Qualifications for Romney's Running Mate

Romney and Beth Meyer

Now that Willard Mitt Romney, a successful venture/vulture capitalist with Bain Capital and a Mormon Bishop, has all but secured the nomination for President from a grudging Republican Party, it is time for a potential president to make his first presidential-level decision -- choosing a running mate. 


Some wags suggest that it is not a matter of Mitt choosing someone, but a matter of finding someone willing to be second banana on his faltering ship. I, however, am confident there is another "Sarah Palin'" out there who would be happy to capitalize and monetize the opportunity.


Conventiional wisdom suggests that Mitt must choose someone who can help him win the 2012 Presidential race. This means he needs to choose someone who will appeal to voters who don't like Mitt  Romney.  In this case,  that would require a woman,  preferably a Tea Party gal, or a Hispanic.  (Some would suggest Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, but no serious Republican is going to repeat John McCain's disastrous mistake.) Nikki Haley, freshman governor of South Carolina  or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez might fit the need, but a more appealing choice might be the young Cuban, Senator Marco Rubio  who may attract some Hispanic votes.


 The third pillar of conventional wisdom suggests the candidate needs to choose a candidate who can help him win a so-called "swing" state.( Some would suggest, once again  freshman senator, Marco Rubio, from Florida, Rob Portman, a freshman senator from Ohio, or Governor Chris Christie from New Jersey.)  Given the above, Rubio appears to be well suited, even though he said he wants to stay in the Senate. Rubio has all three things going for him, Hispanic, from a swing state, and supported by the Tea Party.  (But, quite frankly, does Mitt have to worry about the Tea Party? Who else will they vote for?)


But it is up to Mitt as the candidate to make his first serious decision. Just as when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts, he has chosen Beth Meyer to help him find a winning running mate.


Not an easy job. She has to find someone with the following qualifications:


1. must be able to operate an Etch-a-Sketch while wearing  flip-flops
2. must be able to explain to PETA that driving with your dog tied to the roof is a good thing.
3. must have enough money to throw down a $10K bet on the spur of the moment.
4. must get a rush from firing workers.
5. must own a mansion on both coasts.
6. must have friends who are NASCAR owners.
7. must agree the solution to the immigration problem is "self-deportation."
8. must have a huge income derived from capital gains rather real work.
9. must have zero personality--any sign of personality will show up Mitt's lack thereof.
10. must never talk of Romney's Mormon religion --- that's taboo -- not even Mitt is permitted to talk about that.
11. must try to keep your secret Swiss bank account secret.
12. must own several assault rifles to keep the NRA fringe happy.
13. must have destroyed all your computer records if you were in public service.
14. must appreciate trees of the "right height" -- preferably those in Michigan.
15. must grovel at the feet of the Tea Party.
16. must swear to do all in your power to eliminate public unions for police, teachers,etc.
17. must be opposed to stay-at-home mothers receiving benefits -- staying at home to raise a family is the privilege of the wealthy.
18. must not admit that you inherited your wealth, but pretend you started with nothing.
19. must not find fault with Rush Limbaugh for calling  a Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, "a slut."
20. must agree that English is the official language of the realm, .can't be speaking Spanish.


If Beth can find someone who meets these criteria, it will probably be someone with Mitt's genes -- one of his children. And why not have one of his children (provided they meet the age requirement)  as his running mate? I think Mitt would like that; it has the aura of royalty about it. Perfect.

Radical Feminists -- US Catholic Nuns?

Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Recently the Vatican reprimanded the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, a group that represents 80% of US Catholic nuns, for emphasizing social justice issues instead of abortion and same-sex marriage. Also the nuns were accused of having doctrinal issues.


The Vatican, according to the New York Times, accused the group of challenging "church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted 'radical feminists themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.'" (NYT, 5/19/2012) Perhaps the accusation says more about the men in the Vatican than it says about Catholic religious women.


