  I would not arm our enemies like ISIS or their allies - they are driving billions of dollars worth of U.S.-made HumVees because current administration sells arms to terrorists.
Walker:  everywhere Hillary Clinton has traveled is in a mess;
Carson: give Generals the mission and let them win the war with ISIS
Bush: federal government should not set education standards like Duncan and Obama did
Rubio: repeal Dodd-Frank
Christie: fundamental problem under Obama: the system is broken; social security is broken
All: Iran deal is lousy; re-instate sanctions and add more; vote against it; world a more dangerous place because of this deal; gave up too much, including inspections.

It is fitting to end this summary with the question: what do we learn from these debates? Or more pointedly: what will we get from these candidates if any one of them should be elected? (Don’t forget that second tier of candidates waiting in the wings to knock-off some front runners so they can join the first team!).  You don't have to look very far to know what is in the offing.  The candidates put it in their own words (sometimes with flare, and other times with hum-drum style), and if you missed it, beware the deluge.

Dana Milbank has a good article in the Washington Post about what Republicans have not learned from 2012, even though they did their own analysis of their performance.  He reminds us:

"Back in 2013, the Republican National Committee 'autopsy' of the 2012 election concluded that to win future presidential elections, Republicans would need to be more inclusive of women, be more tolerant on gay rights to gain favor with young voters, support comprehensive immigration reform to appeal to Latinos and stand strong against 'corporate malfeasance'."

"Well, the 17 Republican presidential candidates met in Cleveland on Thursday for three hours of debate, and Americans saw candidates:

• opposing abortion without exceptions of rape or incest or to save a mother's life; 
• comparing the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage to one supporting slavery
• talking about building border walls and denying 'amnesty'. 
• silent about the Trump company's four bankruptcies (the most recent of which caused lenders to lose $1 billion and 1,100 people to lose jobs), with Trump saying that all "the greatest people in business use bankruptcy laws to their advantage."  
• setting a negative tone near the opening minutes of the debate, when Trump declared: "I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.'  And again: "We don't have time for 'Tone'."
• promising to build a wall; keep illegals out.  Mexico is deliberately sending criminals claims Trump. 
• defy Roe vs. Wade; block all abortions - no exceptions; sic IRS on Planned Parenthood
• declare "The military is not a social experiment" (Huckabee about transgender recruits)

What's more disturbing is perhaps the ultimate diversion.  Do you realize what was left out and never got a question or any real attention?  Sometimes what is not said or discussed is more telling than what is debated and discussed.

1)  Women's health and well-being are not held in high esteem by this crowd.  It wasn't just Trump with a bad attitude, although his stood out to be sure.  No, it was everywhere.  Even in the audience which was made up of a lot of women.  When Trump made a disparaging remark about Rosie O'Donnell, it got many laughs and cheers.  When he attacked Megyn Kelly for her attitude and questions, there were some who applauded, presumably not all were men.

So, here we are, where the only issue of import touching on women's health had to do with abortion. Except for Trump, who nonetheless emphasized how abhorrent abortion was to him, the candidate crowd was obviously Pro-life.  Rubio and Kasich made similar attempts to say that all human life is  worthy of protection, but pretty much to a man they all agreed on de-funding Planned Parenthood (an agency that provides mostly health care to poor women) and a ban on abortions.  Scott Walker said sometime the next day that yes, he was willing to let a mother die in order to preserve an abortion ban.

Once again -- watch out for what is not there.  If these radical Republicans (and the wannabe's of the far right 2nd Team, including Fiorina) favor a ban on abortions, they mean a total ban.  There is no room in this crowd for exceptions (although some simply won't say).  This puts women in a position that is subtle but outright dangerous.  If the traditional exceptions to a ban on abortions - mother's life in danger, incest, rape, and malformed fetus (such as an ectopic pregnancy) - are not protected or allowed, then people like Scott Walker will have no compunctions about allowing a mother-at-risk to die.  This position negates the mealy-mouthed assertion by some like Rubio that all life (all the way through) is worthy of protection.  It also negates their hypocritical assertion (put forth by Huckabee) that the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution protect the lives of unborn children (but presumably not the lives of their mothers!)

