October 14 - Monday Quote

I've always thought Jimmy Carter made a better ex-president than he did a president.  Either way, I've always admired his humility and social conscience--something that far right Republicans could use a little more of.

monday quote:

                                                                       (Jimmy Carter, U.S. President, 1924 -    )

An Interesting But Not Really Political Quick Fact: A Conundrum in Ohio

Donald Miller of Ohio disappeared years ago leaving behind a wife and two small children to whom he owed thousands in child support.  In 1994, Mrs. Miller, being desperate for funds to take care of her family, went to court to have him declared legally dead so she could apply for Social Security survivor benefits for her two children.

Now Mr. Miller has re-appeared in Ohio saying that he has been bumming around Florida since his disappearance, but now he wants to get a job and can't get anyone to hire him because his Social Security number is on record as belong to a dead man.  He asked the Ohio court to have him declared alive and to reactivate his Social Security number.

Ohio law prohibits this sort of reversal after three years of the original "you're dead" declaration. (This comes up so often that Ohio has a law to cover it?!)  The court denied his request.

Mr. Miller plans to appeal; but Mrs. Miller's lawyer is fighting against him.  Why?  Because, if he gets his way and officially regains his living status, the Social Security Administration will want Mrs. Miller and her children to return every penny they've received in benefits for the past 19 years with interest--money that she and they, of course, do not have.

Mrs. Miller would have to go back to court to sue Mr. Miller for all the back child support he owes--money he does not have, though getting a job would seem to be the first step in rectifying that.  (But having fled the state to avoid paying child support in the first place, would he be willing to pay now?)

And here we have a classic case of damned it you do--damned if you don't.

Eye Recommend --- An Open Letter to Speaker Boehner

An Open Letter to Speaker Boehner, by Mike Selinker --
http://selinker.tumblr.com/post/63295185344/an-open-letter-to-speaker-boehner-from-a-game-designer

This was posted on Schrodinger's Blog on October 6, 2013.  It is brilliant.

"Hello, Speaker Boehner.  Thanks for reading this.

We haven't met, so let me introduce myself.  I'm Mike Selinker, a game designer from Seattle.  (My job is) a far less important one than you have.  But every now and then, my job can be useful for someone who has one like yours.  I hope today is one of those occasions.

I'd like to talk to you about something you said on Friday, October 4.  You said, referring to the government shutdown, "This isn't some damn game!"

I would like to commend you for that statement, because as a game designer, I can tell you that it's absolutely true.  But I think you've only scratched the surface of why.

That's because the shutdown your party caused isn't a game.  It's a puzzle.

As someone who designs both puzzles and games professionally, I often get asked to define the difference between a game and a puzzle.  There are many possible answers to this question, but the one I've settled upon is this:

A game is an activity where, if fairly constructed, two sides given the same advantages will have a rougly equal chance to win.  A puzzle is an activity where, if fairly constructed, one side will have all the advantages, except that the disadvantaged side is expected to win.

So, if you don't mind, let me break that down a bit.

In a game...both sides face each other on a more or less even playing field...If both sides show up with equal knowledge, skill, and preparation, there should be a reasonable question as to which will win.

One critical aspect of creating a fair game is acceptance of a set of rules.  We can't be expected to play hockey if my team brings hockey sticks and your team brings machine guns.  Thankfully, the rules of hockey are rather strict on what equipment we can use.  If someone breaks those rules, they're not 'negotiating.' they're cheating.

If the shutdown were a game, your side would have broken the rules.  The rules of the American government are that if the Congress passes a law, and the President signs a law, and the Supreme Court upholds a law, the law should be enacted.  As of last count, your side had decided 40+ times to stop playing by the rules. Which, if this were a game, would be cheating.

But as I said, this is not a game, it's a puzzle.

In a puzzle, the field of play is horribly imbalanced.  The puzzlemaker has as much time as desired to prepare...and knowledge of the answer.  The puzzle solver has none of these things...The puzzlemaker would, in a game situation, be favored to triumph every single time.

So to put this in context, the GOP has placed this puzzle in front of the Democrats:  We have all agreed to fund the Affordable Care Act.  However, the House has hidden the funding.  What is the set of actions that will get the ACA funded?...

...It's a tough puzzle.  But this gets me to the final piece of my definition, which is that, if the puzzle is properly constructed, the puzzle's disadvantagd side is expected to win.

In a puzzle, the puzzlemaker isn't looking to beat the solver.  Instead, the puzzlemaker gives the solver all the tools to beat him.  If the solver attacks the puzzle in the right way, she will defeat the challenge...

...That's why you're losing.  The Democrats are figuring out the puzzle.  When the House unanimously promised back pay to furloughed workers, you paid 800,000 government workers to do nothing.  That's counter to your side's principle of crusading against wasteful government.  The more the Democrats encourage you to abandon your principles, the better off they are.

