Zion Roar: Romney Insults The Palestinians

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Tony Hymes

For a man known for his jerky, robotic movements, everyone expected Mitt Romney to find difficulty when he went abroad to a place that is not also a vacation home. He started off badly in London by criticizing his hosts and their Olympic preparations, didn’t attend his horse’s dressage event, and then hopped on down to Israel, where the foreign policy grave that he is digging for himself keeps getting deeper. At issue: his complete lack of knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

This is the Zion that Romney knows

What was meant as a compliment to the nature of Jews at a fundraiser with perennial trouble maker Sheldon Adelson — who wishes to run the country without running for office — came out of Romney’s voice box and stung deep into the sensitive flesh of the Palestinians and as a result, the Arab world.

Romney, eager to separate himself from other Republicans such as Sarah Palin by showing that he actually reads books, quoted a number of tomes about how the difference in GDP per person between Israel and Palestine was a result of their respective cultures. Basically, Jews are hardworking, Arabs are lazy.

This strategy of insult by compliment is dangerous in politics. Comparisons between groups that control their destinies, like in America sometimes, are one thing, but picking on a group that is locked down under occupation — a group whose plight fuels anti-American sentiments and jihad around the world — that is a little less fair.

Romney tried to say that Israel and Palestine are like the US and Mexico. But actually it is more like the US and Cuba, where one country forcibly embargoes and cripples the economy of another. Except in the Palestinian case, Israel blocks nearly all commerce and goods in and out of Palestine while making it impossible for Palestinians to move around, find work, or even get to hospitals. It is a true sign of the strength and resiliency of the Palestinian culture that they have the meagre GDP per person they do, in light of the obstacles they face every single day with no reprieve.

Romney’s efforts to shore up Jewish swing state votes is entirely misguided. Instead of meeting with donors in Florida like he normally does, he paraded false information in front of the world, flouting facts, reason, and sensitivity on a global scale, and ended up doing what he did in London, acting eerily like George W Bush.

The True History of the Boston Tea Party

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Tony Hymes

The uber-conservative, anti-tax movement that broke ranks with the Republican establishment a few years back took the name of an event that previewed the American Revolution. They claim to be fighting for America, and some of their darlings include the eloquent Sarah Palin and the penny-pinching Mitch Daniels. Unfortunately for everyone in the present, today’s movement has disregarded the meaning of its namesake and decided to rewrite history.

Is there anything less American than tea?

The story of the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773 has been perverted for the use of conservatives today who feel they are being oppressed by the US government and the taxes that the government levies. The protesters of the Boston Tea Party had many reasons to complain about the English monarchy that ruled them, but specifically they were arguing against the idea of “no taxation without representation.” They were not necessarily against the tax on imported teas, they were against the idea of taxes being put in place without elected officials working with the British government to make sure that there was a fair argument for both sides, or, in one word: representation.

Today, the Tea Party movement prides itself on a commitment to eliminate all taxes and obstructing legislation that they disagree with. They have discarded the true spirit of the Boston Tea Party — participation and compromise in a democratic system — for obstructionism and brinkmanship, for example by circulating and signing a pledge to never raise taxes.

Being against taxes is one thing, but today’s Tea Party has exaggerated the battle to include all hot button social issues too. They also ignore evident facts: tax rates are the lowest in decades, our debt is ballooning, we struggle to provide necessary services to our citizens, and there is no spirit of participation or representation. They stand up and shout about the decline of America while putting in place policies to accelerate that decline. The men who dressed up as native Americans to protest the English monarchy in the name of democracy would be very embarrassed.

The Tea Party is already starting to appear less and less frequently across American media outlets. People have grown tired of electing politicians who go to government only to block what others are doing. That is not how anything gets done. What might have seemed like a valiant ideal of shaking up the political system has quite violently backfired. The American economy remains weak and the American people have the lowest confidence in congress in modern times. It’s called a legislature, because they are supposed to pass laws, not pass around pledges while ruining one of the greatest moments in our common history.