DO YOU REALLY WANT SOMEONE WITH THAT KIND OF MIND-SET AS PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES?  Considering the assertion that not one Republican candidate for President in the last 40 years has ever not supported at least some exceptions to an abortion ban,
YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER VOTING FOR SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS MORE TRADITIONAL VALUES!  The Republican candidates this time around are not representative of the traditions of the Grand Old Party!  They are radical Conservatives who have lost the values that keep us strong and compassionate at the same time.

2)  Voting Rights.  What happened to that very important and "hot" issue?  Is the closing down of people's right to vote OK with this group?  Apparently so, from the lack of attention given to it.  Let's be clear:  these debaters are some of the people who have led the way on denying the vote to groups that vote against them:  African Americans, Hispanic Americans, people living under poverty, women, young people and even those who are disabled.  These are the deniers of automatic registration or even of a broadened registration by mail.  These are the people who believe voter fraud is rampant and must be controlled, when all the facts are against them.  These are the people who believe fervently that corporations should have the ability to control the votes of their workers; that corporations have free speech rights equivalent to individuals and should therefore be allowed to exercise that right through virtually unlimited contributions to third party groups called PACs and super-PACs, as long as they have no contact with the candidates.  Along with their five compatriots on the SCOTUS, these are the people who believe in electoral BRIBERY, and in the domination of the 1% who control the nation's wealth and many of our elections and elected officials.

3)  Race Relations.  Except for Carson's attempt to "move beyond skin color," there was little said about race relations, and no mention made that "Black Lives Matter."  Perhaps the one question about policing was meant to cover this crucial and glaringly relevant topic.  Scott Walker, of all people, got the question and his response was so vague as to fade into the ether.  Apparently his answer to police murders of black people was to emphasize training, making sure those police who don't obey the state's high standards are made to bear the consequences (but no specifics given!).

And that, my friends, is the way this crowd wants it to be: SILENT!  They don't want to engage in discussions between races; they don't want to hear about the effects of structured or institutional racism upon those of color; they don't want to know about the ravages of poverty; or the toll being taken on young men and women of color who lack the opportunities afforded white children. They don't want to hear about anything that has to do with other than law & order; keeping criminals off the streets; protecting white control and power.  They simply are hiding from reality.

And that reality is:  a blatant inequality ensconced in our most basic institutions - government offices, schools, retailers, banks, justice system (policing, arrests, trials and sentencing and incarceration).  It is in the self-interest of all races to oppose inequality wherever we find it, because such a major contradiction of our fundamental constitutional precepts is eating away at the very fabric of our democratic system.  We cannot sustain liberty, freedom, and justice for all if inequality is allowed -- and enabled -- to flourish in the lives of millions of our people.

The proof of that lies in the beliefs and mythologies of these very politicians.  They represent values that contradict our cherished democratic and republican ('of the people') principles.  They threaten our very basis for existence as a democratic nation.

They seek to construct a nation at war with:

• women and minorities, 
• Iran and any other nation that they choose; 
• the poor, 
• children and young people;  
• our federal government which they accuse of being corrupt, opposed to states’ rights and power-hungry enough to force states to comply with federal mandates and to remove the right to own guns.  

They have demonstrated their bigotry over and over again in the last seven years toward our President; they have tried to destroy every program that provides help to those who have special needs; they have denigrated Blacks, Mexicans, Islamists, women, and "welfare queens."

This is not the Party of Lincoln, and certainly not that of Theodore Roosevelt!  That Party is gone. This is not the Party of traditional compassionate conservatives.  That is dead.  This is not even the Party of Landon, Eisenhower, Dirksen, Dole or Ford.  

This is a Party more aligned with looking for a bully, a white man of strength, someone who takes no guff and speaks his mind even if that is insulting, overly bombastic or denigrating.  The GOP seeks someone who is tough, doesn't lead from behind, opposes women's rights, loves the military and uses it boldly without worrying about the costs.  This Party is looking for someone who can command public support, but not someone who is soft on criminals or opponents, and can basically control the government and the populace; especially someone who will keep his nation and its military strong at all costs.  WAIT -- I think I've got it!

THIS IS THE PARTY OF PUTIN!  (Good Old Putin!)  They just happen to be looking in the wrong country! Wow - talk about a birth certificate controversy!

And that, my friends is why this spurious Republican Party must be defeated in 2016! But not just defeated: destroyed is probably the most honest rendering.  This radicalized Republican Party is a menace to us all and needs to be put out of business.  A major defeat at the polls is the beginning of that demise.  Every American disgusted by this first "debate" debacle must be willing to put themselves on the line to GET OUT THE VOTE in favor of all acceptable (hopefully progressive) opposition candidates.