Apparently the Vatican was responding to a recently completed "investigation" (not to be confused with an inquisition?) of the US nuns by Bishop Leonard Blair (Toledo, OH), and although the Vatican does not cite specific examples of the "serious doctrinal problems," it does make reference to the group's "silence" on Catholic doctrine such as the right to life. If one finds it strange that Bishop Blair thinks silence is culpable, please remember that he encouraged Catholics not to contribute to the Komen Breast Cancer Fund because the Fund might at some time in the future fund abortions. (Recent history has revealed how ridiculous were his fears.)


But of course, the real story is about a patriarchal, military-style hierarchy worried about its power and its efforts to influence politics in the USA.


Sister Simone Campbell,  the executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by sisters, offered the following: "I would imagine that it was our health care letter that made them (the Vatican) mad. We haven't violated any teaching, we have just been raising questions and interpreting politics."  As the NYT reported: "During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plans, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it -- support that provided crucial cover for the Obama administration in the battle over health care."


The Vatican's message is loud and  clear: it is quite acceptable for the bishops to become involved in US politics, but nuns dare not express their political opinions.


Perhaps the Vatican is still stewing over the situation in 1984 in which nuns, along with several priests and theologians, took out a full page ad in The New York Times stating that "Catholics have differing opinions opinions on women's reproductive issues..." The Vatican demanded retractions, but most of the nuns involved refused. (cf. Wikipedia, "Vatican 24")


Suffice it to say: a dictatorship cannot abide freedom of expression.

The Pope Fiddles While Rome Burns

Nero Fiddles While Rome Burns

Excuse me for laughing, but I just read several newspaper headlines suggesting that the Vatican,  in the persons of Bishop Sartain (Seattle), Bishop Blair (Toledo), Bishop Paprocki (Springfield, IL),  are going to "reform" the Catholic Women Religious of the United States! Give me a break! Of all the problems the Vatican has, they are concerned about the religious women who are out in the world actually practicing their Christianity!


If anything needs "reforming" it is the Vatican and its autocratic bishops. Benedict XVI might want to reform the Vatican Bank and allow the light of transparency to penetrate the secrets that lie buried in its vaults. The Vatican might want to reform itself in terms of its lack of leadership on the misconduct of priests and bishops who were involved in pedophilia or who covered it up. (Many of us still question why Cardinal Law was promoted to Rome after his disastrous lack of leadership in Boston.) The Vatican may want to consider its ambivalent position on clerical involvement in local politics. In South America, the Vatican told priests associated with  "Liberation Theology" to disengage from political activity, but on the other hand, when US Catholic Bishops launched a political attack on President Obama, the Vatican was noticeably silent.


The current leadership of the institutional Church is driving baptized Catholics and their money out of the front door all across the USA and other parts of the world. The Church has an increasingly, woeful lack of male, celibate priests. Catholic dioceses in the the US and Europe are closing churches at an alarming rate. With all these problems, one would think that the Vatican would "examine its conscience" and aggressively attack these problems. Not going to happen; they are worried about nuns in the US who are discussing the ordination of women.

I guess the Pope buys into the leadership philosophy that if you have a problem, the best thing to do is to ignore it and  create another problem of your own choosing and then pretend to be solving it.

Supreme Court Goes Rogue

Justice Roberts: "Take it all off!"

Just as the the Conclave of Roman Catholic Cardinals is apt to make mistakes in choosing a Pope, the United States Supreme Court has been known to make some seriously flawed decisions. One of the more egregious was the Dred Scott case which denied freed slaves their citizenship and was overturned in 1868 by the 14th Amendment. Then there was the Plessy vs. Ferguson case which maintained that segregated passenger cars did not violate the 14th Amendment, and "separate but equal" lasted until the 1950's (Brown vs. Board of Education). A few dreadful decisions in over 200 years.


And then in recent history, in just a few short years,  we have had three atrocious rulings by a conservative, Republican biased Supreme Court. In 2000, by a five-to-four decision, the Republican majority invalidated a Florida law mandating a recount, and in effect giving George W. Bush the Presidency of the United States, and we all know how that turned out. This case removed any doubt that these five judges were making decisions based on politics because earlier in their careers or when being questioned by the Senate, they claimed to be "States Rights" judges. Apparently, states rights were only a factor in racial situations.