Romney Overseas, In Over His Head

Posted on July 27, 2012 by Tony Hymes

When Barack Obama traveled to Europe during the 2008 presidential campaign, he drew unprecedented crowds for someone with relatively little political experience, especially for someone with almost no foreign policy exposure. But it was his message that was attractive: use the resources America has to make informed decisions, not use the power of America for whatever ends we desire.

It gets a lot deeper in the Oval Office

The contrast between Obama and Bush couldn’t be clearer, and to international populations Bush represented everything that was wrong with America: arrogance, aggression, stupidity. Obama was change, he was hope, he was international by background, and worldly by vision.

Mitt Romney, trying hard to beef up his foreign policy credentials which he does not have (unless you count knowledge of which countries are best to stash earnings in) from his time as a one-term governor of Massachusetts. Now he has hopped the pond to visit British leaders, before the obligatory trip to Israel and a random stop in Poland. There are no crowds of cheering people to meet him, and in usual Romney style, he is rubbing everyone the wrong way.

Romney’s comments about the Olympics and London’s ability to pull them off were horribly timed and poorly presented. Romney is actually one of the few people who have organized an Olympic games, so his opinion is valuable. The problem is his manner of delivery. London is probably the world’s most international city, a frequent target for terrorists, and already packed to the chips with people. It is not, as Britain’s PM David Cameron pointed out, in the middle of nowhere.

Specifics aside, whatever happened to being a gracious guest? Someone who praises and thanks and doesn’t criticize their hosts while they are there unless they are asked? This was precisely the arrogance that the world hated in Bush, and in Romney’s first trip on semi official business, before he is even the confirmed nominee, he exhibits the same traits.

The Olympics bundle is only the biggest example of his gaffes, such as letting slip about secret meetings with intelligence services. Foreign policy is first and foremost tact, then strategy. If Romney can’t even get the first part right, how are we to believe that he can steward America through an increasingly globalised world?

The Secondary Season

Posted on July 27, 2012 by Tony Hymes

It might seem, to the casual US presidential election observer, that the primary season has long been over. Mitt Romney, who is still the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, has focused all of his attention towards Obama after all of the other contenders dropped out months ago. But technically the season finished just recently, as a couple of people in Utah — the last state to hold their primary — found themselves by a polling station and thought: it might be cool to vote!

Political Parties are fun!

There has long been discontent over the way that states hold their primaries and caucuses. Rambling documents spell out how the two big parties can operate and organize. Candidates select their battle grounds and abandon the regions where they stand little chance. Everything is complicated further by the system of delegates that are supposed to represent the population of voters.

This system creates grand imbalances between the states, with campaigns and reporters flocking to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The excitement is palpable, and completely overblown every four years. But by the end of the primary season, there is hardly any mention of the results of the last states. And even though Romney is Mormon and guaranteed to win in abundantly Republican Utah, it still disenfranchises the voters there.

For some states, the schedule of primaries is blatantly unfair. The media spotlight is heavily divided on a date like Super Tuesday, when the largest number of primary voters turn out. In contrast, Iowa’s primary has weeks and weeks of run up, town hall meetings, and campaigns trying to connect themselves through a distant uncle who once lived in Ames. If a state wants to buck the system and move their primary up (or back) to capture more attention from the candidates, the political parties can block their delegates from their convention! Meaning that a small group can nullify the voters if they disagree with the move because it “upsets” the balance and strategy of the primary. If this doesn’t sound like democracy to you, you’re right.

There is a loophole here, which is that the parties can select whoever they wish, the caucuses are only a nonbinding way to sample the population to find the best candidate for the national election. The delegates from states are only representatives from the parties, and can do whatever they want. Surely the national election must be different? It is and isn’t.

It isn’t different because of the electoral college, the buffer placed between the population and the government to ensure that a crazy person like Justin Bieber doesn’t get elected President (not that Bieber is crazy, but he would be a crazy candidate for President). It is really the electoral votes that decide an election. But it is more democratic because the electoral college represents population of states, and votes on the majority side. It is not exact, but it is better than the caucus system which allows for the party big wigs to pick their horse if they feel the American people haven’t done a good job.