And PLEASE, Mr. Trump -- be sure to take revenge on this Party when it rejects you as its candidate -- PLEASE RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE!

Republicans Just Can’t “Cut It”

"WASHINGTON, Jan 6, 2015 (Reuters) - More macroeconomic projections will be included in cost estimates (work done by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation) for major fiscal legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives under a rule change approved on Tuesday, a move critics said could mask the true impact of tax cuts.  The move toward "dynamic scoring," as the approach to gauging the budgetary effect of tax and spending changes is known, was part of a rules package passed on a 234-172 party-line vote as the Republican-controlled Congress began its work.
White House Budget Director Shaun Donovan said in a blog posting that adoption of dynamic scoring would "risk injecting bias" into a decades-old, non-partisan budget process;  "...it could allow Congress to adopt legislation that increases federal deficits, while masking its costs," Donovan said." (By David Lawder)

But that is what Republicans have done all along -- mask the true impact of their tax cuts and their budget cuts.  If they were truthful about any of their budgetary manipulations they would be exposed to the world as the bamboozlers they truly are.  Just take one flagrant example.  Republicans claim to be the Party that wants to reduce the deficit, yet their track record is a very poor one in that regard.  Just take a quick look at the numbers for the last 40 (maybe 100) years or so.

Let's start with a simple comparison done by Stephen Bloch of Adelphi.edu who found: 
"In the past 100 years, there have been eight Democratic and nine Republican Presidents. Five of the eight Democrats oversaw average deficits smaller than they inherited, while seven of the nine Republicans oversaw average deficits larger than they inherited."

Focusing in a bit more, let's take a look at a chart from Mr. Bloch at adelphi.edu.  Let him explain:
"I consider the fiscal year spanning a Presidential election and inauguration to be part of the outgoing administration. This is usually a fair assumption, because most government programs take a while to start, and last for multiple years. Fiscal 2008-2009 is perhaps an exception: both the outgoing and incoming Presidents enacted expensive economic-stimulus programs that were written to take effect immediately. Accordingly, in the following tables, I've given George W. Bush two rows in the table: one for his whole term, consistent with all other Presidents, and one counting only his first seven years, ending with the figures of September 2008, by which time a recession had started but the government measures to deal with it hadn't been enacted yet.
I subtract the deficit in a President's first year from the deficit in the year after that President stepped down (or, in the case of the current President, from the most recent deficit figures I have). This change in deficit is then divided by the number of years it took to achieve it.


Comments on Table 3:Since Kennedy, "every Democratic President has left office with a smaller deficit than he inherited, and every Republican President except Nixon has left office with a larger deficit than he inherited. This may be because Republican Presidents have placed high priority on cutting taxes, and placed lower priority on (or had less success at) cutting spending. Democratic Presidents have perhaps had equal success at cutting spending (I haven't researched those numbers), but have not been bound by promises to cut taxes."
Another writer, David Haggith, in a 3-year-old post at http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/deficits-debts-democrats-vs-republicans-us-national-debt-graphs-year-president/ makes the point another way:
""It seems to me the Tea Party's hero is Ronald Reagan...he is clearly the source (the head waters) of the present economic deluge. You can see how the debt problem hugely ramps up when Reaganomics begins, reverses when Clinton takes us away from supply-side economics by raising taxes on the wealthy, and immediately resurges when Bush takes us back to even larger tax cuts for the wealthy than we saw under Reagan. Debt growth is EVEN STEEPER under George Bush than it was under Reagan. Why? Because his supply-side cuts in taxes to the wealthy were even larger than Reagan's.
We have enough history now to (see that) supply-side economics SHOULD BE a dead idea. Tea Party votes are ALL FOR supply-side economics. So, their ideas are bankrupt. We have CLEAR proof of what worked in history.  It is about the need to make tax increases for the wealthy at the same time one makes spending cuts. The combination for a strong economy that pays its own way is making sure the wealthy pay their own freight and cutting expenses."
Then, he adds this:  "Right now, Republicans and Democrats have created a smoke-screen tax system that appears to tax the rich at a higher percentage rate, but does not, in fact, do so. The rich receive enormous tax breaks...which reduce their effective income tax rate to LESS than the average person's rate. Most importantly, the rich do not make their money off of wage income. They make it off of capital gains, and capital gains are taxed at the same percentage rate that the BOTTOM of the middle class pays. So, the rich wind up enjoying an effective tax rate that is actually lower than anyone in the middle class."