And then in 2010, the "frightful five" in the Citizens United case decided that corporations and labor unions had the same rights as an individual person; and, in the name of freedom of speech, they could contribute unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money to influence political elections. This decision places our electoral process on the auction block.


After those two obvious politically- motivated decisions, one would think this court had done enough damage for a century. But no, the "Frightful Five" were not finished. Their next target was one of our most cherished rights, the right preventing "unreasonable searches and seizures" which we, the citizens,  were confident was protected by the Fourth Amendment. Guess again. The five conservative Republican appointed judges had other ideas, even though they had previously railed against "activist" judges. On April 3, 2012, to the dismay of most, the five Republican appointed judges decided to give police the authority to use strip-searches, even for minor offenses such as jay-walking or violating a leash law.


The result: my granddaughter or grandson is stopped by the police because she/he does not have a bell ringer on her/his bicycle (one of the cases considered) and is now subject to a strip-search, including probing her/his body cavities. A Catholic nun at an ant-war demonstration could be arrested and subjected to a strip-search. ( An actual case and one which makes one wonder whether this technique is going to be used to prevent peaceful protest.)


 But of course, we all know we can trust the police to do the right and reasonable thing.


The " Frightful Five" disregarded Justice Stephen Breyer's warning that such searches  were "a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy." So much for our liberties and the Fourth Amendment!


Thus, within a matter of ten years, five justices have managed to make a mockery of the the Supreme Court as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.


And now, these same political justices are considering the Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress in 2011. What are the chances that Justice Roberts and his buddies in the black robes will reach a judicial decision not based on politics?

Josh Mandel: Not Ready for Prime-Time

Josh Mandel

Josh and Ilana Mandel

Ohio's Treasurer, Josh Mandel, has set a record. He is the first Ohio Treasurer to never attend a meeting of the Board of Deposits; he has missed 14 in a row. “Josh Mandel's complete and total neglect of his job as Treasurer is a constant reminder of how unfit he is for public office and his obsession with a promotion is evidence of just how little he cares about his obligation to Ohio's taxpayers,” said Justin Barasky, Ohio Democratic Party press secretary, in a statement. “There's not a Treasurer in America more willfully neglecting his responsibilities as a public servant and it's far past time for Josh Mandel to check his out of control political ambition at the door and start putting Ohioans first."

When campaigning for Ohio Treasurer, Mandel promised to serve out the full term as Treasurer, but within 83 days he was running for the U.S Seante against Senator Sherrod Brown.  [AP, 8/30/11]

His travels after the election have been a source of concern:

• Immediately after Josh Mandel took office, he started using leftover campaign funds from his Treasurer’s race to fly around the country to line up donors for his upcoming Senate race.  Federal law clearly states that state campaign funds can’t be used for federal campaign activity.

• Just days after registering with the FEC, donations started pouring in from cities Mandel had visited on the state campaign account’s dime.

• Mandel claimed that the out of state travel was for state business, but the trips never showed up on his official state schedule, a point that proves these early out of state trips were purely political.    ( Toledo Blade, June, 2011, Cleveland Plain Dealer, August, 2011, dscc, March1,2012)

Another matter of concern: Mandel submitted his personal financial disclosure form nearly eight months after it was due.  On November 4, 2011, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that  “Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012, on Friday released a copy of his delinquent personal financial disclosure report, a 47-page document showing his wife to be a millionaire with extensive investments held in a family trust.. Mandel's personal financial report was due to the Senate clerk on May 15, little more than a month after he signed candidacy papers on April 5. But he said the complexity and structure of his wife's finances presented questions he needed to resolve in order to file the form correctly."


Mandel married Ilana Shafran in Jerusalem in 2008. She is a self-employed fashion consultant and related to the Ratner family who control Forest City Enterprises. (Forest City owns the building in which the casino, Rock Ohio Ceasars, is located) She is worth from $1.9 to $7 million based on investments held in a family trust.