Remember when the Unethical Amphibian promised to take his campaign all the way to the Republican convention? To contest popular voting results and to try to convince the party that he was the right guy to challenge Obama? It’s this type of anti-democratic belief that threatens to damage our population’s ability to govern ourselves. But what Newt knew, and the reason why he didn’t pursue this strategy, was that in today’s age democracy is held high. Voters immediately see the results of primary elections and would questions a party’s commitment to democracy if the party were to rebuff the polls and pick a different candidate. At least in this way, we are progressing as a nation.

Now we wait a month for the conventions to see exactly what Team Romney will look like and what the Republicans think their chances are. There is no doubt it will be hilarious and depressing at the same time, with plenty for the Wrong Wing to write about.

Chick-Fil-Gay: Homophobia and Fried Chicken

Posted on July 24, 2012 by Tony Hymes

Why is it that the businesses that parade their Christianity on their sleeves are simultaneously the ones least likely to love thy neighbors? Chick-fil-A, the most poorly spelled restaurant chain, has long been known to include biblical verses on their disposable drink cups. But their zeal is not limited to sugary sodas. They consistently donate millions of dollars a year to anti-gay rights and anti-gay marriage organizations and campaigns.

Talk about the Wrong Wing!

Why? Why would a fast food restaurant that is contributing to the obesity epidemic in our country feel the need to take a side at all? Why would anyone feel the need to listen to them? Is it in response to rainbow Oreos? Gay-friendly product marketing? Are they trying to capture the anti gay market by essentially saying: eat at Chick-fil-A and you can finally be free of worry about getting contaminated by the gays?

It was already obvious from their conservative Christian doctrine that they probably sided with the preachers on the issue of gay marriage and not with the majority of Americans, but to actually come out and say it is deplorable. Due to their irrational behavior, false morality, and taking a stand for no apparent advantage other than using their profits to fund intolerance, they are the inaugural members of The Wrong Wing’s Blacklist, a continuing collection of businesses which should be avoided if you value the advancement of the United States of America. If we take away their money, we take away their power.

The Wrong Message: Romney and the NAACP

Posted on July 12, 2012 by Tony Hymes

To no one’s surprise but the delight of some, Mitt Romney gave a terrible speech to the NAACP this week, where he was booed multiple times while attempting to illuminate the Republican logic about President Obama. The glaring problem: there is no logic, and a speech in front of fired-up conservatives is much different than a group of people that holds a more diverse opinion on the matter.

Yes, you have

Romney’s popular target, Obamacare, was front and center. His message to the black community was clear: Obamacare is killing jobs. How dumb does he think black people are? Does he think they are as ignorant as his white supporters? Obamacare is killing jobs? Already? When only a tiny fraction has taken effect?

Citing the Chamber of Commerce, Romney frames a survey that the Affordable Care Act is making businesses less likely to hire. It is important to note that the source Romney is using to assert his claim is run by the staunchly conservative Tom Donohue whose remarks about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare destroy his objective credibility: “the health care law is fundamentally flawed.” Romney and the Chamber of Commerce are both fighting for the same thing, preferential treatment for corporations at the expense of the American public.

This strategy of attacking Obama with no real point beyond a general discontent works with people who are idiotic enough to revere George W. Bush, but not among a group whose biggest civil rights achievement is sitting in the White House. Romney, assuming that every single American is the same, tried to deliver the same message. But he forgot the number one thing to remember in public speaking, writing, communications at all: know your audience.

Maybe it’s because Romney doesn’t know anything about black people, maybe it’s because the Republican party is controlled by white fear mongers who try to make life so bad for immigrants that they self-deport. Maybe it’s that Romney’s position of privilege does not relate to a group that had to work hard for every thing they have. But Romney couldn’t have missed the mark by more. It may yet prove a costly move.

Tax Shelters, Non-Disclosure, Evasion: Does Romney Care About America?