You are being bamboozled every time you believe that Republicans are saving, or will save, us money.  Why?  Because their economic concepts are fundamentally flawed unless you can believe the fairy-tale that money actually trickles-down from the wealthy to the middle and lower income groups.  It doesn't.
But that's not the only flaw in their constructs.  They also believe that cutting programs that benefit most of our population will bring us to fiscal solvency.  Republicans don't save money on welfare cuts or other cut-backs that reduce social welfare spending.

They actually cost us more money in the long run, and here's why:
(1) They tend to shift the so-called savings to other areas of the budget.  That's what lowering taxes on the rich is all about -- welfare for the rich is not free.  The extra money for those breaks on taxes for the rich has to come from somewhere.  And it does -- right out of your pocket, if you're middle class, and out of those social program cuts that affect the lower middle-income class, those living at poverty level and those who are known as the "underclass."   Shall we say it?  It's Robin Hood in reverse!  Rob the poor to pay the rich!  Republicans believe it is their solemn duty to aggrandize the rich and they do so by removing all economic supports from the 98% who must work extra jobs or overtime just to keep up with costs of daily living.  

But there is one more shift of the savings from program cuts that must not go unnoticed.  Defense spending.  Republicans don't like it at all when commentators and writers point out the enormity of the military budget, and the undeniable truth that the Congress has so often substantially increased the Defense budget from what was requested by DoD!  Nor did the capitalistic Republican cohort care for the questioning of private contracts by Senators like Bernie Sanders of Vermont.  So many of those private contracts are going to Friends of the GOP that they go into protective mode every time someone questions the billions of overruns in such contracts.  And, one more thought:  why all this talk of war with Iran?  Is it just because Republicans are overly-bellicose in their approach to the rest of the world.  Probably not.  They do, however, know that such "war-talk" provides them with one more excuse to keep the Defense budget soaring, thereby deflecting any questions about where that money is going that gets cut from welfare programs!

(2)  Republicans actually increase costs to our government by short-sighted actions that they claim will cut the deficit and bring us to a stable and balanced budget. 
So, let us first be clear on what Republicans want to do.  They say they want to cut the deficit, but more than that, they want to reduce the tax burden on the rich.  That is why, from way back, Republicans have manufactured phrases like "take responsibility for yourself" "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "entitlements."  They desperately want all of us to believe that the rich should not have to pay for those in our society with special needs.  They want us to believe that it is unfair for wealth to be re-distributed by the government; they want any such re-distribution to be done through private philanthropy as a personal gesture of caring.  But their inconsistency is glaring.  How can the wealthy 1 or 2 % accept any tax breaks or tax subsidies or advantages from government coffers since such welfare must necessarily come from taxes on the earnings of others?  Their naive view of private philanthropy is also disturbing; for private philanthropy is not controlled by need but by personal viewpoints and personal choice, and is too dependent on donations.

And so, we have Republicans gutting programs that subsidize people with special circumstances and needs.   The list is so long that it cannot be inserted here (see one list of proposed Senate cuts by Republican leadership at http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/List_of_spending_cuts_in_Senate_bill.html 
But we might just mention WIC, TANF, SNAP (food stamps), and Head Start.  We could also cite special programs for Veterans, the homeless, and single mothers, plus Pell grants for students.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg, since right now, the radicalized Republican Party is attempting to lay the groundwork for the dissolution of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to say nothing about the repeal of "Obamacare."  Of course, they don't often talk about "dissolution."  Instead they disguise their intent by talking about "privatizing" Social Security; "vouchering" Medicare, and "devolving" Medicaid to the states.  It's all of one piece -- radicalized Republicans are hell-bent on destroying what they term the "welfare state" (except for the portion that is "welfare" for the rich!).

And what is my point?  Simply this:  Their cost-savings measures actually cost us more money in the long run especially for healthcare, remedial education, job training, incarceration, food and housing. 