Prior to their marriage, Mandel, served in the U.S. Marine Reserves with a tours in Iraq in 2004 and 2007. He  began running for public office at age 25 winning a seat on Lyndhurst City Council, and he has been running for public office ever since. He received a B.A degree from Ohio State and a law degree from Case Western. He was elected to the Ohio House in 2006, but did not finish his second term in order to become Ohio Treasurer.

Mandel's conservative ideology has been questioned  because of his family's ties and financial contributions to liberal democtrats. Also, as an OSU student Mandel helped organize an Al Gore rally and is seen in a photo cheering for Al Gore. On another occasion he advocated domestic partnerships for gays. (Conservative Outlooks, Carol Greenberg, July 14,2011)


Described as a "cocky frat boy," Josh seems ill-prepared for the U.S. Senate. In an Atlantic interview with Molly Boll (3/5/2012) Mr. Mandel had no opinion on the following issues:
--contraception policy.
--Rush Limbaugh's labeling Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute." 
--a senate vote to allow employer to drop health insurance coverage for religious reasons.
--the President's rescue of the auto industry.
Perhaps, his contributors and handlers had not yet told him what his positions were going to be.


On the other hand, Josh was very clear about his support of Kasich's SB5 which would have stripped teachers, police, and firefighters of their rights to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions.  Josh informed us, "Well, I am supportive of Senate Bill 5..." Fortunately, Ohio voters soundly defeated it in the November, 2011, election. (ThinkProgressive, 11/4/2012)


And of course, following Mitt Romney and the other Republicans, Mandel opposed the President's efforts to bring back the American auto industry. He would have preferred to watch the industry go down the tubes.


Since his election to the Treasurer's office, Mandel has been accumulating a large war chest in his attempt to unseat Sherrod Brown, and he easily won the GOP primary on March 6, 2012. It has become quite clear that Josh ran for state office only as a stepping stone to the U.S. Senate, and with conservative Republicans across the country hoping to replace Sherrod Brown, Mandel is the recipent of large amounts out-of-state money.


Since Josh Mandel has shown he is incapable of handling his present job and is not able to take a stand on the issues of the day, why would the voters of Ohio choose to send him to the U.S. Senate? It appears Mr. Mandel is more interested in his own welfare and that of his financial backers rather than the "general welfare" as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Private Prisons in Ohio: a Dangerous Proposal

Governor Kasich came into office with his infamous "school bus" mentality -- either join me on the bus or get run over by it. Since Ohioans decisively defeated his anti-union legislation (SB5), the gov is no longer making references to the bus, but he and his Republican cronies in the legislature are continuing to push forward with the Koch Bros. inspired agenda of privatizing every thing in the state that is not nailed down.

In fact, right now the governor has on his desk a proposal from a corporation named the Corrections Corporation of America. They want to buy and operate the prisons in Ohio  - if the state agrees to keep the prisons at least 90% full. The proposal would allow the Corrections Corporation of America to profit from increased incarcerations. The whole concept of a corrections system is bastardized once the state incentivizes incarceration. The State of Ohio would be promising to incarcerate a fixed number of its citizens at any one time.  One would hope that the state's goal is to lower the number of inmates rather than be obligated to a private corporation to fulfill a quota.

The disaster of privatization came to light last year in Luzerne county Pennsylvania. Judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted of racketeering in connection with the "kids-for-cash" scheme. "A private prison developer was paying him while he sentenced thousands of juveniles to unwarranted jail time." (Anthony D. Romero,3/8/2012)

And then there is the whole issue of oversight. Who is going to have responsibility for prison conditions? Is the governor going to ask our judges to hand our citizens over to this private corporation and blindly trust that a for-profit prison will provide a decent and humane atmosphere? Let us not forget what drives a "for-profit" company, money and greed. Would the for-profit corporation fire the current prison employees? Would they hire non-union workers? Should private companies make money from incarceration? And what are they going to do differently to make a profit?

Democracy has run amuck when a country or a state incentivizes incarceration.

If you would like to share your concerns with the governor, his office's phone number is: 614-466-3555.