And--I hope this doesn't come across as too judgemental--I don't think you know how to solve your own puzzle.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that a fringe group of maybe 50 Tea Party Congressmen designed it for you, and encouraged you to give it to the President.  I would never present a puzzle I didn't design and didn't know how to solve.

So here's what I would suggest:  Take your puzzle back and redesign it.  Test it on some of your more rabid party members, threatening to block all of their proposals until they adhere to the rule of the law.  Or maybe just shoot it into the heart of the sun.  Either way, realize that you're not play a damn game either.

Thanks for listening, and I hope this is useful.

Mike Selinker"

And, if House Republicans, Speaker Boehner  and his Tea Party handlers still think they're "winning", they might want to consider this graph:

The Republican War on Women -- The Battle in Ohio

This is the fourteenth in a series of articles on the subject of women, abortion rights and the Republican Party. 

Republicans continue to say they don’t have to change their core principles, they only have to change the language they use to get their message out.  One perception they want to alter is the idea that they are running a “war on women”.  Looking at the news over the past few years, I’d say the Republican Party has a long way to go on this subject.

• Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): “Talk about a manufactured issue.  There is no issue.” 
•  RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:  “It’s a fiction.”

The Ohio Front

the facts and commentary:   Ohio has abandoned the national conservative Republican stance being used in many states that abortion restrictions are needed to protect the health of women.  Ohio anti-abortion crusaders blatantly acknowledge that their purpose in enacting new restrictions is to eliminate abortion completely in their state and that they intend to do it in small steps so as not to attract federal oversight. 

Last year, anti-abortion groups failed to garner enough signatures to get a fetal heartbeat on the state ballot.  In the face of apparent citizen support for abortion rights and in attempt to avoid federal scrutiny of outright abortion bans, the state legislature began a program of small, incremental steps to prohibit abortion.  Most recently, Ohio's Republican lead legislature thought they would sneak new regulations into Ohio law by adding abortion restrictions onto the state budget at the last minute. Governor John Kasich (R) has signed all the new abortion restrictions into law including those tacked onto the state budget.

In his anti-abortion crusade, Mr. Kasich has even gone so far as to appoint Mike Gonidakis, anti-abortion crusader and President of Ohio Right to Life, (and who is NOT a medical doctor), to the Ohio State Medical Board and Marchal Pitchford, another anti-abortion crusader and chairman of Right to Life to a panel that will help choose who will fill an Ohio Supreme Court vacancy--the same court that will review upcoming challenges to the legislature's new abortion restrictions.  I guess if you can't win fairly, stacking the deck in your favor is seen as an acceptable option.

Anti-abortion proponents say these restrictions "rightfully make women think twice before ending a pregnancy".  Do these idiots really think a woman has NOT thought long and hard about her choice before entering a clinic?  

Ohio's recent incremental restrictions include:

1. ending competitive bidding for federal family planning grants in order to assure that none of that money goes to Planned Parenthood. ----- The one-thought legislature fails to take in account that--by law--PP uses NO FEDERAL MONEY to fund abortions. All abortion costs are covered by private donations, so their punitive action accomplishes nothing on the anti-abortion front but does prevent poor Ohio women from obtaining services like mammograms and pap smears which PP does use federal money to provide.
2. arranging new financing for state rape crisis centers if they agree to never mention abortion as an option. ----- Because carrying a rapist's child for nine months would not add to the trauma a woman has already experienced?  
3. naming a specific drug protocol for doctors who perform medical abortions.  Ohio doctors and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that this protocol is outdated and less safe than the protocol they recommend. ----- Apparently we are supposed to believe that being elected to state office grants you instant access to more medical knowledge than the M.D. who has gone through years of rigorous training.  
4. barring public hospitals from signing emergency transfer agreements with abortion doctors. For years, Ohio has required abortion clinics to obtain emergency transfer agreements before granting them a license to operate, so this restriction is designed simply to override a previous law. ----- Maybe Ohio legislators are unaware that this particular restriction has been ruled unconstitutional in North Dakota and Oklahoma?  And do these legislators really think they have the right to decide who gets emergency care and who doesn't?

Ohio's latest attempt to curtail abortions, includes a law that took effect just this month requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound--even if the doctor deems it unnecessary--ask the woman if she wants to see it; and, following a mandated discussion of fetal heartbeats, ask the woman if she wants to hear it.  After this, the woman must wait 24 hours before returning to the clinic for the actual procedure.  As one Cleveland woman, who already has two children and who suffered severe postpartum depression after the last birth, said "It's a hard decision for anybody to make. To make it more difficult by passing these laws and making women feel guilty is terrible."

This past week, the ACLU filed a challenge to Ohio's latest restrictions, asserting that, because they were added to an unrelated budget bill, they violate the Ohio Constitution's "single subject" rule.