A report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in 2014 may be enlightening in this regard.  In discussing the Republican plan to block-grant SNAP, SSI, and child nutrition programs to states, the CBO presented the following:

"By CBO estimates, this option (to block-grant these programs to states) would reduce spending on SNAP by $281 billion from 2015 through 2023—or by 41 percent of the amount that would be spent under current law. For SSI, mandatory spending during that period would decline by $49 billion, or by 9 percent. For child nutrition programs, the reduction would be $74 billion, or 33 percent. For SNAP, the effect on projected spending would be larger early on, whereas for the child nutrition programs and, in general, for SSI, the effects would be larger in the later years.

"A rationale against this option is that, from 2015 to 2023, it would cut mandatory federal spending for programs that support lower-income people by $404 billion (with an additional cut of $42 billion in discretionary spending, if appropriations were reduced as specified). Who was affected by that cut in spending and how they were affected would depend on how states structured their programs and how state spending changed. But such a cut—amounting to 28 percent of the projected mandatory spending on SNAP, SSI, and child nutrition programs during those years—would almost certainly eliminate benefits for some people who would have otherwise received them, as well as significantly reduce the benefits of some people who remained in the programs.
"Another rationale against this option is that block grants would not be as responsive to economic conditions as the current federal programs are.  If federal spending did not increase during a future economic downturn and the number of people eligible for benefits increased, states that could not increase their spending (probably at a time when their own revenues were declining) would have to reduce the benefits received by each participant or tighten eligibility, perhaps adding to the hardship for families just when their need was greatest."

What the CBO doesn't tell us is what exactly would happen to the people who lose their benefits?  And therein lies the rub. 

What cost analyses fail to do is to calculate the unintended and unacknowledged effects on the overall budgets of cities, towns, communities, counties, states and the federal government in terms of the long-term effects of such cuts or transfers of funding.  Does the homeless problem get larger and eat up more money for emergency room care?  Do children become incapacitated in school settings because of hunger, or because of lack of health care, and does that cost us in lost potential?  Does the cost of police presence increase because stealing of food and other essentials rises?  Does incarceration increase because of desperate people doing bizarre things out of their desperation?  Do mental health facilities have to increase their intake and staff in order to accommodate those who go "off the deep end" because of their situation? We could go on and on, but let us turn to another report that spells-out quite clearly some of these long-term costs, especially for children and families, that Republicans ignore.

From the Children's Defense Fund 2014 Report on Children:
"Child poverty costs the nation at least $500 billion each year in extra education, health and
criminal justice costs and in lost productivity.
Child abuse and neglect cost the U.S. $80.3 billion each year in direct costs and lost productivity.
A single case of nonfatal child abuse and neglect costs $210,012 over a lifetime, and a case of
fatal child abuse and neglect $1.27 million, mostly due to lost productivity.
Gun deaths and injuries cost the U.S. $174.1 billion each year, or 1.15 percent of our total gross
domestic product (GDP).
Racial and ethnic health disparities cost the U.S. an estimated $1.24 trillion in medical costs and
lost productivity between 2003 and 2006.
The high school students who dropped out of the class of 2011 will cost the nation’s economy an
estimated $154 billion in lost income over the course of their lifetimes.
The gap between Black and Hispanic compared to White high school achievement in 1998 cost
the U.S. $310 to $525 billion in lost GDP by 2008 and the income achievement gap cost $400
to $670 billion.
The achievement gap between American students and those in top-performing countries like Finland and Korea in 1998 cost the nation $1.3 to $2.3 trillion in 2008 or 9 to 16 percent of GDP.

We Can Afford to Do Better The amount the U.S. spends per minute on corporate tax breaks would pay the salary of 16 child care workers. More than 220,000 children are currently on waiting lists for child care assistance. Expanding child care increases poor mothers’ work participation.
Three days’ worth of the amount the U.S. spends on corporate tax breaks would provide a whole year’s worth of SNAP food assistance for the estimated 737,000 children who don’t have enough food.
The amount the U.S. spends a year on corporate tax breaks for private jets would pay the salary of 6,400 high school teachers.
All poor infants and toddlers could have been served by Early Head Start if the government diverted just 18 days of defense spending. Currently only about 4 percent of eligible children reap the benefits of this high quality early learning experience. Quality early education programs return 7 to 10 percent a year for every dollar invested.
More than 17,500 low-income children could enroll in Head Start for a year for the cost of just one F-35 fighter jet among the nearly 2,500 the Department of Defense is scheduled to buy."

Republicans in the House want "dynamic scoring" of budget and programs.  Well here is my version: score the dynamic effects on people in the long run, and weigh that against budget cuts that show a savings only in the short run.