(For information on the Pennsylvania judge, cf. Christian Science Monitor, 8/11/2012)

Racism and Anti-Immigration Laws

John Tanton
"Anti-Immigrant Architect"

Apparently it has become quite common for politicians, be they governors or legislators,  to propose legislation written by some unknown person or organization promoting a particlar cause. The anti-labor legislation proposed by John Kasich (OH) and Scott Walker (WI) was drafted by background groups with ties to the Koch brothers.


Another agregious case is that of Arizona's "papers, please" anti-immigrant 2010 law (SB 1070). According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the law "was largely the result of years of groundwork by a network of groups launched by a man - retired Michigan ophthalmologist John Tanton - with longstanding ties to white supremacists." The actual legislation was the work of a lawyer (Kris Kobach) affiliated with Tanton's organization, Federation for Ammerican Immigration Reform (FAIR). SPLC identified FAIR as a hate group in 2007.


"John Tanton is the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement, according to Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC' Intelligence Project. "The organizations he founded have done more to inject fear and bigotry into the immigration debate than any other."


Beirich's research "showed that Tanton was at the heart of the white nationalist scene for decades. In a 1993 letter, Tanton wrote of his fears that "European-American society" was being threatened by non-white immigration. In another memo he warned of the coming "Latino onslaught."


And Arizona was just the beginning. Utah, Georgia, Alabama, and Indiana have passed SB 1070 style bills while six other states are considering similar bills. Federal judges have temporarily blocked elements of each state law until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the challenges to Arizona's law.


Most observers realize that racism plays a role in the anti-immigration debate, but didn't realize that white supremacists were writing the legislation that local politicians were approving. Perhaps it's time that,  when legislation is proposed, there be full disclosure as to the actual authors and contributors.


(Above quotations and more detail at: "SPLC Report," February, 2012)

Geek Squad to the Rescue

After years of experience dealing with computer "help centers" in India or wherever our computer companies have found people willing to work for less than minimal wages, I was amazed with my experience today with the Geek Squad at Best Buy.


Last spring after my previous HP computer bit the dust after only three years, I went to Best Buy and purchased a Toshiba laptop at a very attractive price. When the quite knowledgeable salesman suggested that I purchase the Geek Squad assistance package, I was ready. "What are you talking about" I asked. "Why would I buy this computer? Apparently you have no confidence in this or you would not try to sell me insurance. Why do I want a laptop that you are suggesting will need repairs within the first three years? "
      "It's my job," he said, "to make you aware of the possibilities. This is a good laptop and hopefully you will not have any problems for years."
      " I certainly would not buy it," I said,  "if I thought it was a piece of crap that I had to buy your insurance for."
      "No problem, sir. I was just mentioning what was available."


At that point, my wife, Sandy, cleared her throat and said, "Dear, maybe we should discuss this." Immediately, based on past experience, I'm thinking: Damn, she is going to talk me into signing up for the damn Geek Squad. Then she  recalled in great detail how I had spent the larger part of two days on the phone with HP technicians who were charging me for their help before they informed me that my computer was dead. Needless to say, before we left the Best Buy showroom, I had reluctantly and under duress purchased a Geek Squad contract


Yesterday, after I had unsuccessfully tried to download an anti-virus update,  I was unable to open my Quicken account and   turned the computer off. Today when I turned it on, I could not move the cursor and therefore was unable to do anything.


Swearing under my breath with visions of being without my laptop for 5 to 7 days, I loaded it up with the  accompanying paperwork and took it to the nearest Best Buy store located on Monroe St. in Toledo. The store was busy and I had to wait about ten minutes to talk to the first available geek. Actually Andrew did not fit my preconceived stereotype. He was an attractive young man with an athletic build and a pleasant personality. Frankly, I was expecting a couch potato with a pocket protector who refused to make eye contact.


Furthermore I expected Andrew to do some paper work, throw my laptop on the shelf, and inform me they would contact me after they had a chance to look at it, I was surprised when Andrew asked my permission to turn on the laptop at which point he began analyzing it right there on the counter. He soon informed me, "The good news is that's its not a hardware problem. Let me see what I can do about the software problem." He inserted a disc and began working his magic. After about fifteen minutes, he looked up and said, "Okay, you're back in business. Do you have any other issues I could help you with?" I was tempted to ask him to do something about my arthritic shoulder, but instead, I mentioned two other computer-related problems I was having with my anti-virus program. He solved both problems, and I was out of the door at no charge with my functioning laptop in less than an hour. 