Posted on July 11, 2012 by Tony Hymes

An editorial from the New York Times underscores what most Americans are wondering: how much effort does Mitt Romney put in to evading paying capital gains taxes, and where does he keep his money anyway? Romney says that he has offshore money in “blind accounts,” meaning that he doesn’t know where his money is specifically invested. But he didn’t blindly put money into Bermuda and the Cayman islands. He chose those places because of their favorable tax policies — tax policies that hurt the United States.

Pebble-free, seaweed-free, tax-free

Romney likens these tax evasion tactics to investing in foreign businesses. It’s strange then that he only invests in the foreign businesses that are located in places that do not tax foreign income, or places that do not have sizable markets like China or India or whose economic growth do not show promise such as Latin American or certain African nations. This also does not include foreign businesses who are operating in the United States by opening up offices and creating jobs. But more importantly, why is the Republican candidate for the President of the United States putting so much money offshore? Surely Mitt Romney is a job creator, and would want to see his money employing people and taking them off government assistance programs, right?

Wrong. Romney only cares about his money, which is why he puts it in the hands of personal wealth managers who navigate the tricky landscape of loopholes, breaks, and foreign capital regulation to effectively eliminate the payment of taxes and milk the system bone dry. These are the 1% that Occupy Wall Street was fighting against, and they get away with scamming the American public out of money earned in America — which should be taxed in America — every single day.

Romney is nothing more than their example, a rich man who has hid his earnings, released only one full tax report, does not disclose how he makes money ($27 million this past year) and who takes his money away from the reach of American tax collectors to increase his wealth by a few fractions of a percentage point at a time. Is this a guy who is standing up for America? Who is being truthful with the American people? The NYTimes summed it up nicely and gave it an important historical context that voters must face:

“What information he did release provides a fuzzy glimpse at a concerted effort to park much of his wealth in overseas tax shelters, suggesting a widespread pattern of tax avoidance unlike that of any previous candidate.”

The Myth Of The Job Creator

Posted on July 9, 2012 by Tony Hymes

Republicans today hold an outrageous respect for the people they deem “job creators.” By job creators, they mean the executives and leaders of companies that hire people, pay taxes on salaries, and generate wealth. Republicans see them as the key to recovering our economy and finding prosperity for the future. They go so far as to say that any obstacle placed in front of a job creator is necessarily bad.

That's the life!

The true obstacle to improving not just the economy but the state of the nation too, are Republicans who unquestioningly believe that these top capitalists will solve everyone’s problems. They falsely equate capitalism with growth and ignore corporate social responsibility. It is dangerous thinking, and it is cemented into the GOP.

The notion that corporations will do what is best for the people is laughable. Corporations are bound to their boards and shareholders, who care entirely about profits and absolutely nothing about the number of people on a jobroll. Managers are rewarded for cutting costs to improve profits; no one gets a reward for employing the most people. Therefore, these job creators are incentivitzed to innovate and do the same amount of work with fewer people. Unemployment rises.

The pursuit of profits raises the uncomfortable question of how much profit is enough? Large companies that pull down billions in profit each quarter seem like they could be hiring more people to help out with the nation’s weak economy. Companies that make smaller profits are chastised for keeping too many employees on the payroll. Shareholders demand downsizing to increase their dividends. Unemployment rises.

The only real way to get companies to hire is to increase the potential size of their markets. If a company believes that there is potential, they will bring on more people to tap it. In order to improve the domestic market, more people need to be employed. The cycle is obviously vicious.

Furthermore, corporations have a nasty reputation for hiding information, lying to consumers, destroying the environment, and scamming people out of money. Republicans today argue against regulation to prevent these abuses — an obstacle to growth, they say — yet these are abuses that would never occur if Republican idealism was true in the first place. The facts: Republicans are dominated by job creators, who are brainwashing their constituencies into believing that they are really working for the people. Unfortunately, too many conservatives are actually buying their greasy sales pitch.

The Consistent Flip-Flopper: Mitt Romney Changes His Tune

Posted on July 9, 2012 by Tony Hymes

If you are a person who constantly changes your mind, never holding to one particular conviction for very long, and bending to the wills of others with any argument at all, does that actually make you consistent? The answer is possibly, and Mitt Romney is trying his hardest to navigating his flipping and flopping like a toddler walking towards the beach.