Currently, prodded by activists like Mr. Gonidakis, Ohio legislators are considering a heartbeat bill that would ban all abortions after six weeks--before many women even realize they're pregnant.  This would be the exact same heartbeat bill that failed to garner enough votes to be put on the state ballot last year. 

 The Republican War on Women is "fiction"?

WHAT YOU DO SPEAKS SO LOUDLY

THAT I CANNOT HEAR WHAT YOU SAY. 

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/kansas-house-advances-anti-abortion-measure/#storylink=cpy

"Negotiation" Simplified so Republicans Can Understand

So yesterday, House Republicans tried again..this time they offered to talk about re-opening the government if the Senate agreed to postpone the personal penalty for the uninsured who refuse to purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

what eye thynk:  When will they realize this anti-ACA tactic is dead in the water?  The Senate can't make changes to the law through negotiations even if they wanted to, (and they definitely don't want to).  Certainly Congress can make changes to the law, they can even repeal it; but to do that they must write a bill, debate that bill, (where they are welcome to negotiate all they want to), and vote on that bill. 

A law that was passed by both houses of Congress--no matter how lopsided or partisan the final vote--signed into law by the duly elected President of the United States and upheld by the Supreme Court is not negotiable; you can't blackmail it out of existence.  That is not how our democracy works. 

Maybe passing a class in constitutional law should be required before allowing children to sit in Congress; though I wonder how much difference that would make to the adolescents currently playing at Tea Party-ing since they have made it clear that they believe themselves to be so exceptional that the rules don't apply to them.  

Eye Recommend --- The U.S. Fringe Festival

THE U.S. FRINGE FESTIVAL, by Thomas L. Friedman  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/friedman-us-fringe-festival.html

Mr. Friedman points out that moderate Republicans need to stop blaming the President and take charge of their own party; that only if they stand up to Ted Cruz and his Tea Party hardliners will our country be able to move forward.  

Any underlines are mine.

"There is one group of people with an even greater interest than Democrats in President Obama prevailing over Tea Party Republicans in this shutdown showdown, and that is mainstream Republicans....

...If the 'Ted Cruz Wing' of the G.O.P. prevails and forces the president to curtail Obamacare in anyway in return for funding the government, mainstream conservatives will be looking at a terrible future.  In the near term, they'll be taking orders from Senator Ted Cruz...

...In the long run, because this fringe would be dictating the party line, Republicans would stand zero chance of winning the White House in 2016.  If the country rejected Mitt Romney's bad imitation of far-right conservative--one hostile to immigration reform, health care, gay marriage and a grand bargain--imagine how the real thing would fare...

...The only thing standing between mainstream Republicans and a hellish future of kowtowing to Ted Cruz...is President Obama's refusal to give in to the shutdown blackmail that Cruz & Co. have cooked up.  The more pragmatic Republicans, who know that this is a disaster for their party but won't confront Cruz & Co., have settled on this bogus line:  'Well, sure, maybe Cruz and the Tea Party went too far, but it's still President Obama's fault.  He's president.  He should negotiate with them.  He needs to lead.'

President Obama is leading.  He is protecting the very rules that are the foundation of any healthy democracy.  He is leading by not giving in to this blackmail, because if he did he would undermine the principle of majority rule that is the bedrock of our democracy.  That system guarantees the minority the right to be heard and to run for office and become the majority, but it also ensures that once voters have spoken, and their representatives have voted--and, if legally challenged, the Supreme Court has also ruled in their favor--the majority decision holds sway.  A minority of the minority, which has lost every democratic means to secure its agenda, has no right to now threaten to tank our economy if its demands are not met...

The president has said that he would give the G.O.P. an agenda for negotiations that could start when the government is funded and the debt ceiling lifted...What Obama will not do, and must not do, is pay an entry fee to that negotiation--say giving up the medical-device tax--just to help Boehner down from the tree...

The reason so many mainstream Republican lawmakers want Obama to give something to Cruz & Co. is that they want to get out of this mess, but they're all afraid to stand up to the far-right fringe themselves--with its bullying network of barking talk-show hosts and moneymen.  But Obama shouldn't take them off the hook.  Only Republicans can delegitimize the nihilistic madness at the base of their party...

...American needs a proper right-of-center conservative party to challenge a left-of-center Democratic Party. Without a healthy opposition party--one that is ready to win some and lose some and learn from its losses, one that has a real agenda for upward mobility, not just a low-tax obsession and boiling anger--our two-party system doesn't work, and neither does the country."

Quick Fact: Republicans Offer Assault Weapon as Top Raffle Prize

The Republican Party in Rhode Island is holding a fund raising raffle.  Top prize is an AK15, a military style assault weapon.

They got the idea from the NRA which is holding a "Banned Weapons" raffle later this month. Their advertising notes that they will be raffling off examples of all the weapons Congress failed to ban after Newtown.

Are you as disgusted as I am?