I am still wary of purchasing service contracts for mechanical and electronic items, but in this case I am grateful Sandy "convinced" me.

Police and Their Toys

The City of Toledo Police Deapartment with the complicity Toledo City Council is purchasing $914,000 worth of security cameras to place around the city. These are the same people who earlier chose to spend $208,000 on nine Harley-Davidson motorcycles to reinstate a police motorcycle unit that had been discontinued in 2004 because of budgetary constraints.  Apparently, in 2012 the city has no budgetary constraints. We will have fewer police officers on the street in 2012, but we will have our police toys. Also, this is the same police department that needed a mounted police unit,  only to dismantle it a few years later.


Why stop with Harleys and cameras? Perhaps we could purchase a few drone aircraft to keep an eye on the city? And while we're at it, why not get us an aircraft carrier equipped with Blackhawk helicopters for the Maumee River?


As for the motorcycles,  it is interesting that Toledo is purchasing new Harleys while other departments across the country are eliminating motorcycle units. Why not purchase the used ones that are already equipped from the cities getting rid of them? Just a thought. Might cost significantly less. Then, in a few, years when we decide we don't need motorcycles, the loss would not be as significant.


As for the $914,000 cameras, it is more than just a matter of dollars and cents. Anyone who has read and understood George Orwell's 1984 can appreciate the concerns about Big Brother. Even ignoring the issues of privacy, the effectiveness of these cameras is highly suspect.


Defenders of these cameras suggest they are necessary in stopping and solving crime. However, a study of London's widespread use of CCTV cameras found that "for every 1,000 cameras installed, only one crime has been solved." The study also found that the cameras were useful in catching "just 8 of 269 suspected robberies." The report also found " that while cameras could have a marked effect on reducing vehicle crime, there was little evidence they prevented violent crime."


"Meta-analyses from the UK, along with preliminary findings from the US, indicate strongly that video

surveillance has little to no positive impact on crime." (ACLU)  

In addition, some police suspect that the presence of cameras simply moves crime from a camera area to a nearby area. Also, the London study  found that increasing street illumination was more effective than cameras in reducing illegal activities. Perhaps Toledo would get more bang for its  buck if it would replace burnt-out street lights and actually increase street lighting in high-crime areas. Ironically this city cannot keep the lights on one of its signature bridges lit, but wants to spend money on Harleys and cameras.


Personally, I can understand the police department's fascination with toys, but I don't purchase toys when I can't replace the light bulbs in my home.


P.S. Some one will point out that the city may be able to acquire a "grant" to cover the cost of these toys, as though a "grant' is manna from heaven. The last time I checked the "grant' is still taxpayers' money


(The London Report is from the August 14, 2002, Home Office Study. Other detail derived from The Toledo Blade.)

Can the Roberts' Court Have it Both Ways?

John Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of Supreme Court

Today (2/28/2012) the United States Supreme Court heard testimony in the Koibel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum case. And, as expected, the conservative majority of Justice Roberts appeared to favor the argument that corporations do not have the same responsibility and culpability as individual persons. Please recall that these same five conservative judges ruled in Citizens United that "corporations are persons," as Mitt Romney contends, and as such are able to donate as much undisclosed money to political campaigns as they choose.

Big business and huge corporations have won the day. All their efforts to get these five conservative Republican judges seated have paid off. What a deal. They rule that corporations are persons so that they can pump millions and billions of dollars into the electoral process to influence elections, but on the other hand, corporations do not have the same responsibilities as persons in terms of human rights abuse.

And, then we are surprised that some people around the world question our concept of democracy.

Please be advised that I am presuming in this case, as in the past,  that, based on the comments of  the justices, the five conservative justices will side with the corporations. I can only hope that my presumption will be proven incorrect.