Squeaky when wet

Everyone changes their mind — except those irrational and hypocritical Republicans who are immune to reason — but to be a leader, one must have conviction, something to get behind, a vision. Mitt Romney is not that person. He follows the orders of the Republican establishment, now that he is reluctantly accepted as the Wrong Wing nominee. He is not even following popular opinion, but abiding by a close-minded mentality that shuns compromise.

First, Romney had to spend the primary season explaining how his health care system, identical in every way to the affordable care act, or as Republicans have dubbed it, Obamacare, was actually different, and that he was unhappy with his efforts to help the sick and poor. It shows how incredibly immoral and hypocritical the supposedly faith-oriented Republican party is that Romney has to apologize for doing the Christian thing.

Now that Obama’s health care plan has been upheld by the Supreme Court, Republicans are limping around like wounded tortoises. They are trying to find a hole to attack the health plan, and the establish has attempted to label the individual mandate a tax. Romney initially said it has nothing to do with a tax, but after some — assumed — heated phone calls with the GOP and Tea Party, he changed his position to agree with them. So now not only does Romney distance himself from the program he is directly responsible for, but he doesn’t even have the spine to stick to what he believes. The establishment should be asking him, he created the concept in the first place.

This is not new, Romney has changed his positions on abortion, gay marriage, states’ rights, gun control, pretty much anything under the sun and moon. Romney has agreed and then disagreed with both sides depending on the prevailing electoral winds. This is why Republicans hated him, until they got stuck with him, and it is also why Obama stands a very good chance to win the election in November. Americans want a leader for a President, not a pair of footwear worn by whoever holds sway over his political future.

The Pro-Life Zeal: An Ineffective Deterrent

Posted on July 4, 2012 by Tony Hymes

One of the aspects that is so inexplicable regarding Republican behavior is their hypocritical belief that killing is wrong if it is abortion, but not if it is the death penalty. The moors of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus guide these secular discussions put forth by the GOP and its army of believers. But just as with most of their primary platform positions, this contradiction is highly untenable.

A victim of an imperfect justice system

Few issues fire up Republicans like the right to choose. Pickets, protests, bombs, doctor assassinations; there remain only a handful of actions that Republicans have not tried to prevent the citizens of the United States from legally receiving this specific medical treatment. Yet at the same time, Republicans and conservative-dominated states continue to execute inmates on death row (though the numbers of executions have been dropping steadily and the more tolerant younger generation will probably in their lifetime see the removal of this horrendous practice). Republicans counter that everyone deserves the right to live, unless it is forfeited via heinous crimes.

But that argument still goes against fundamental Christian belief that all killing is wrong. With an imperfect justice system, there are those who come to be executed who were innocent. Can Christians think of one well known guy who was wrongfully executed?

Many Republican believers instead tout the death penalty as a deterrent — criminals will think twice before murdering a family in their home if they know that there is the chance that they will be executed — and in this regard it is the same for abortion.

Republicans proffer abstinence-only education with regards to sexuality and would prefer their children to wait for marriage, an age-old belief dating from ancient biblical times. Disregarding the fact that very few people actually wait for marriage anymore, in this way they find a consistency in argument: have sex before marriage, and if you get pregnant that’s what you deserve, so don’t have sex.

The sexual liberation, particularly of women, during the past four decades has riled up the Republican faithful who see it as the devolution of religious doctrine. It is in no small part the reason why Republicans fight against abortion so heavily; if woman can control their bodies, where would their powers eventually lead to? Might they try to control what a man chooses to do with his body? Heaven forbid!

The death penalty as a deterrent to violent crime does not work, just as measures to limit abortions like intra-vaginal-anythings do not sway one who has made up her mind. Ironically, the only way to severely limit abortions are to significantly improve sexual education and access to contraceptives. That will have to be something we push for after the older generation of Republican conservatives dies off.

Happy 4th of July!

The Wrong Wing

Modern American Political Morality

Monthly Archives: July 2012